MIDARepND - 1017573 · MCU13/0064

DELEGATED REPORT
PLANNING ASSESSMENT BRANCH

REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATED DECISION NOTICE

Application no:	MCU13/0064

Author:	Jack Lewis - Development Planner

SUMMARY:

APPLICATION DETAILS
Application Number:	MCU13/0064
Applicant:	Makepeace Island (Operations) Pty Ltd
Representations Received Date:	10 December 2013
Original Approval Type:	Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional

PROPERTY DETAILS
Division:	12
Property Address:	Makepeace Island NOOSA NORTH SHORE  QLD  4565
RP Description:	Lot 55 MCH 1667
Land Area:	9.3ha
Existing Use of Land:	Detached House and Caretakers Residence

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation:	Regional Landscape & Rural Production Area
Planning Scheme:	The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011)
Planning Locality:	Noosa North Shore
Open Space Conservation
Planning Zone:

Assessment Type:	Impact

BACKGROUND:

A Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional was issued on 22 November 2013.

At the time the application was publicly notified, one (1) not properly made submission was received.  The submitter was primarily concerned with noise and amenity issues. The applicant made representations on 10 December 2013 to the development approval conditions.  The representations are detailed below but primarily relate to noise and amenity issues.

ASSESSMENT:

An assessment in relation to each of the submitted representations is provided below.

Condition 4

No more than 20 persons are to be accommodated on the island within the 3 bungalows (comprising 2 bedrooms each) and bedroom wing (containing 4 double rooms), except for the approved caretakers/staff dwelling (capable of sleeping 4 persons) as indicated on the approved plans. No additional persons and/or guests are permitted on the island at any time, apart from the on-site manager and staff.

Applicant’s Representation

The applicant considers the requirement to not allow any additional persons to visit is overly restrictive. This restriction removes the right of guests staying at the Island to have their own guests (friends/family etc), who may live or also be staying in the area, visit them on the Island. While this may not be a regular occurrence, it is nonetheless a reasonable expectation and right of a guest at any resort. This ancillary activity does not change the approved use and will have no detrimental impact on the amenity of the site or surrounding area. The condition is not relevant to and is clearly unreasonable in respect of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 4 be amended to delete the last sentence.

Assessment of Representation

The approval is for a small scale visitor accommodation development (20 beds) within the existing buildings on the island. Conditions were imposed to restrict the number of people visiting the island, to ensure the amenity of the neighbouring residents is not compromised.

The last sentence of the condition to not allow additional guests was deliberately imposed, so as to restrict the possibility of functions being held on the island. The impacts associated with having functions and extra visitors include additional noise, increased pressure on the effluent disposal system and carparking demand at the Noosa Marina and Moorindil Street.

Therefore it is recommended that Council disagree with the applicant’s request.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 4 remain unchanged.

Condition 15

Noise from amplified music and entertainment must not be audible at any affected premises between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am.

Applicant’s Representation

This condition is overly restrictive and is not required under any Council noise policy, The Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy or the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation noise level criteria. The restriction will unreasonably impact on the operation of the resort and the guest’s enjoyment of their stay by not allowing ‘reasonable’ level music to be played after 10pm.

While needing an ability for ‘reasonable’ levels of level music to be played after 10pm, the resort operation will need to ensure noise from music and entertainment does not impact the amenity of guest bedrooms on the island, which will be much closer to the noise source than residences off site.
In considering this condition it is particularly relevant to have regard to the fact that no properly made submissions were made in respect of the application. If noise was an issue there would have been community objection, particularly from nearby residents to the proposal.

The proposed use will result in a more controlled approach to music and entertainment and decrease in potential noise levels given that the island will be occupied by unrelated people as opposed to a related group. Accordingly, we request that Condition 15 be amended to:

“Noise from amplified music and entertainment LOCT10, in a full octave band with centre frequencies from 63 Hz to 2000 Hz must not exceed the background level, LOCT90, by more than 3 dB in any octave band when measured internally at any affected premises between the hours of 10pm and 7am”.

The applicant would accept this varied noise level control until 12 midnight with no audible level between 12 midnight and 7 am.

