Submission NPA · MCU12/0012

Submission: MCU Application Home-Based Business (Quad Bike Tours) at 298 Tablelands Road Cooran              2

    b) The conduct of commercial operations of this nature within Rural Zone or the Open Space
       Conservation Zone is impact assessable and due to the tenure would require a State resource
       entitlement. The application provides no evidence of a land use approval for this to occur and the
       Department of Environment & Resource Management (DERM) Commercial Activity Permit
       referenced in the application documentation is not a State resource entitlement.
2) Similar circumstances from 1) above, apply to land in the Gympie Regional Council area.
3) The NPA understands that the Forest Reserve tenure was utilised for the roads to enable access by
   horse-riders and bike-riders through this area. Indeed part of the network proposed to be used in the
   quad bike operation is identified as part of the Noosa Trail Network. For obvious reasons, a noisy,
   motorised, thrill-seeking quad bike operation is in radical conflict with the use of the trail network by
   horse-riders and bike-riders and therefore is in conflict with the original reasons for retaining Forest
   Reserve tenure.
4) While factors raised in 1) and 2) above relate to aspects that are not part of the application before
   Council, it is a classic case of the tail trying to wag the dog. It is pointless granting an approval for the
   base for an operation, when the operation itself must traverse a similar development application path
   and when the major aspects of such a proposal will generate significant land use conflict with the
   intent and purpose of land with National Park and Forest Reserve tenure. The NPA is outraged that
   such land could be considered for the purposes of such tours let alone receive a permit and will be
   raising the matter directly with the DERM.
5) The proposed home-based business does not comply with, nor can it comply with some aspects of the
   Noosa Plan:
    a) The definition of a home-based business requires that the use be secondary to the principal
       function of the residence. It includes scale-related provisions designed to prevent significant
       commercial functions from establishing. The details will be addressed below; however the
       proposed use vastly exceeds the scale controls and in combination with the fact that this is the
       base for a wider use indicates that the scale is beyond that which can reasonably be described as a
       home-based business. In other words, this is a fully-fledged commercial, not a home-based
       business.
    b) Specific Outcome O54 and its associated solution set out to identify a scale at which a business
       might be regarded as being secondary to a dwelling. It stipulates a maximum of 300m2 that can be
       utilised for the business. The areas depicted on the plans accompanying the application that will
       serve as the buildings and practice areas for testing participants comprises 1,200m2, some four
       times the maximum scale deemed to be appropriate and this excludes the areas of Forest Reserve
       tenure that are essential to the conduct of the business. At this scale, the business does not meet
       the home-based business definition.
    c) Specific Outcome O55 and its associated solution also seek to control the scale of use. It stipulates
       a maximum of 6 persons that can be involved in the use. The subject proposal involves a
       maximum of 13 persons, more than double the maximum stipulated. Once again at this scale, the
       business does not meet the home-based business definition.
The application should be rejected.

Yours faithfully,



Rose Marie Stewart
A/HON. SECRETARY