Complaints to Council
The City of Moreton Bay has Governance Dept that handles formal complaints.
We urge you to lodge a complaint against the approval of the DA/2024/4695 and to call for the approval to be rescinded.
There is no fee for lodging a complaint, and they provide an official form for use when lodging any such complaints. Below we provide links to allow you to view and download a blank form, or to choose from one of the five draft partly pre-filled forms.
There are also four versions of the document that you could attach that form the basis of your complaint. These are in Word document format so that you may edit if so desired, or you could write your own.
If writing your own, it is important to not focus on any loss of view, or impact on the value of your Unit. The Council will not consider such matters at all and they will weaken your complaint.
If you live on the South of Waves, you are not complaining about any possible development at #15, but only about #25. The reasoning is that you do not want the same style of development approved on either side of Waves.
Assistance
The PDF Forms
As mentioned above, there are 5 version of the prefilled complaint forms. Choose one that suits your style, or just choose one at random.
The Blank Complaint Form-
Version 1
The out-of-control CoMB Planning Department is to be advised that Planning Approvals must be in accordance with Policy as adopted by Council.
Delegated Authority does not allow ad-hoc non-conforming approvals. The DA/2024/4695 delegated approval of 26/3/2025 must be withdrawn forthwith by Council.
Version 2
The Mayor, Councillors and Chief Executive Officer must ensure that Planning Decisions under delegated authority are within adopted policy.
Recent Planning Approvals that do not conform with adopted Planning Policy must be withdrawn by Council.
Version 4
Where there is Delegated Authority to the Planning Department, it is important to clearly define the scope of the delegation, the expected outcomes, and the relevant procedures. Delegated decisions must be in accordance with adopted Policy. The Planning Department must not assume a free reign paradigm as is the case at present. The DA/2024/4695 delegated approval of 26/3/2025 must be withdrawn forthwith by Council.
Version 5
The Council Administrators should ensure that Council Planning Department Officers adopt the Planning Scheme Policy - Residential Design as policy, in the same way the Council has, and in accordance with the Planning Act 2016. The document must be considered an intrinsic part of Council’s planning policy and Council Planning Department Officers must forthwith comply with the policy as published. The appropriate adopted policy must be applied to DA/2024/4695 and current approval withdrawn by Council.
Policy is Policy is Policy!
Version 6
Council Administration must forthwith instigate practices to ensure that the Planning Department Officers do not issue approvals that violate the adopted Council Planning Policy. Recent approvals that flagrantly ignore adopted policy must be overturned forthwith with full acceptance of consequences. In particular, DA 2024/4695 that was given delegated approval on 26/3/2025
Your Attached Document
Below are four sample Word documents that you might choose from as attachment to your complaint. Click the Download Button and they will be saved to your computer, ready to edit if you choose.
Document Version 1 Content
The egregious approval of DA/2024/4695 sets a dangerous precedent where an out of control Planning Department has falsely stated in their Approval (Section 11, Reasons for the Decision) that the proposal “Is of a scale, density and design that respects the character of the zone, precinct and streetscape”.
That statement is patently false as it deliberately omits to reference the adopted PSP-Residential Design planning instrument, Section-3. Perhaps the Planning Office has referenced the incorrect zone, precinct and/or streetscape, but that is doubtful given the resources they have. They have deliberately omitted the reference to the Residential Design planning policy and must be held to account. The approval must be rescinded forthwith and the adopted Planning Policy applied as published.
In the approval, it is demonstrably untrue to state that the proposal “Is of a scale, density and design that respects the character of the zone, precinct and streetscape”.
The proposal did not and does not comply with the PSP- Residential Design section 3. The Section 3 clearly sets out the range of typologies available based upon several metrics.
The adopted planning policy unquestionably states that the available typologies for the lot the subject of DA/2024/4695 are only :-
0: Dwelling House (Traditional)
3: Dwelling Unit
6: Multiple Dwelling (Plexes)
7: Multiple Dwelling (Terrace or Row House)
8: Multiple Dwelling (Low Rise Apartment)
A Low Rise Apartment is further described as an up-to 3 level building. A seven storey high rise apartment is not in the scope of what is allowed in terms of the adopted Planning Policy.
The Delegated Approval announced for DA/2024/4695 is corrupted morally or ethically and must be withdrawn forthwith. The Council Executive have failed to ensure that decisions under the Delegated Authority passed to the Planning Department have been in accordance with adopted Policy.
The Planning Department must adopt the same Planning Policy as adopted by the Council. Having delegated authority does not preclude the need for approval to be in accordance with the adopted Policy.
Document Version 2 Content
If the City of Moreton Bay officially adopts and publishes a Planning Scheme Policy, then how is it legitimate to approve a development application that does not conform to the adopted policy?
The CoMB Planning Department has issued such a non-conforming delegated approval for DA/2024/4695.
The approval given to DA 2024/4695 was an egregious breach of the adopted Planning Policy.
The approval needs to be withdrawn forthwith, as the Planning Department has failed to adopt and apply the Council’s Planning Policy.
