Email with Minor change to development application - MCU21_0110

Section 2

Section 3

    “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
    advice”




The request for a minor change stems from concerns raised by councillors about the scale of
the development, which unavoidably, extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone and
partly into the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay (Biodiversity Overlay) towards
the east of the site. This is despite the development not having a significant impact on any
environmental values as confirmed by Dr Watson and Council’s environmental officer. Other
concerns were raised about the scale and extent of the pools within the centre of the site and
the continued operation of the tennis courts, including during construction.

The changes being made to the development are detailed below:

•     Pavilion 5 has been removed from the top of the site towards the east with the stair and
      lift area reconfigured for Pavilion 4;
•     Pavilion 1, Level 1 presidential suite changed to two (2) deluxe rooms with a reduction in
      the terrace areas at ground level;
•     the character and privacy of the central recreation zone has been strengthened by
      increasing the planted landscape spaces, with the swimming pools reduced in size and
      enhanced by being integrated into a natural landscape setting
•     a minor increase in the size of the amenities building will provide for wellness facilities that
      complement the recreation zone
•     a change to the overall design of the open space areas, with pathways and small deck areas
      added to make some passive use of the open space area towards the east where Pavilion
      5 was located while maintaining the existing vegetation;
•     an increase in the size of the southeastern tennis court to a ITF (pro-tour size) tennis court;
      and
•     a reduction in the height of the structures above the decked carpark to the south with the
      solar panels to be maintained.

As a result of the changes, the proposed development has the following development
parameters:

•     The overall number of rooms reduced from 106 to 69 a decrease of 37 rooms;
•     The amount of gross floor area (GFA) reduced from 6967m² to 5,392m² a reduction of
      1,575m² (23%);
•     The amount of site cover reduced from 24.52% to 22.15% a decrease of 2.37% (896m²)
      (including the existing development and elevated tennis courts); and
•     The total number of carparking spaces to remain the same at 295 spaces, including
      overflow parking.

The area of the site included within the Tourist Accommodation Zone is about 23,307m². The
allowable plot ratio within the Tourist Accommodation Zone is 0.65:1, which provides for about
15,150m² of GFA. It is my understanding that the existing GFA for the Club House and Day Spa




                                                                                          2|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

The request for a minor change stems from concerns raised by councillors about the scale of
the development, which unavoidably, extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone and
partly into the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay (Biodiversity Overlay) towards
the east of the site. This is despite the development not having a significant impact on any
environmental values as confirmed by Dr Watson and Council's environmental officer. Other
concerns were raised about the scale and extent of the pools within the centre of the site and
the continued operation of the tennis courts, including during construction.

The changes being made to the development are detailed below:

e Pavilion 5 has been removed from the top of the site towards the east with the stair and
lift area reconfigured for Pavilion 4;

e Pavilion 1, Level 1 presidential suite changed to two (2) deluxe rooms with a reduction in
the terrace areas at ground level;

e the character and privacy of the central recreation zone has been strengthened by
increasing the planted landscape spaces, with the swimming pools reduced in size and
enhanced by being integrated into a natural landscape setting

e aminor increase in the size of the amenities building will provide for wellness facilities that
complement the recreation zone

e achange to the overall design of the open space areas, with pathways and small deck areas
added to make some passive use of the open space area towards the east where Pavilion
5 was located while maintaining the existing vegetation;

e anincrease in the size of the southeastern tennis court to a ITF (pro-tour size) tennis court;
and

e areduction in the height of the structures above the decked carpark to the south with the
solar panels to be maintained.

As a result of the changes, the proposed development has the following development
parameters:

e The overall number of rooms reduced from 106 to 69 a decrease of 37 rooms;

e The amount of gross floor area (GFA) reduced from 6967m? to 5,392m? a reduction of
1,575m? (23%);

e The amount of site cover reduced from 24.52% to 22.15% a decrease of 2.37% (896m?)
(including the existing development and elevated tennis courts); and

e The total number of carparking spaces to remain the same at 295 spaces, including
overflow parking.

The area of the site included within the Tourist Accommodation Zone is about 23,307m?. The
allowable plot ratio within the Tourist Accommodation Zone is 0.65:1, which provides for about
15,150m? of GFA. It is my understanding that the existing GFA for the Club House and Day Spa

2|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 4

Section 5

    “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
    advice”




combined is about 3,346m²1. Therefore, the total GFA for the proposed development and the
existing facilities is about 8,738m².

