Original source · versioned page text
David Hughes reponse 29.5.24
29th May 2024 Attention: Tara Norley Senior Development Planner Noosa Council Re: Change Representation Nature and Extent of Approved Use - MCU24/0017 & Dear Tara & The Noosa Council, Firstly, I am disappointed in the comments within your email of the 15th May that the Yoga Temple activities would be “more appropriate in a Business Centre area”. Are you implying it is a healthy alternative to drive into often gridlocked, vehicle exhaust fumed, concrete and bitumen Tewantin or Noosaville environs, with possible difficulties finding a parking space close to the venue, particularly if you have mobility issues rather than the serene, peaceful yoga temple where during the short walk from the carpark to the temple the client can breathe fresh, clean air from the literally thousands of hectares of bush surrounding the property including the Tewantin National Park, and enjoying the chirping and songs of the myriads of birds in the surrounding trees. This totally misses the healing/spiritual concept of the Padma Jala Yoga Temple, which I might add, several years ago the building, as was the entire property blessed by Lama Tendar, one of the Delai Lama’s entourage, who spent a considerable amount of time on this property. I also call your attention to “Noise” clauses A08/A09.3. There is minimum noise from cars entering this property and driving to the parking area. My home office is at the front of the house overlooking the driveway and entrance. Unless I am in the office and see a vehicle enter, I am not aware of who drives in. I rarely hear a vehicle. There are reasons for this. There is a spoon drain across the drive at the front gate, this brings vehicles close to stopping, then the” Rustic” nature of the drive to the carpark slows drivers to no more than a fast walk. Clause P08. There is no impact on neighbours be it noise or anything else with this occupation, the nearest being our nasty, spiteful neighbour over 100mtres away who from when he and his family arrived three years or so ago the peaceful ambience I had previously known went out the window. Noisy earthmoving equipment and other machinery, ripping, tearing, digging, banging went on for nearly 12 months while the house was being constructed, and still continues occasionally when he employs tradies there. At weekends, often there are screaming and yelling kids, a dog that yap, yap, yaps all day when no one is home. While he and his family were away a month or so ago for a couple of weeks, the dog yap, yap, yapped non-stop from sunup to sundown the entire time they were away, more irritating than loud. Last week for several days he had up to 5 tradie vehicles parked outside his property on the road verge outside his property impeding the flow of traffic. It’s insulting to even mention the
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
neighbours right not to be detrimentally affected by Suncoast Healing & Yoga. Who will protect us against him, the Noosa Council? Our next neighbour is 275mtrs away who runs a home-based business, with the next neighbour around half a kilometre away. If Jen were to work 100hours x 7 days a week it would have minimal or no effect on either the environment or neighbours. Costs; With the work times Jen has been allotted her annual income would be $30,027.40 per annum net after overheads and running costs are deducted. This is just $577.45 per week. After the tax-free threshold of $18,200.00 it leaves $11,827.40 taxable income at 16%, which is $1892.38 tax payable. That deducted from her net income leaves $28,135,02 per annum, weekly $541.05 which equals $36.07 per hour. It should be noted no allowance in these figures has been made for loss of Jen’s income through illness, time taken out during school holidays and gazetted public holidays. Application to council costs; Council fee of $3393.00. Our costs including time taken with council meetings, research and preparation of documents, consultation with Town Planners and legal advisors. $3900.00 Total application cost $7293.00 The extra two class sessions allowed by council totals 2.5 hours by an hourly rate of $36.07 = $72.14 extra income per week. Divide that figure into $7293.00, the result is 100.71 - the number of weeks it will take to pay off the councils’ application costs. I may add that Jens house rent is $750.00 per week. The only way Jen, is able to support herself and two young children is by Social Security payments, an abominable situation where she could support herself and her family if it were not for councils’ restrictive policy. Jen and I know many home-based business people in this shire and none of them have the restrictions imposed on them by Noosa Council. It defies logic why Noosa Council is repressing Jen to a few hours work a week and restricting the times she can work, forcing her to remain on Social Security, preventing her from fulfilling her passion and vocation of helping people in need, people who have come to trust and rely on her expertise to help them in their healing journey. It can be summed up in a few words. Jen supports, council obstructs. For Jen to make a living income it requires her to have the hours she has indicated in her correspondence to give her the flexibility to fit in with her client’s needs. It is her LEGAL RIGHT to be able to make a living. Council staff not only get their pay packets they also get superannuation, holiday pay, sickness benefits and all the other lurks and perks provided at the ratepayer’s expense. Neither Jen nor I receive any of the above benefits. If we don’t work, we don’t eat. In consultation with our legal advisers, part of their legal opinion is included below:
Page 3
“Local councils have an authority to regulate home-based businesses to preserve neighbourhood amenity. These regulations must not be unreasonable or disproportionately hinder your ability to make a living.” In relation to the neighbour who set this debacle off: “This context highlights the (neighbours) complaint lacks genuine merit and was driven by spite and jealousy. Given the fact the council was already informed and had prior knowledge of the situation, the spiteful motivation behind the complaint and minimal neighbourhood impact and still acted unreasonably choosing to impose excessive restrictions, it is clear their decision may lack a reasonable basis. Disproportionate regulations hindering your ability to earn a living.” Regards, David Hughes, Senior Partner Ph: 0403 999 883