Assessment of Representation

After Council issued the development approval, correspondence was received from neighbouring properties indicating they were unaware of the public notification and would have lodged properly made submissions against the proposal on noise and amenity grounds.

The original condition allows for ‘reasonable’ noise levels after 10pm, with the applicant even stating that the most ‘reasonable’ noise from the bar area is not heard from the on-site bungalows.  Therefore, the condition is considered appropriate and protects the neighbouring residential property owners from unreasonable levels of noise during the sleeping hours of 10pm and 7am.

Therefore it is recommended that Council disagree with the applicant’s request.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 15 remain unchanged.

Condition 16

Where a complaint (other than a frivolous or vexatious complaint) is made to Council about noise from the premises, the following shall be provided to Council, when requested:
have a suitably qualified acoustic consultant undertake a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) in accordance with relevant guidelines and standards, and have a report submitted to Council for endorsement which outlines the findings of the NIA; and/or
the installation of volume limiting devices and/or upgrade the sound reduction index (R) value of windows, doors and/or shield mechanical plant and equipment, and/or provide internal frequency absorptive or sound proofing treatments within the site, and/or install acoustic barriers to mitigate or reduce noise impacts and have any such upgrades or works certified by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant;

Applicant’s Representation

The trigger for condition 16, being a single compliant, is particularly onerous. While the condition suggests the compliant must be ‘other than a frivolous or vexatious complaint’ there is nothing to qualify how this is determined and therefore the condition is too open ended and uncertain. While it may become clear after several complaints from the same person (and no one else that may be similarly affected) that the compliant is vexatious, it may be too late to have avoided unnecessary enforcement actions of the condition. Accordingly, we request that condition 16 be amended such that the condition trigger is more than a single complaint.

Assessment of Representation

Council receive and enforce any compliant for noise associated with the conditions of the development approval. As a result, it is up to Council to ascertain whether a complaint would warrant further action including further noise impact assessments and volume limiting devices.

It is not unreasonable to include the condition and leave it up to Council to determine whether further noise assessments are required to ensure the residential amenity is maintained for neighbouring properties. However, it is agreed that a noise report should only be undertaken where there are numerous complaints about noise.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 16 be amended for Council to act on more than one complaint about noise.

RECOMMENDATION

AGREE in PART to the representations submitted in relation to Application No. MCU13/0064, situated at Makepeace Island NOOSA NORTH SHORE  QLD  4565 to:

A.	Approve a change to conditions 16 to read as follows:-

Where complaints (other than a frivolous or vexatious complaint) are made to Council about noise from the premises, the following shall be provided to Council, when requested:
have a suitably qualified acoustic consultant undertake a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) in accordance with relevant guidelines and standards, and have a report submitted to Council for endorsement which outlines the findings of the NIA; and/or
the installation of volume limiting devices and/or upgrade the sound reduction index (R) value of windows, doors and/or shield mechanical plant and equipment, and/or provide internal frequency absorptive or sound proofing treatments within the site, and/or install acoustic barriers to mitigate or reduce noise impacts and have any such upgrades or works certified by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant;

REPORT COVER SHEET
	PLANNING ASSESSMENT BRANCH

Application no:	MCU13/0064

Author:	Jack Lewis

TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT MANAGER / REPORT AUTHOR:

Is referral required to the Councillor Delegated Sign Off Mailbox?:
	No
Has a site inspection been undertaken?:
	Yes
Has Infrastructure Policy Branch been notified and a request for an Infrastructure Contributions calculation been made?:
No

Material to give to the Project Director

□	A copy of any previous edited version of the report
□	Plans and documents recommended to become Approved Plans and Documents
□	Location plan / aerial photographs at appropriate scales
□	Copy of all specialist advice and/or memos (or alternatively tagged in the file)
□	Site photos (where obtained)
□	Copy of all referral agency responses (or alternatively summarised in the body of the report)
□	Copies of all adjoining approvals and past approvals for the site as may be relevant

TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT DIRECTOR:
(Note: to be signed after the Councillor Delegated Sign Off referral process is completed (where applicable))

I exercise delegation in accordance with the delegations adopted by Council on 12 December 2009:

Signature: 	Date:

PROJECT DIRECTOR

FM1507/3-22/02/2011	Page 4 of 5