While part of the proposed development extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone,
the amount of GFA allowed on the site is much less than that allowed within the Tourist
Accommodation Zone. The overall scale of the development is approximately 57% of the
allowable GFA expected within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. The site cover for the
development as a whole is also very low, being about 22.15%, which includes all buildings and
the elevated tennis courts.

The total amount of plot ratio and site cover is significant in the circumstances, given it is being
suggested that the proposal is an over development of the site. The development results in
the protection of koala habitat towards the north with the majority of the development now
located outside of the Biodiversity Overlay designation (discussed below). Further, the
proposed Resort Complex makes use of the existing facilities and infrastructure, which is
practical and a logical response in the circumstances and has considerable planning merit.

Changes in more detail

The primary change is the removal of Pavilion 5, which significantly reduces the overall scale
of the development on an elevated part of the site towards the east. Further, removes the
portion of the development that was theoretically closer to the Noosa Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NWTP). Pavilion 1 is now the only building that is close to the 2.5 odour contour and is
on a lower part of the site having more separation from the NWTP (refer extract of the Zoning
Plan – Figure 1).




Figure 1 – Extract of Zoning Plan


1
    Council officer assessment report, page 27

                                                                                        3|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
,

Adamson
Town Planning

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”

combined is about 3,346m?". Therefore, the total GFA for the proposed development and the
existing facilities is about 8,738m’.

While part of the proposed development extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone,
the amount of GFA allowed on the site is much less than that allowed within the Tourist
Accommodation Zone. The overall scale of the development is approximately 57% of the
allowable GFA expected within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. The site cover for the
development as a whole is also very low, being about 22.15%, which includes all buildings and
the elevated tennis courts.

The total amount of plot ratio and site cover is significant in the circumstances, given it is being
suggested that the proposal is an over development of the site. The development results in
the protection of koala habitat towards the north with the majority of the development now
located outside of the Biodiversity Overlay designation (discussed below). Further, the
proposed Resort Complex makes use of the existing facilities and infrastructure, which is
practical and a logical response in the circumstances and has considerable planning merit.

Changes in more detail

The primary change is the removal of Pavilion 5, which significantly reduces the overall scale
of the development on an elevated part of the site towards the east. Further, removes the
portion of the development that was theoretically closer to the Noosa Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NWTP). Pavilion 1 is now the only building that is close to the 2.5 odour contour and is
ona lower part of the site having more separation from the NWTP (refer extract of the Zoning
Plan — Figure 1).

 

 

 

Figure 1 — Extract of Zoning Plan

1 Council officer assessment report, page 27

3|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 6

Section 7

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
 advice”




The open space area at the top of the site will be used for passive recreation as is the case for
the open space area towards the north as shown on the Landscape Concept Plan (refer extract
Figure 2).




Figure 2 – Extract of Landscape Concept Plan

The majority of the development is now outside of the Biodiversity Overlay area shown as a
dotted line on the Landscape Concept Plan (refer Figure 2). The proposed pathway and small
timber decks will be strategically placed to maintain the existing trees. There is no change to
the overflow parking area to the east, which is located within an existing cleared/disturbed
area of the site.




Figure 3 – Extract of 3D – View looking north

                                                                                      4|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
a

Adamson
Town Planning

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”

The open space area at the top of the site will be used for passive recreation as is the case for
the open space area towards the north as shown on the Landscape Concept Plan (refer extract
Figure 2).

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 - Extract of Landscape Concept Plan

The majority of the development is now outside of the Biodiversity Overlay area shown as a
dotted line on the Landscape Concept Plan (refer Figure 2). The proposed pathway and small
timber decks will be strategically placed to maintain the existing trees. There is no change to
the overflow parking area to the east, which is located within an existing cleared/disturbed
area of the site.

 

Figure 3 — Extract of 3D — View looking north

4|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”

Section 8

Section 9

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
 advice”




Given Pavilion 5 is removed, the applicant has sought to increase the number of rooms in a
minor way. This includes changing the one (1) presidential suite in Pavilion 1 to two (2) deluxe
suites. The changes being proposed to Pavilion 1 will not change the external appearance of
this building. Further, the enlargement of the southeastern tennis court will not change the
visual appearance of the built form.

There will be some change to the appearance of the built form in terms of the presentation to
Resort Drive with the removal of Pavilion 5. However, this will not result in a significant change
to the appearance of the development when considering the 3D-View – Looking North from
Resort Drive (Refer Figure 3).

