Stockland development: Major blow to Twin Waters West plans on Sunshine Coast

A Planning and Environment Court judge has dismissed an appeal by development giant Stockland over its controversial Twin Waters West proposal. Read about the court decision.

Stockland has suffered a major blow over its Twin Waters West proposal after a Planning and Environment Court judge dismissed its appeal against the Sunshine Coast Regional Council’s refusal.

Judge William Everson said there was a “real prospect of detriment or destruction” of wetland should the development go ahead.

A Stockland spokeswoman said the developer was disappointed and Twin Waters West would help address housing supply issues.

In 2020, Sunshine Coast councillors voted to refuse Stockland’s development application for a 104ha parcel of Pacific Paradise land.

Council planning staff at the time had recommended approval of the controversial development but Councillor Jason O’Pray had moved councillors go against the advice of planners and refuse the proposal.

Stockland lodged the court appeal after the council decision.

A concept of the Twin Waters West development.

According to court documents, the site was once a cane farm and is on flood plain on the northern side of the Maroochy River.

The proposed development was to include 584 residential allotments, community and commercial spaces and a central, saltwater lake that would pipe into the Maroochy River.

Some community groups have protested the proposed development at Twin Waters West.

The site borders the Sunshine Motorway to the west and the existing Twin Waters residential development to the east.

“A large freshwater wetland protrudes into the site from the southern half of the eastern boundary (‘the central wetland’) and links to the Maroochy River Conservation Area which runs along the southern boundary of the site,” the court documents state.

Judge Everson handed down his decision on September 15, 2022, in Brisbane.

In his decision, obtained by the Daily, Judge Everson said Stockland had not demonstrated the proposed development would protect and enhance the health of the central wetland.

“Indeed, on the evidence before me, there is a real prospect of detriment or destruction of this wetland should the appeal be allowed,” he said.

“Moreover, it has not been demonstrated by the appellant that the variations sought in the Twin Waters West Plan of Development will be consistent with the established low density residential character of the adjoining Twin Waters residential community.”

Mr O’Pray said he had followed the development application closely for a decade.

Cr Jason O’Pray says he is relieved “for the moment” following the court’s decision.

“I’ve witnessed thousands of submissions, numerous protests, I’ve had hundreds upon hundreds of people contact me both pro and anti (the development),” he said.

Mr O’Pray said he felt relieved for the moment.

“I say at the moment because they absolutely have every right of appeal,” he said.

A Stockland spokeswoman said the developer would review the judgement.

“We are disappointed that Stockland’s Twin Waters West proposal for a low-density, premium lakeside residential community has not been approved,” she said.

“Developable landholdings, like Twin Waters West, are increasingly scarce, and can play a significant role in addressing housing supply as well as driving job creation and regional investment in infrastructure.

“Stockland will review the judgment and consider next steps.”

Twin Waters West and Surrounds Inc president Kathryn Hyman said the community group had fought the development plans for six years.

Lorraine Taylor, Kathryn Hyman and Tracey Hanna protesting the Twin Waters West proposed development.

She said she was “exhilarated” by the decision.

“It just shows our conviction was on point, we had a conviction that this was wrong and now the court has upheld our conviction,” Ms Hyman said.

Organisation Sunshine Coast Association of Residents president Melva Hobson, who was in Brisbane for the decision, said her organisation supported the determination.

“It’s a win for the future in how we deal with very sensitive ecological areas of high value,” she said.

A council spokeswoman said the appeal dismissal meant the refusal issued by the council remained valid.

“As with all development applications, this application was thoroughly assessed by the council on its individual merits and the full report, along with substantial documentation involved in the assessment process, can be publicly viewed on council’s Development.i,” she said.