The failure to comply with the Planning Policy turns on the Section 3 of the Planning Scheme Policy (PSP) - Residential Design.
The PSP - Residential Design states in its opening sentence that:-
“Moreton Bay Regional Council adopted this planning scheme policy on 24 November 2015.”
For a Planning Officer to issue an approval that completely disregards the adopted Policy is a serious matter. The only appropriate resolution for the Council Administration is to rescind the approval. Unless this is done, the Council is in breach of the QLD Planning Act 2016.
If the Council then incurs some financial impost, then blame can only be attributed to the system where there has been delegated authority with lack of oversight.
The DA/2024/4695 approval is corrupted morally or ethically.
In the approval, it is demonstrably untrue to state that the proposal “Is of a scale, density and design that respects the character of the zone, precinct and streetscape”.
The proposal did not and does not comply with the PSP- Residential Design section 3. The Section 3 clearly sets out the range of typologies available based upon several metrics.
The adopted planning policy unquestionably states that the available typologies for the lot the subject of DA/2024/4695 are only :-
0: Dwelling House (Traditional)
3: Dwelling Unit
6: Multiple Dwelling (Plexes)
7: Multiple Dwelling (Terrace or Row House)
8: Multiple Dwelling (Low Rise Apartment)
A Low Rise Apartment is further described as an up-to 3 level building. A seven storey high rise apartment is not in the scope of what is allowed in terms of the adopted Planning Policy. Council must rescind the approval.
Document Version 3 Content
If the City of Moreton Bay officially adopts and publishes a Planning Scheme Policy, then how is it legitimate to approve a development application that markedly does not conform to the adopted policy?
The approval given to DA 2024/4695 by a Delegated Officer in the Planning Dept was an egregious breach of the adopted Planning Policy.
The approval needs to be withdrawn forthwith, as the Planning Department has failed to adopt and apply the Council’s Adopted Planning Policy.
The failure to comply with the Planning Policy turns on the Section 3 of the Planning Scheme Policy (PSP) - Residential Design.
The PSP - Residential Design states in its opening sentence that:-
“Moreton Bay Regional Council adopted this planning scheme policy on 24 November 2015.”
Section 1.4 of the PSP-Resdiential design states (emphasis added):-
This planning scheme policy is intended to be used by developers and designers, development assessment planners and building professionals.
How can the Council Planning Officers ignore the Policy which meticulously shows that a seven storey high-rise building is not to be approved, as has been done in the matter of DA/2024/4695.
The opening paragraph for the Section 3 of the adopted Planning Scheme Policy- Residential Design, states it uses "typologies" to set out the various dwelling options available. Then the section 3.2.1 does the work of fully describing the range of typologies available for each circumstance, based upon precinct, road type and property frontage.
The target footprint for the DA/2024/4695 is a property of 554 square metres, with a street frontage of 21.5m.
The Typology 8 is set as the upper range of typologies available for the site as shown in the adopted Planning Scheme Policy- Residential Design. A Typology of 8 signifies a low-rise apartment building of 2 to 3 levels. The approved Development Application is for a high-rise 7 storey apartment building. That would equate to the Typology 10.
The adopted Planning Policy Instrument unquestionably states that the available typologies for the lot the subject of DA/2024/4695 can be only:-
0: Dwelling House (Traditional)
3: Dwelling Unit
6: Multiple Dwelling (Plexes)
7: Multiple Dwelling (Terrace or Row House)
8: Multiple Dwelling (Low Rise Apartment)
A Low Rise Apartment is further described as an up-to 3 level building. A seven storey high rise apartment is not in the scope of what is allowed in terms of the adopted Planning Policy. Council must rescind the approval.
For a Planning Officer to issue an approval that completely disregards the adopted Policy is a serious matter. The only appropriate resolution for the Council Administration is to rescind the approval. Unless this is done, the Council is in breach of the QLD Planning Act 2016.
If the Council then incurs some financial impost, then blame can only be attributed to the system where there has been delegated authority with lack of oversight.
The DA/2024/4695 approval is corrupt morally and ethically.
In the approval, it is demonstrably untrue to state that the proposal “Is of a scale, density and design that respects the character of the zone, precinct and streetscape”.
The proposal did not and does not comply with the PSP- Residential Design section 3. The Section 3 clearly sets out the range of typologies available based upon several metrics.
The Delegated Approval must be rescinded by the Council Executive for the Council to maintain its integrity.
Document Version 4 Content
City of Moreton Bay/Moreton Bay Regional Council Governance Complaint
Basic Complaint
Despite several warnings given to the City of Moreton Bay by neighbours in the period commencing October 2024, the Planning Department for the Council has granted an approval for a high rise building on a property immediately adjacent to where I live. The proposed building would negatively impact my environment and that of my neighbours. The approval is in direct contravention of the Council’s adopted planning policy.
The Planning Policy
The Council has a comprehensive Planning Policy in place. The Planning Policy is made up of several published Planning Documents/Planning Instruments. The main document I wish to highlight is the Planning Scheme Policy - Residential Design (PSP-Residential Design).