The existing vegetation generally located towards the east is being retained and managed with
the location of pathways and timber deck to be strategically located amongst the trees. The
other changes being proposed including the reduced size of the pools will not be visible off
the site.

Technical Reports

The applicant has also requested the consultants provide updated advice to support the
changes being made. It is noted that further advice was not obtained from the traffic expert in
the circumstances, given the changes result in a substantial reduction in the number of rooms
(106 to 69, reduction of 37 rooms). Additional advice has been obtained from Colliers with
respect to waste management, which is discussed below.

Ecological Assessment

From an ecology perspective, Dr Watson has advised that the proposed changes will result in
a total area of 1182m² of the mapped “Areas of Biodiversity” that would be cleared under the
amended proposal plan (refer Attachment 3). This results in a reduced impact to the mapped
“Areas of Biodiversity” (i.e. 1182m²). Further, the percentage of the mapped Area of Biodiversity
that is affected by the development is being reduced from 26% to 19% (refer Figure 4).




Figure 4 – Extract of Biodiversity Overlay affecting the site.

                                                                                       5|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

Adamson
Town Planning

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”

Given Pavilion 5 is removed, the applicant has sought to increase the number of rooms in a
minor way. This includes changing the one (1) presidential suite in Pavilion 1 to two (2) deluxe
suites. The changes being proposed to Pavilion 1 will not change the external appearance of
this building. Further, the enlargement of the southeastern tennis court will not change the
visual appearance of the built form.

There will be some change to the appearance of the built form in terms of the presentation to
Resort Drive with the removal of Pavilion 5. However, this will not result in a significant change
to the appearance of the development when considering the 3D-View — Looking North from
Resort Drive (Refer Figure 3).

The existing vegetation generally located towards the east is being retained and managed with
the location of pathways and timber deck to be strategically located amongst the trees. The
other changes being proposed including the reduced size of the pools will not be visible off
the site.

Technical Reports

The applicant has also requested the consultants provide updated advice to support the
changes being made. It is noted that further advice was not obtained from the traffic expert in
the circumstances, given the changes result in a substantial reduction in the number of rooms
(106 to 69, reduction of 37 rooms). Additional advice has been obtained from Colliers with
respect to waste management, which is discussed below.

Ecological Assessment

From an ecology perspective, Dr Watson has advised that the proposed changes will result in
a total area of 1182m? of the mapped “Areas of Biodiversity” that would be cleared under the
amended proposal plan (refer Attachment 3). This results in a reduced impact to the mapped
“Areas of Biodiversity” (i.e. 1182m’). Further, the percentage of the mapped Area of Biodiversity
that is affected by the development is being reduced from 26% to 19% (refer Figure 4).

    

2S. sopconensry sronmcance overtay
[EG ~Covevexopwent Footer mpact

5|Page

16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 10

Section 11

    “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
    advice”




Importantly, Dr Watson has advised that 455m2 of the 1182m2 impacted area consists of low
impact pathways and decking. Further, these areas have little to no ecological impact as they
can be constructed to avoid any trees/features of value and provide access (including for
rehabilitation maintenance) to the open space area. This effectively means the “residual impact
to the mapped areas” is only 727m2 or 12%.

The amended proposal plan has reduced the interference with mapped “Areas of Biodiversity”.
The original proposal caused an impact to 1562m2 of mapped area while the amended
proposal causes a reduced impact to 1182m2 of the mapped area. Dr Watson has advised from
an ecological perspective the proposed changed plans are a positive ecological improvement2.

It is noted that Dr Watson has not changed his opinion about the vegetation under the
biodiversity overlay towards the east having little ecological value following further ground
truthing, nevertheless, concludes that there is a net environmental gain.

Bushfire Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan

The bushfire consultant Rob Friend and Associates has considered the proposed changes and
the updated Landscape Concept Design Package (refer Attachment 4). Mr Friend has
concluded that the development will occur primarily over land that is already cleared and
utilised for structures like tennis courts and landscaping.

The development is close to the top of the ridge abutting Resort Drive, which is in close
proximity to hazardous vegetation. The development contains structures that are at risk of
exposure to bushfire hazard from Girraween Nature Reserve to the east.

A minimum setback between any future habitable structures and the edge of potential
hazardous vegetation is 15.7 metres, which achieves a radiant heat flux of less than 29kW/m2
and as such has an acceptable level of risk as defined under the State Planning Policy, Natural
Hazards, Risk and Resilience3 (SPP). A number of recommendations have been made with
respect to landscaping, access, water supply and future planning. Importantly, an Emergency
Response Plan has been prepared for the development.

