Residents have in the past gathered on the nearby beach, with signs depicting turtles or other messages, protesting a plan for a controversial seven-storey development on 18ha in the sleepy suburb of Yaroomba.

Community groups must now raise $100,000 to support the fresh court battle and it all comes as mystery surrounds a land sale that the developer Sekisui House announced last year.

Timeline of events over Yaroomba land

Sekisui House initially lodged plans in 2015, sparking community protests, before revealing revised plans for a $900m development.

In 2018, the Sunshine Coast Council approved the $900m seven-storey resort and residential development proposed by Sekisui House on the Yaroomba beachfront.

Community opposition strengthened with Development Watch and the Sunshine Coast Environment Council appealing the decision in the Planning and Environment Court in 2020, and the appeal was lost in front of Judge Nicole Kefford.

Development Watch appealed that decision in the Supreme Court in early 2021.

In 2022, The Court of Appeal found three errors of law in the Planning and Environment Court’s decision.

The matter was returned to the Planning and Environment Court and, in that same year, Sekisui House put the land up for sale.

In June this year, Judge Kefford, in the Planning and Environment Court, dismissed the appeal and approved the development application.

Last month, Development Watch announced it would again appeal the decision in the Supreme Court.

President Lynette Saxton said the community was “not done” and would again fight the decision.

The president said $100,000 was required to be raised to cover legal fees.

“Once again, we are going back to fight for our community against an intense high-rise development that has no place in Yaroomba, or Coolum for that matter,” Ms Saxton said.

“We are deeply grateful this community still has the energy and resilience to fight on despite all it has endured and given.

“Their support again demonstrates how much they value this special place and what we all stand for.”

What can happen in the courts

According to a Queensland Courts spokeswoman, several outcomes are possible in the courts.

“Should the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) determine there was an error in law, the Court of Appeal has the option of returning the matter to the Planning and Environment Court to decide the matter in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s determination; or it may revoke the Planning and Environment Court decision and substitute its own decision,” she said.

She said the Court of Appeal could make any reasonable order when remitting a matter back to a lower court.

The spokeswoman said a party may appeal to the High Court of Australia if it believed the Court of Appeal made an error in law.

“An appeal to the High Court is not automatic, the court must be persuaded at a preliminary hearing that there are special reasons the matter that should be heard by the court,” she said.

Endangered loggerhead turtles

The environment council’s Narelle McCarthy said the latest Planning and Environment Court decision was “extremely disappointing”.

“The intensity and scale of this particular proposal has always been at odds with the planning scheme, always at odds with the sensitivities of this site particularly the turtle nesting beach and also the community expectations,” Ms McCarthy said.

“The high-rise will reach around 30m for three buildings and the number of dwellings, about 700 are proposed, that is completely at odds and not in keeping with this special location.”

The liaison and advocacy officer said the loggerhead turtle, which predominantly hatched at Yaroomba, was endangered and “every turtle, every nest” was important to the recovery of the species.

“We need to keep these beaches dark … and the impact of more people, it just compromises the recovery of an endangered species,” she said.

Ms McCarthy said the land was among the last of the coastline north of the Maroochy River, which was not already national park, to remain undeveloped.

She said there was a rare parabolic dune that would be close to one of the seven-storey buildings if they were to go ahead.

“We have so many areas of our coastline that have been developed that we need to keep these beaches as natural as we can,” she said.

Fundraising efforts

Friends of Yaroomba president Jim Moore said “everyone” was disappointed following the latest Planning and Environment Court decision but were enthusiastic for the fight that lay ahead.

“They want to see this to the end,” he said.

“Because this beautiful place is our environment and most people have lived here for a long time.”

He said a fundraising committee had been formed again and was starting to plan events.

“In the past, the community has been very generous and I think they will be again,” Mr Moore said.

Future of land remains a mystery

Sekisui House put the land up for sale last year, before the latest Planning and Environment Court judgement.

The Australian called it “one of the last remaining beachfront development sites” on the eastern seaboard.

Mining magnate Clive Palmer, who is undertaking a $100m refurbishment of the nearby Palmer Coolum Resort, told the Sunshine Coast Daily in June that he had not bought the site.

A caveat by Beachside Yaroomba Pty Ltd has appeared on the land title.

The title names SH Coolum Pty Ltd — or Sekisui House — as the registered owner.

As of July 31 the caveat, which states “the registered owner as seller and the caveator as buyer”, remained on the title.

Further company records revealed Beachside Yaroomba Pty Ltd directors were also directors of Victorian housing development company Dennis Group Pty Ltd.

A Dennis Corp spokeswoman said all questions should be directed to Sekisui House, which owned the land.

A spokeswoman for Sekisui House Australia responded to questions regarding the appeal and the land sale.

“Sekisui House Australia cannot comment on the Yaroomba site as the transaction is commercial in confidence,” she said.

Sunshine Coast Council

The Sunshine Coast Daily put questions to the Sunshine Coast Council regarding the appeal brought by Development Watch, including if the council intends to withdraw as a party to the Supreme Court appeal, and how much ratepayer money has been spent defending the decision in the courts.

“In line with standing practice, council does not discuss specific legal matters or costs,” a spokesman responded.

“Council’s annual report includes a summary of expenses for the organisation including legal fees.”