News & Discussion: Planning & Building Regulations

[Al]

What a looney decision. This reminds me of a complaint someone made about the big Ikea sign because it blocked their view of the hills! I can imagine people filing complaints against any tall construction because it blocks their view of the sky. I agree, the developers should appeal to a higher court.

[Howie]

The court upheld the development but the pair appealed again to the Supreme Court – and won.

I don't think it can go any higher than this.

It'll be interesting to see the details of the judgement handed down, hopefully this was just an exception to the case.

[Will]

The court upheld the development but the pair appealed again to the Supreme Court – and won.

I don't think it can go any higher than this.

It'll be interesting to see the details of the judgement handed down, hopefully this was just an exception to the case.

Hopefully they are referring to the SA Supreme Court. Otherwise, they should take it to the Supreme Court in Canberra.

[AtD]

Howie: http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ?f=8&t=983

[JAKJ]

High court... and they should. This is a crazy decision, the judge is on crack unless he outlined that his decision was based on very unique and specific circumstances he has opened a can or worms...

[Howie]

Howie: http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ?f=8&t=983

Ah i missed it... anyhow merged our old thread with this one, made the title clearer and moved it to general development discussions.

[how_good_is_he]

THIS IS WITHOUT DOUBT THE ABSOLUTE WORST DECISION I HAVE EVER HEARD!

CAN SOMEONE HIGHLIGHT TO THE DUMB-ASS JUDGE THAT PEOPLE PAY A MASSIVE PREMIUM TO LIVE ON THE BEACHFRONT AND NOW A TURD IN A FIBRO SHACK A FEW STREETS BACK CAN DICTATE WHAT YOU CAN BUILD - EVEN IF IT COMPLIES!

DOESNT THE OWNER OF THE BEACHFRONT PROPERTY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME RIGHTS TOO!

[Shuz]

I see it as a case of, If you live right next to the beach, your'e entitled to the views that come with location. If you live one block from the beach, well thats just your bad luck, unless of course you want to go higher than the guys in front of you. However, there should be a cap to the height allowable for suburban beaches, a maximum of 4/5 levels is probably adequate.

[Cruise]

You are never entitled to a view of anything full stop.

[Howie]

Is this the first major development in SA to get rejected due to rising sea levels?

Supreme Court rejects development due to rising sea
Article from: The Advertiser
GAVIN LOWER

March 11, 2008 10:25pm

AN 80-lot subdivision at popular holiday destination Marion Bay has been knocked back due to rising sea levels and environmental impact.

The Supreme Court decision to reject the developer's appeal for the subdivision to be allowed is believed to be the first to consider the impact of rising sea levels on coastal development.

It has also put developers on notice to carefully consider council development plans when it comes to projects along the state's coastline - with the chance proposals may have to be moved further from shore.

The Supreme Court was asked to consider the case after subdivision developer Northcape Properties Pty Ltd appealed against decisions by the Yorke Peninsula District Council and Environment Court to reject its proposal for the land, north of Marion Bay.

Justice Bruce Debelle said the proposed subdivision "offends so many of the goals and objectives of the development plan that development consent must be refused".

"The proposal is on any view an attempt to develop the land to the greatest extent possible without due regard to the ecological sensitivity of the area and the need to preserve natural features," he said.

The court heard the shoreline would erode inland by between 35m and 40m over 100 years, which would affect an erosion buffer zone and a coastal reserve. The council's development plan calls for buffer zones and coastal reserves between developments and coastlines.

The Local Government Association of South Australia's Chris Russell said that if he were a developer he would be reading the provisions of council development plans "much more carefully" in relation to coastal development.

Law Society president Grant Feary said he had not heard of another case dealing with sea levels and that the issue may apply to neighbouring council areas.

Council chief executive officer Ricki Bruhn said the council hoped to work with Northcape Properties over the development, which

included 78 housing lots, 26 of those on the coast, and two reserves.

[Omicron]

Judging by this:

offends so many of the goals and objectives of the development plan that development consent must be refused....

....an attempt to develop the land to the greatest extent possible without due regard to the ecological sensitivity of the area and the need to preserve natural features

I suspect that even if the development were 50 metres away from the shoreline there was little chance of it being allowed, irrespective of shoreline erosion. Without details of the proposal it's hard to determine if the judge was justified in his comments, but it doesn't seem like it was to be an appropriate solution in any aspect.

[Bulldozer]

NIMBY time here: I'm glad this was knocked back. Marion Bay has lost quite a lot of it's charm and appeal since the south side between the original village and the boundary with Innes was developed. My family has been going to there and Pondalowie for longer than I've been alive, so I'm biased in that way.

While I doubt that the sea will rise like that, I think the notion that it will is fairly ingrained in the local psyche down there. In the original village between the jetty and the caravan park there used to be shacks all along the foreshore, but they all got demolished and an embankment was constructed because of hysteria about rising sea levels. Or at least that's what we were told when we first saw it had been done. I think that would have been around 10 to 15 years ago now.

[Wayno]

not knowing full details makes it hard to legitimately comment...but wow! a high-court decision based on climate change and rising sea levels - this could have widespread impact...

[monotonehell]

I suspect this has more to do with coastal erosion and the council's desire to conserve the coastline than actual rising sea levels. The media's probably picked up on the keywords "rising sea levels" and ran with that, as is their SOP. On top of this a small rise in sea level would adversely affect coastal erosion. Justice Debelle is a fairly level headed fellow, I have confidence that he's made a good and right decision. It'd be helpful to get hold of his obiter dictum.

[rhino]

His obiter dictum - yes, I thought it would be helpful to get hold of that too. What is it, by the way?