Given the above, the changed development proposal will maintain an acceptable and tolerable
level of risk consistent with the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code and the SPP.

Noise Impact Assessment

The applicant’s noise consultant Trinity Consultants has undertaken a further review of the
development including the proposed changes (refer Attachment 5). The project has



2
    Advice from Gondwana Ecology pages 5 & 6
3
    Bushfire Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan, page 18

                                                                                    6|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

Importantly, Dr Watson has advised that 455m? of the 1182m? impacted area consists of low
impact pathways and decking. Further, these areas have little to no ecological impact as they
can be constructed to avoid any trees/features of value and provide access (including for
rehabilitation maintenance) to the open space area. This effectively means the “residual impact
to the mapped areas” is only 727m? or 12%.

The amended proposal plan has reduced the interference with mapped “Areas of Biodiversity”.
The original proposal caused an impact to 1562m? of mapped area while the amended
proposal causes a reduced impact to 1182m? of the mapped area. Dr Watson has advised from
an ecological perspective the proposed changed plans are a positive ecological improvement’.

It is noted that Dr Watson has not changed his opinion about the vegetation under the
biodiversity overlay towards the east having little ecological value following further ground

truthing, nevertheless, concludes that there is a net environmental gain.

Bushfire Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan

 

The bushfire consultant Rob Friend and Associates has considered the proposed changes and
the updated Landscape Concept Design Package (refer Attachment 4). Mr Friend has
concluded that the development will occur primarily over land that is already cleared and
utilised for structures like tennis courts and landscaping.

The development is close to the top of the ridge abutting Resort Drive, which is in close
proximity to hazardous vegetation. The development contains structures that are at risk of
exposure to bushfire hazard from Girraween Nature Reserve to the east.

A minimum setback between any future habitable structures and the edge of potential
hazardous vegetation is 15.7 metres, which achieves a radiant heat flux of less than 29kW/m2
and as such has an acceptable level of risk as defined under the State Planning Policy, Natural
Hazards, Risk and Resilience? (SPP). A number of recommendations have been made with
respect to landscaping, access, water supply and future planning. Importantly, an Emergency
Response Plan has been prepared for the development.

Given the above, the changed development proposal will maintain an acceptable and tolerable
level of risk consistent with the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code and the SPP.

Noise Impact Assessment

The applicant's noise consultant Trinity Consultants has undertaken a further review of the
development including the proposed changes (refer Attachment 5). The project has

2 Advice from Gondwana Ecology pages 5 & 6
3 Bushfire Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan, page 18

6|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 12

Section 13

    “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
    advice”




undergone several design changes since the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was submitted
with the original application. The updated acoustic report considers the following:

•     Changes to the tennis court’s location; and
•     Changes to the carpark activity, loading dock and delivery/collection vehicle movement,
      including a further review of potential approaches to address the grease trap truck pump
      noise.

In terms of compliance, the NIA has concluded that:

•     Tennis Courts - While compliance with the daytime noise limit is achieved, exceedances
      are experienced at R2 and R3 during evening and nighttime. The following is proposed to
      achieve compliance throughout the day:
           o Maintain operations as proposed (4 tennis courts) during daytime (7am to 6pm).
           o Limits operations to two courts during the evening (6pm to 9pm).
           o No tennis court use during nighttime (9pm to 7am).
•     Pool - The pool was previously modelled as 1 point source at 1 pool location, with a SWL
      of 88 dBA. This has been changed as 4 point sources with a SWL of 81 dBA, scattered across
      all. Compliance is predicted at all receiver locations.
•     Deliveries - The majority of deliveries and waste collection activities are expected to occur
      at the existing clubhouse and hence there is no significant change to the noise impact.
      Deliveries and waste collection activities are suggested to be limited to daytime hours 7am
      to 6pm, which is currently the case.
•     Delivery / waste collection – The activity’s impact on the site is summarised as follows:
           o Delivery of linen by trucks to the proposed development is predicted to have no
              impact on the noise levels at R1, R2 and R3.
           o Collection of residual grease via a vacuum truck visiting the site once every 2
              months has the potential for adverse acoustic impacts on R1, with a predicted noise
              level of 65 dBA LAeq,15min. Given the infrequent nature of vacuum pump
              operations (15-30 minutes per month) a relaxed noise limit may be applied.
•     Clubhouse activities - The activities associated with proposed clubhouse layout changes
      generate low levels of noise relative to other noise sources on site. Additionally, the
      clubhouse is fully enclosed, which will heavily mitigate noise levels generated from the
      clubhouse. As such, proposed clubhouse changes are expected to be compliant with the
      noise limits.

