Buddina Legal Case

On April 8, 2020, the Proponent (2nd Respondent) submitted a proposal to Council (1st Respondent) for a “minor amendment” for the proposed amendments to Turtle Lighting`s conditions of approval, which are one of the subjects of P&E`s court documents filed by Friends of Buddina. This agreement was reached between the two co-respondents in the case – interesting tactic! (Note: This OPW was approved by Council while a court case is pending.) Why did the legal process take so long? For the people of Buddina, it was a disappointing result, but they say the fight is not over yet. Resident Tracey Goodwin McDonald said she was “disgusted” by the decision and that there were a number of avenues buddina`s friends would pursue immediately, including legal action. Goodwin McDonald said she felt councillors blamed residents for not disclosing their concerns during the public consultation phase for the existing 2014 sunshine coast planning project. During the meeting, city councillors expressed several concerns on behalf of the municipality. Concerns focused on the impact of the environment and the fact that the 21-metre-tall building was “atypical” with the coastal community, which is currently mainly populated by one- and two-storey houses, as well as environmental concerns. The area was first classified as “very dense” in the 2004 Caloundra City Plan and in the current Sunshine Coast Planning Project in 2014.The Council`s planning officer, who presented this morning`s report, assured that council experts had determined that environmental concerns related to erosion and the impact on the breeding turtle population could be mitigated. Only one argument against the proposal was duly presented during a long period of public consultation prior to the adoption of the current planning scheme. City councils voted separately to approve the development to be carried out by Pacific Diamond 88 Pty Ltd.

This was one of the likely outcomes of the legal challenge After discussions with our lawyer, the administrators met to review the judge`s decision, legal advice regarding the options available and the financial costs of appealing the decision, noting that our right of appeal expires on December 3, 2021. The directors decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. The concerns of the residents of Buddina were taken into account and an original application was filed in November 2019. The first dates of the P&E court were set and in early 2020, legal proceedings began with Friends of Buddina as plaintiff, sunshine coast Regional Council as 1st defendant and Pacific Diamond 88 as 2nd defendant. The amendments, made and approved by Council in July 2020 (in the middle of the legal process), not only improved the approval conditions for turtle lighting, but also led to enforceable results in (i) construction and (ii) prosecution throughout the life of the building. From now on, future unit owners will still be liable for penalties that would apply to any incident in which a unit owner fails to comply with the terms of the licence. Residents failed in their legal attempt to stop a multimillion-dollar apartment complex on Buddina Beach after a judge dismissed their case. If you would like to read our argumentation presentation, which was referred to during the legal proceedings, you can find a copy in the Documents section below along with other documents. During lengthy legal processes from November 2019 to November 2020, the Board and the Proponent attempted to change the eligibility requirements for turtle lighting. That was one of the elements of the case that, in our view, was not lawful. The process was suspended for several months, from April to July 2020, allowing the Commission to process the approval amendments. Further delays occurred when Council`s changes to the conditions of approval changed our legal arguments and our court documents had to be amended and resubmitted.

The judge may have found that Council did not properly assess the development application and may find that a reassessment is not necessary, so that the development can proceed with the amended permit conditions approved by Council during the judicial process; or Friends of Buddina had long argued that the Buddina Beachfront development project violated the planning plan, including the fact that its lighting would negatively affect the nisthabitat of endangered loggerhead turtles nearby. In addition, the height of the building, excessive site coverage, mass and density with less than the prescribed setbacks would significantly affect the views, views, amenities and privacy of local residents, as well as the loss of beach character when seen from the beach. “The proposed development remains intensive development on the high-density beach, just a few metres from the endangered loggerhead turtle nisthabitat and on land in the area declared sensitive to erosion; Land that had already been recommended for recovery,” the Friends of Buddina said in a statement. Friends of Buddina – Court Document Reasoning Overview November 23, 2020 Court Challenge Update – Justice Long announced his decision on Friday, October 22, 2021, 11 months after the hearing. The 73 units, the family shop, the café and the private pool are located behind the dunes of Buddina beach and will be housed in three buildings on six plots that “can never be expanded”. Newsletter Update #15: August issue of September 01, 2022 (Click here to see) Don`t worry: Sekisui will not affect the Buddina Beach case. Residents say Buddina Beach is one of the most important on the Sunshine Coast for nesting loggerhead turtles. Photo: Shutterstock Residents only have to cross a road leading to the beach. On October 22, 2021, Justice Long announced his decision on the controversial approval of the “Buddina Beachfront” by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council in 2019. At the hearing before the Planning and Environment Court on November 26 and 27, 2020, Judge Long told the court that he would take the time to review the evidence and the law and announce his decision at a later date without delay for that decision after its deliberations. Buddina`s friends said they would consider his options after analyzing the verdict. “While this decision is disappointing, we are eliminating the significant gains we have made along the way through improved development permit conditions and development permit approvals.

This included that “future device owners could be penalized for not complying with conditions, such as not overriding automated lighting controls that ensure blinds are closed at 8 p.m. during turtle nesting season.” Court Challenge Update – Justice Long told the court he would take the time to review the evidence and the law and make his decision at a later date. With this decision, the Council has created a HUGE VICTORY for endangered loggerhead turtles and the community of Buddina. By its measures to completely amend the terms of the licence, the Commission appears to have effectively recognized that its initial approval was unlawful due to the unenforceable conditions, which is illegal. The judge may have found that Council did not properly assess the development application and may decide to order that it be referred back to Council for reassessment using the relevant assessment benchmarks; or. To put it simply – sea turtles dig dark beaches. The proposed development site is located at 84 and 85 Pacific Boulevard, Talinga Streets 2 and 6, and 61 and 63 Iluka Avenue, Buddina. 5 residential buildings will be replaced by 73 units and a corner store at a height of 21 m. The judge may have ruled in favor of council and developer Pacific Diamond 88 The master plan requires that the development not cause an unreasonable loss of amenities to the surrounding premises.

These include the mass and scale of the building in relation to its surroundings, shade, privacy and overview. Sunshine Coast Regional Council – Conditions of Licence – MCU18/0190 April 30, 2019 “It is the power of community action and position taking when Council decision-making does not reflect community expectations and that decision-making appears to favour developers, threatening our lifestyles and amenities while ignoring the protection of the environment and its biodiversity,” said the group. The Friends of Buddina group filled the gallery when the fate of the development was discussed by the city councils. After 2 hours, the decision was made and a narrow but majority vote of 6 to 5 obtained the approval of the development. During the meeting, city councillors expressed environmental concerns, but assured that they could be mitigated. In May 2020, all parties agreed that the Court`s injunction orders would be set aside until a decision was rendered on the minor amendment application. On July 23, 2020, Council (1st respondent) approved the “minor amendment” proposal for the proponent (2nd respondent). The trial resumed, the dates were reset, and modified documents were submitted, culminating in the hearing before the Planning and Environment Court on November 26 and 27, 2020. The beach promises to “never be developed” with sea views.

They also stated that council did not require that there be “no unreasonable loss of amenities in the surrounding premises, given the impact on views and perspectives.” Dispute over the adequacy of a negotiated decision. The first defendant, the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, approved a development application by the second defendant, Pacific Diamond 88 Pty Ltd. The request concerned the substantial transformation of the land used for residential buildings into apartment buildings and a business.