The opening statement (1.1) within the PSP-Residential Design is:-
“Moreton Bay Regional Council adopted this planning scheme policy on 24 November 2015.”
Then in Section 1.4 it shows:-
1.4 Who should use the Residential design PSP
This planning scheme policy is intended to be used by developers and designers, development assessment planners and building professionals.
There can be no argument that the PSP-Residential Design is not an integral component of the Council’s Planning Scheme Policy. The Planning Scheme Policy has many such PSP documents detailing aspects of Policy.
In particular, I am concerned with the breach of the Section 3 of the PSP-Residential Design in relation to a now approved Development Application DA/2024/4695 the Council had for consideration. The DA/2024/4695 was for a seven storey high rise apartment building. Delegated Approval was given on 26/March/2025.
The failure to comply with the Planning Policy turns on the Section 3 of the adopted Planning Scheme Policy (PSP) - Residential Design.
The opening paragraph for the Section 3 of the adopted Planning Scheme Policy- Residential Design, states it uses "typologies" to set out the various dwelling options available. Then the section 3.2.1 does the work of fully describing the range of typologies available for each circumstance, based upon precinct, road type and property frontage.
The target footprint for the DA/2024/4695 is a property of 554 square metres, with a street frontage of 21.5m.
The Typology 8 is set as the upper range of typologies available for the target site as shown in the adopted Planning Scheme Policy- Residential Design.
A Typology of 8 signifies a low-rise apartment building of 2 to 3 levels. The approved Development Application is for a high-rise 7 storey apartment building. That would equate to the Typology 10.
The adopted Planning Policy Instrument unquestionably states that the available typologies for the lot the subject of DA/2024/4695 can be only:-
0: Dwelling House (Traditional)
3: Dwelling Unit
6: Multiple Dwelling (Plexes)
7: Multiple Dwelling (Terrace or Row House)
8: Multiple Dwelling (Low Rise Apartment)
A Low Rise Apartment is further described as an up-to 3 level building. A seven storey high rise apartment is not in the scope of what is allowed in terms of the adopted Planning Policy.
Due Diligence
Before purchasing Units within the building where I live, several neighbours conducted due diligence on what might be approved for the adjacent Lot. Until April 2024, the Lot was occupied by a dilapidated house. Due diligence investigation showed that Council might approve an up-to three level building for the Lot based on the Planning Scheme Policy documents.
Actions Taken
Upon learning that an application for material change of use for the Lot was lodged in October 2024, and noting that the application was for a structure far exceeding the published Planning Scheme Policy, many neighbours began alerting the Council to the conflict with Policy.
Attempts were made to have the Application classified as Impact Assessable in lieu it being seen as Code Assessable. Those attempts failed to have the assessment level changed from Code to Impact despite the loose assessment of criteria that used the wording “generally”. Some assessment examples were:-
“generally in accordance with Council’s policies.”
“parking spaces generally not visible from the street. “
“in accordance with Council’s requirements, generally as shown on the plans.”
It appears our concerns and reports of the non-compliant development application fell on deaf ears and we were ignored at all levels within Council as Council approved the DA/2024/4695 on 26/March/2025.
Policy Defined
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “policy” as (emphasis added):
“A set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government, or a political party.”
It is expected that neither the Council Planning department, nor any other Council department would act outside Policy.
Normalisation of Deviance
There is a growing culture of normalisation of deviance within the Council. This comes about due to the acceptance of earlier slightly non-conforming applications that ignore or deviate from Policy. This leads to the gradual change of culture of it then appearing okay to approve subsequent non-conforming but different projects.
The full Council has adopted the Planning Scheme Policy documents, but it is evident that their Planning Department, using their Delegated Authority, do not always conform with the adopted policy. Accepting statements such as a parameter “generally conforms” or “generally in accordance with” has become the norm. There has been failed oversight by the Council Executive of the Delegated Authority. This is also part of the culture of the normalisation of deviance that has infected the Council.
In Summary
The adoption and publication of a Planning Scheme Policy sets up a contract with society and ratepayers. To allow the approval of DA/2024/4695 to stand breaks that contract.
Policy is Policy. As shown above policy is defined as having been officially agreed to by a group of people, and governments.
The normalisation of deviance within the Council must be recognised and halted.
The Planning Department officers seem unduly ready and keen to accede to applications presented from some town planning companies.
The DA/2024/4695 approval is corrupt morally and ethically.
In the approval, it is demonstrably untrue to state that the proposal “Is of a scale, density and design that respects the character of the zone, precinct and streetscape”.
The proposal did not and does not comply with the PSP- Residential Design section 3. The Section 3 clearly sets out the range of typologies available based upon several metrics. The Delegated Approval conveniently omits mention of the non-compliance.
The Delegated Approval also breaches other metrics in connection with adopted policy concerning Waste collection, and Service Vehicle requirements.
Desired Outcome
Now that the Planning Department has misused their Delegated Authority to give approval to DA/2024/4695, the desired outcome is that the Council Executive rescind that Delegated Approval as it was not in accord with the adopted policy.