The proposed development either complies with the relevant noise standards for the various
activities or can be conditioned to comply. The only area of non-compliance is the infrequent
nature of vacuum pump operations (15-30 minutes per month) for which a relaxed noise limit
may be applied.

In my opinion, the collection of waste by the vacuum pump once every 2 months for a period
of about 30 minutes during the day will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the


                                                                                        7|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

undergone several design changes since the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was submitted
with the original application. The updated acoustic report considers the following:

e Changes to the tennis court's location; and

e Changes to the carpark activity, loading dock and delivery/collection vehicle movement,
including a further review of potential approaches to address the grease trap truck pump
noise.

In terms of compliance, the NIA has concluded that:

e Tennis Courts - While compliance with the daytime noise limit is achieved, exceedances
are experienced at R2 and R3 during evening and nighttime. The following is proposed to
achieve compliance throughout the day:

o Maintain operations as proposed (4 tennis courts) during daytime (7am to 6pm).

o Limits operations to two courts during the evening (6pm to 9pm).

o No tennis court use during nighttime (99m to 7am).

e Pool - The pool was previously modelled as 1 point source at 1 pool location, with a SWL
of 88 dBA. This has been changed as 4 point sources with a SWL of 81 dBA, scattered across
all. Compliance is predicted at all receiver locations.

e Deliveries - The majority of deliveries and waste collection activities are expected to occur
at the existing clubhouse and hence there is no significant change to the noise impact.
Deliveries and waste collection activities are suggested to be limited to daytime hours 7am
to 6pm, which is currently the case.

e Delivery / waste collection - The activity’s impact on the site is summarised as follows:

o Delivery of linen by trucks to the proposed development is predicted to have no
impact on the noise levels at R1, R2 and R3.

o Collection of residual grease via a vacuum truck visiting the site once every 2
months has the potential for adverse acoustic impacts on R1, with a predicted noise
level of 65 dBA LAeq,15min. Given the infrequent nature of vacuum pump
operations (15-30 minutes per month) a relaxed noise limit may be applied.

e Clubhouse activities - The activities associated with proposed clubhouse layout changes
generate low levels of noise relative to other noise sources on site. Additionally, the
clubhouse is fully enclosed, which will heavily mitigate noise levels generated from the
clubhouse. As such, proposed clubhouse changes are expected to be compliant with the
noise limits.

The proposed development either complies with the relevant noise standards for the various
activities or can be conditioned to comply. The only area of non-compliance is the infrequent
nature of vacuum pump operations (15-30 minutes per month) for which a relaxed noise limit
may be applied.

In my opinion, the collection of waste by the vacuum pump once every 2 months for a period

of about 30 minutes during the day will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the

7|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 14

Section 15

    “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
    advice”




area. This is because the noise impact is infrequent and is for a limited duration during normal
business hours.

Odour Impact Assessment

The applicant’s odour consultant Katestone has undertaken a further review of the proposed
development having regard to the changes being made (refer Attachment 6). Katestone has
advised that the amendments to the hotel layout that are of interest in terms of the potential
impact from the NWTP include:

•      Removal of Pavilion 5;
•      Revised swimming pool layout; and
•      The addition of one tennis court and tennis courts moved to lower ground.

Katestone has reviewed the amended site plans in the context of the predicted odour contours
and has found that the tennis courts, swimming pool and cabana areas are further away from
the NWTP, therefore, the odour concentrations are lower than those predicted in the Revised
Odour Assessment. Under the previous layout, all hotel buildings were outside of the 2.5 OU
contour.

Under the amended layout, Pavilion 5 has been removed but all buildings remain outside of
the 2.5 OU contour. Overall, the findings of the Revised Odour Assessment remain unchanged,
that is, the proposed development is unlikely to result in an increase in odour nuisance risk to
the NWTP relative to existing approved residential dwellings in the surrounding area4.

Waste Management

Since the application was considered by the Council and staff, additional information has been
requested about the management of waste from the development. The applicant has engaged
Colliers to provide advice about the amount of waste generated and the management of same
having regard to the waste management for the existing Clubhouse operation. A copy of the
Operational Refuse Management advice is provided as Attachment 7.

