PM Submission - Carol Hamilton - MCU25/0118

To: Assessment Manager- Noosa Shire Council Date:/^/11/25
Re: Application Number MCU25/0118
Description: Development Permit for Material Change of Use by Coast2Bay for Multiple
Dwellings - Affordable Rental Premises 25 X small dwellings plus one community room
dwelling.
Site Address: 64 Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy Qld 4563 on Lot 2 (part) SP348613



I make the following objection to the development application

1. Incorrect Housing Type Proposed

Noosa’s Housing Strategy distinguishes clearly between Social Housing (income-based rent)
and Affordable Housing (discount-to-market rent). Coast2Bay5s State Government grant is
for 25 units of Community Housing under the Social Housing Income-Based Rent model.
The development application seeks approval for the wrong housing category and is therefore
inconsistent with the intended funding and policy framework.

2. Zoning Conflicts and Intended Land Use

The site is zoned Community Facilities - Cemetery and has long been earmarked for
cemetery expansion. Residents reasonably expect land purchased for cemetery purposes to be
used accordingly. Although Lot 1 remains publicly owned, public access would be removed
despite the community using this land as informal open space for over 60 years. Surrounding
land is low-density residential, and the Cooroy Local Plan already provides suitable medium­
density areas. The proposal is incompatible with both zoning intent and community
expectations.

3. Insufficient Future Cemetery Capacity

Noosa’s cemeteries are nearing capacity. Only a small portion of 62 Lake Macdonald Drive
has been reserved for expansion, and no evidence shows the adjoining site is surplus to burial
needs. Local governments must ensure adequate cemetery land—unlike housing, which is not
a local government responsibility. Access constraints further limit options, and no alternative
cemetery expansion sites have been identified.

4. Excessive Density and Incompatible Built Form

The development proposes 26 units on 3,161 m2—far denser than comparable Cooroy
medium-density projects. Such intensity is suited to large urban centres, not a low-density
township dominated by detached homes. The scale and massing are inconsistent with local
character and risk establishing an inappropriate precedent.

5. Poor Location and Limited Connectivity

The site is near the urban fringe, isolated from other residential areas, and lacks safe o:
pedestrian connections. Access to Cooroy’s retail centre requires crossing a steep, utw                   7
pedestrian bridge. The location does not support walkability, green transport, or coW^nieriV'l
access to services.                                                                  p
                                                                                  \.
                                                                                   \.
                                                                                                  ■   '       z-