It is noted that since the original application was made, which included advice by Vision
Hospitality, the number of rooms have been substantially reduced from 106 to 69.
Consequently, the amount of waste being generated by the Hotel is also substantially reduced.
The consultant has also considered the proposed changes to the Clubhouse, which will not
contribute to an increase in the amount of waste generated. Further, in the calculation of the
waste, a 100% occupancy is assumed for the Hotel operation, which is not reflective of the
actual refuse generation.

Colliers have considered the following:


4
    Refer letter from Katestone dated 20 February 2025

                                                                                     8|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

area. This is because the noise impact is infrequent and is for a limited duration during normal
business hours.

Odour Impact Assessment

The applicant's odour consultant Katestone has undertaken a further review of the proposed
development having regard to the changes being made (refer Attachment 6). Katestone has
advised that the amendments to the hotel layout that are of interest in terms of the potential
impact from the NWTP include:

e Removal of Pavilion 5;
e Revised swimming pool layout; and
e The addition of one tennis court and tennis courts moved to lower ground.

Katestone has reviewed the amended site plans in the context of the predicted odour contours
and has found that the tennis courts, swimming pool and cabana areas are further away from
the NWTP, therefore, the odour concentrations are lower than those predicted in the Revised
Odour Assessment. Under the previous layout, all hotel buildings were outside of the 2.5 OU
contour.

Under the amended layout, Pavilion 5 has been removed but all buildings remain outside of
the 2.5 OU contour. Overall, the findings of the Revised Odour Assessment remain unchanged,
that is, the proposed development is unlikely to result in an increase in odour nuisance risk to
the NWIP relative to existing approved residential dwellings in the surrounding area’.

Waste Management

Since the application was considered by the Council and staff, additional information has been
requested about the management of waste from the development. The applicant has engaged
Colliers to provide advice about the amount of waste generated and the management of same
having regard to the waste management for the existing Clubhouse operation. A copy of the
Operational Refuse Management advice is provided as Attachment 7.

It is noted that since the original application was made, which included advice by Vision
Hospitality, the number of rooms have been substantially reduced from 106 to 69.
Consequently, the amount of waste being generated by the Hotel is also substantially reduced.
The consultant has also considered the proposed changes to the Clubhouse, which will not
contribute to an increase in the amount of waste generated. Further, in the calculation of the
waste, a 100% occupancy is assumed for the Hotel operation, which is not reflective of the
actual refuse generation.

Colliers have considered the following:

4 Refer letter from Katestone dated 20 February 2025

8|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 16

Section 17

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
 advice”




    •   amount of waste generated by the proposed Hotel and the Clubhouse on a daily and
        accumulative weekly basis;
    •   the refuse equipment to be utilised for this purpose;
    •   refuse collections being from the same location as the existing clubhouse;
    •   the adequacy of the refuse storage and transfer from the Hotel using an electric tug;
        and
    •   the refuse disposal from the development as a whole.

In summary, the consultant has confirmed that the proposed refuse storage area for the new
hotel will accommodate all equipment required based on a conservatively high waste
generation estimate. The additional refuse generated poses no significant impact to the
existing collection strategy for the development, which will continue to service as per existing
site conditions. While there is an increase in the amount of waste being generated, the
frequency of waste collection will remain unchanged.

Minor Change

In order to be a “minor change”, the changed proposal must comply with the definition of a
minor change under the Planning Act 2016. In this case the key issue to be considered is
whether the proposal constitutes a substantially different development. It is noted that the
changes do not require referral to additional referral agencies.

While considered to be guide only, having regard to Schedule 1 of the Development
Assessment Rules, a change may be considered to result in a substantially different
development if any of parts (a) to (i) apply. The following comments are provided about parts
(a) to (i):

(a) The proposed changes does not involve a new use.
(b) The proposed changes does not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.
(c) The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form in terms of the scale,
    bulk and appearance. While the development will result in the deletion of Pavilion 5 this
    does not dramatically change the appearance of the built form when viewed off the site.
    This is because the development still presents as two (2) storeys to Resort Drive and is
    otherwise is not visible from the surrounding road network with the existing vegetation in
    this area now being retained (refer 3D View – Looking North from Resort Drive –
    Attachment 1).
(d) The changes will not affect the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended.
(e) The changes do not remove a component that was integral to the operation of the
    proposed development.
(f) The changes result in a significant reduction in the number of rooms with a similar amount
    of parking being provided and therefore will not cause any off site traffic impacts.
(g) The proposed changes will not introduce any new impacts or increase the severity of
    known impacts.


                                                                                     9|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

e¢ amount of waste generated by the proposed Hotel and the Clubhouse on a daily and
accumulative weekly basis;

e the refuse equipment to be utilised for this purpose;

e refuse collections being from the same location as the existing clubhouse;

e the adequacy of the refuse storage and transfer from the Hotel using an electric tug;
and

e the refuse disposal from the development as a whole.

In summary, the consultant has confirmed that the proposed refuse storage area for the new
hotel will accommodate all equipment required based on a conservatively high waste
generation estimate. The additional refuse generated poses no significant impact to the
existing collection strategy for the development, which will continue to service as per existing
site conditions. While there is an increase in the amount of waste being generated, the
frequency of waste collection will remain unchanged.

Minor Change

In order to be a “minor change”, the changed proposal must comply with the definition of a
minor change under the Planning Act 2016. In this case the key issue to be considered is
whether the proposal constitutes a substantially different development. It is noted that the
changes do not require referral to additional referral agencies.

While considered to be guide only, having regard to Schedule 1 of the Development
Assessment Rules, a change may be considered to result in a substantially different
development if any of parts (a) to (i) apply. The following comments are provided about parts
(a) to (i):

(a) The proposed changes does not involve a new use.

(b) The proposed changes does not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.

(c) The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form in terms of the scale,
bulk and appearance. While the development will result in the deletion of Pavilion 5 this
does not dramatically change the appearance of the built form when viewed off the site.
This is because the development still presents as two (2) storeys to Resort Drive and is
otherwise is not visible from the surrounding road network with the existing vegetation in
this area now being retained (refer 3D View - Looking North from Resort Drive -
Attachment 1).

(d) The changes will not affect the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended.

(e) The changes do not remove a component that was integral to the operation of the
proposed development.

(f) The changes result in a significant reduction in the number of rooms with a similar amount
of parking being provided and therefore will not cause any off site traffic impacts.

(g) The proposed changes will not introduce any new impacts or increase the severity of
known impacts.

9|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 18

Section 19

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
 advice”




(h) The proposed changes do not remove an incentive or offset component that would have
    balanced a negative impact of the development. While the proposed development does
    not result in the removal of any koala habitat, the applicant is choosing to improve the
    local habitat by undertaking additional planning within the adjoining golf course, including
    planting 120 koala feed trees and 25 casuarina trees, these being feed trees for the Black
    Cockatoo. This remains the case despite substantially reducing the amount of development
    extending into the Biodiversity Overlay (discussed above).
(i) The proposed changes result in a reduction in the number of rooms from 106 to 69, which
    will reduce the level of impact on existing infrastructure, including servicing and the traffic
    generated. Further, there is a lower demand for parking, but the same parking numbers
    are being maintained.

Having regard to the above, the proposed minor change is not a substantially different
development. Further, is not likely to cause a reasonable person to make a submission on
planning grounds. Further, meets the definition of a minor change under the Planning Act
2016.

Summary

The proposed changes have been made by the applicant in response to concerns expressed
by councillors and the community after further consultation. This is despite Council staff and
the expert consultants agreeing that the proposed development would not cause any adverse
impacts off the site or have any town planning consequences, and should be approved subject
to conditions as recommended.

The development is not an overdevelopment of the site having a plot ratio and site cover much
less than that expected within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. While the development
extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone and across the urban boundary, there are
a number of constraints and relevant matters to be considered, which warrant approval of the
proposal.

It is self-evident that the proposed visitor accommodation could not be provided wholly within
the Tourist Accommodation Zone, given the location of the existing facilities. The proposed
Hotel with accommodation along with these existing facilities, including the 18 hole
championship golf course, collectively form part of the integrated Resort Complex.

There will be considerable economic and community benefit that will result during
construction and with the operation of the development as a luxury resort in the long term.
Further, there will be no adverse amenity impacts or town planning consequences that would
result from the proposed development.

In my opinion, there is a planning need for the development given the limited number of sites
available for tourist accommodation within the Noosa area. Further, the development is well
located within Noosa Heads and will result in the increased use of the existing resort facilities,

                                                                                      10 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

(h) The proposed changes do not remove an incentive or offset component that would have
balanced a negative impact of the development. While the proposed development does
not result in the removal of any koala habitat, the applicant is choosing to improve the
local habitat by undertaking additional planning within the adjoining golf course, including
planting 120 koala feed trees and 25 casuarina trees, these being feed trees for the Black
Cockatoo. This remains the case despite substantially reducing the amount of development
extending into the Biodiversity Overlay (discussed above).

(i) The proposed changes result in a reduction in the number of rooms from 106 to 69, which
will reduce the level of impact on existing infrastructure, including servicing and the traffic
generated. Further, there is a lower demand for parking, but the same parking numbers
are being maintained.

Having regard to the above, the proposed minor change is not a substantially different
development. Further, is not likely to cause a reasonable person to make a submission on
planning grounds. Further, meets the definition of a minor change under the Planning Act
2016.

Summary

The proposed changes have been made by the applicant in response to concerns expressed
by councillors and the community after further consultation. This is despite Council staff and
the expert consultants agreeing that the proposed development would not cause any adverse
impacts off the site or have any town planning consequences, and should be approved subject
to conditions as recommended.

The development is not an overdevelopment of the site having a plot ratio and site cover much
less than that expected within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. While the development
extends into the Recreation and Open Space Zone and across the urban boundary, there are
a number of constraints and relevant matters to be considered, which warrant approval of the
proposal.

It is self-evident that the proposed visitor accommodation could not be provided wholly within
the Tourist Accommodation Zone, given the location of the existing facilities. The proposed
Hotel with accommodation along with these existing facilities, including the 18 hole
championship golf course, collectively form part of the integrated Resort Complex.

There will be considerable economic and community benefit that will result during
construction and with the operation of the development as a luxury resort in the long term.
Further, there will be no adverse amenity impacts or town planning consequences that would
result from the proposed development.

In my opinion, there is a planning need for the development given the limited number of sites
available for tourist accommodation within the Noosa area. Further, the development is well
located within Noosa Heads and will result in the increased use of the existing resort facilities,

10|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”

Section 20

Section 21

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
 advice”




including the 18-hole championship golf course and other infrastructure. There is a
demonstrated need for additional luxury visitor accommodation within the Noosa area, given
the economic advice previously provided.

The applicant is also very concerned that further deputations have been made by Unitywater
and other persons at the Ordinary Meeting on 19 December 2024. The applicant was not
advised about these further deputations, which is unusual, and was not given the opportunity
to make another deputation in response.

The applicant is very concerned that deputations have been made by persons and an entity
that has no standing with the assessment of the application, which is contrary to an assessment
under the Planning Act 2016. No technical advice has been provided to support the adverse
claims made about the proposal, in particular by Unitywater. Both Council’s and the applicant’s
odour experts agree the development is acceptable from a reverse amenity perspective.

Deputations have now been made by others on multiple occasions, with the issues raised not
being substantiated in any way and therefore are potentially misleading. For example, one of
the recent deputations was made on behalf of the Noosa Springs Tennis Club, yet the applicant
has confirmed that there is no entity known as the Noosa Springs Tennis Club that operates
from the site, which is privately owned.

Please advise if further information is required or if Council has any concerns about the
proposal.

Yours faithfully




Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA, MQELA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director - Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd




                                                                                   11 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”


[OCR of page images]
y
v

“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning

, Adamson
advice

Town Planning

including the 18-hole championship golf course and other infrastructure. There is a
demonstrated need for additional luxury visitor accommodation within the Noosa area, given
the economic advice previously provided.

The applicant is also very concerned that further deputations have been made by Unitywater
and other persons at the Ordinary Meeting on 19 December 2024. The applicant was not
advised about these further deputations, which is unusual, and was not given the opportunity
to make another deputation in response.

The applicant is very concerned that deputations have been made by persons and an entity
that has no standing with the assessment of the application, which is contrary to an assessment
under the Planning Act 2016. No technical advice has been provided to support the adverse
claims made about the proposal, in particular by Unitywater. Both Council's and the applicant's
odour experts agree the development is acceptable from a reverse amenity perspective.

Deputations have now been made by others on multiple occasions, with the issues raised not
being substantiated in any way and therefore are potentially misleading. For example, one of
the recent deputations was made on behalf of the Noosa Springs Tennis Club, yet the applicant
has confirmed that there is no entity known as the Noosa Springs Tennis Club that operates
from the site, which is privately owned.

Please advise if further information is required or if Council has any concerns about the
proposal.

Yours faithfully

Ae

Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA, MQELA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director - Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd

11|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”