Original source · versioned page text
MCU22/0118 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 94 & 142 NOOSA DR, NOOSA HEADS (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 7 November 2023 - Item 5.1) · ATTACHMENT 1 – OFFICER’S REPORT
Very large file (13.9 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
ATTACHMENT 1 – OFFICER’S REPORT REPORT 1. PROPOSAL This application seeks approval for a Material Change of Use for Short-Term Accommodation at 94 & 142 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads (refer to Figure 1). The proposed development is an extension to the existing RACV Noosa Resort, comprising of 15 self-contained dwelling units, a new lagoon pool within the existing resort complex, additional car parking and alterations to access arrangements. Specifically, the proposal includes: • Eight (8) separate buildings comprising fifteen (15) two (2) storey dwelling units, with cabin 1 containing three (3) bedrooms and cabins 2 – 15 containing two (2) bedrooms. • eighteen (18) additional carparks. • all buildings are elevated structures, the applicant has advised the locations of the cabins have been determined by the arborist, ecologist and koala expert in consultation with one another. • the buildings are each connected by an elevated timber boardwalk, with all access in and around Lot 3 being via the elevated boardwalk (ie no access to the natural ground level by guests, staff, services etc). • removal of a minimum of 71 (up to 82, pending an arborist review during construction) native trees (of 242 native trees surveyed on site), with a minimum of 27 (up to 33, pending an arborist review during construction) being koala trees. The development is proposed to be located primarily over Lot 3 (142 Noosa Drive), with cabins 2 – 15 being located wholly within Lot 3, whilst cabin 1 and the proposed parking partly extending into the existing RACV Noosa Resort on Lot 203 (94 Noosa Drive) (refer to Figure 2). Lot 0, while forming part of the existing resort development and the subject land as a whole, will not be impacted by the proposal. It is proposed that access to the associated car parking area be from Noosa Drive via the existing access driveway. Whilst access to Lot 3 is currently obtained over Lot 203 via an access easement, the applicant is proposing to amalgamate Lot 3 and Lot 203 as part of this development and therefore negate the requirement for access easements over Lot 203. The following images detail the subject site, zoning, proposed cabin designs and tree clearing plan. Figure 1 – Locality Page 1 of 38
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.
Full text of the other 37 pages
Page 2
Figure 2 – Site Aerial (red = 94 Noosa Dr (Lot 203), yellow = 142 Noosa Dr (Lot 3))
Page 2 of 38
." a ‘ eee ’ a fo pen . ae eS es t Ry eS a eo ‘ates rs 5 - le, ee eh ee 2 a , = é se yA, oer: “4 Ae. a ne bs! a ce / mS a hs ee pees: RY a oa cee a ¥ _" q re Mier, a 7 — j ~ — i a Bt 7 2 oe Es °c) ae, +e
5 1 1 1 13 2 1245 1422 4 9 41 .
5 1 1 1 13 3 1951 1401 30 17 36 ir
4 1 1 1 14 0 618 1444 1557 207 -1
5 1 1 1 14 1 618 1444 109 207 56 A
5 1 1 1 14 2 823 1533 74 58 35 Aa
5 1 1 1 14 3 923 1520 93 67 4 im
5 1 1 1 14 4 1041 1511 123 102 18 =)
5 1 1 1 14 5 1579 1495 131 97 22 onde
5 1 1 1 14 6 1761 1549 8 9 12 :
5 1 1 1 14 7 1799 1524 59 59 17 e*
5 1 1 1 14 8 1871 1456 148 161 12 ea
5 1 1 1 14 9 2048 1554 17 29 47 *
5 1 1 1 14 10 2103 1515 72 68 27 ae
4 1 1 1 15 0 819 1609 1335 118 -1
5 1 1 1 15 1 819 1621 83 72 54 a
5 1 1 1 15 2 1016 1664 38 21 61 ~
5 1 1 1 15 3 1084 1617 108 89 9 bl
5 1 1 1 15 4 1571 1613 113 79 18 ae
5 1 1 1 15 5 1729 1630 61 80 9 eo
5 1 1 1 15 6 1820 1609 173 118 18 Pas
5 1 1 1 15 7 2027 1609 89 97 32 a
5 1 1 1 15 8 2133 1638 21 30 82 A
4 1 1 1 16 0 530 1697 1544 106 -1
5 1 1 1 16 1 530 1774 8 8 0 '
5 1 1 1 16 2 800 1697 43 89 46 a
5 1 1 1 16 3 915 1782 4 4 74 F
5 1 1 1 16 4 1041 1710 105 85 7 ca
5 1 1 1 16 5 1498 1757 38 21 5 eh
5 1 1 1 16 6 1816 1706 135 68 14 Pl
5 1 1 1 16 7 1964 1698 110 105 38 at.
4 1 1 1 17 0 504 1765 1663 97 -1
5 1 1 1 17 1 504 1803 17 13 35 ‘
5 1 1 1 17 2 695 1803 12 26 14 \
5 1 1 1 17 3 800 1786 43 55 12 a
5 1 1 1 17 4 936 1765 42 85 30 Fa
5 1 1 1 17 5 1735 1782 246 68 35 iy)
4 1 1 1 18 0 965 1896 1138 102 -1
5 1 1 1 18 1 830 1909 68 68 0 a.
5 1 1 1 18 2 965 1909 119 89 65 |
5 1 1 1 18 3 1448 1934 101 60 32 Pipe
5 1 1 1 18 4 1909 1896 106 102 34 fae
4 1 1 1 19 0 838 1968 1333 123 -1
5 1 1 1 19 1 838 1977 47 93 43 ft
5 1 1 1 19 2 898 1968 127 123 20 ‘@
5 1 1 1 19 3 1422 1972 58 98 9 a
5 1 1 1 19 4 1507 1972 46 30 11 _
5 1 1 1 19 5 1617 2044 29 17 0 .
5 1 1 1 19 6 1685 1977 33 80 20 Z
5 1 1 1 19 7 1756 1985 85 102 51 ad
5 1 1 1 19 8 1875 1981 168 89 3 a
5 1 1 1 19 9 2158 1977 13 21 0 j
4 1 1 1 20 0 585 2040 1569 165 -1
5 1 1 1 20 1 585 2082 25 55 0 .
5 1 1 1 20 2 631 2040 76 161 0 &
5 1 1 1 20 3 728 2099 47 106 0 j ry he ee FY ty rs ak ge hy i - iS bn & o , i a . i een 3 i a 2 ae ek a Glory Ai A 2S | ' ri een . be y my - Bs teoln=? es . , wes P 4 f 4 ri irr af Tl ri Po] i i wasn ~ ; oo ane me: ’ Be BskPHEss | } we oy : lh. 0 a oe ake Pt = a = Ae el r a ara Figure 2 — Site Aerial (red = 94 Noosa Dr (Lot 203), yellow = 142 Noosa Dr (Lot 3)) Page 2 of 38Page 3
Figure 3 – Site Plan (common boundary shown red dashed)
Figure 4– Renders of proposed cabins
Page 3 of 38
Page 4
Figure 5 – Tree Clearing Proposal Plan Excerpts (northern site – refer to Attachment 3 for higher resolution)
Page 4 of 38
Page 5
Figure 6 & 7 – Tree Clearing Proposal Plan Excerpts (central, southern site – refer to Attachment 3 for higher
resolution)
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
Applications and Approvals relating to existing vacant lot (Lot 3)
App No. Details
Page 5 of 38
Page 6
132006.1395 An application for a multiple dwelling development was received by Council
on 7 July 2006 requesting that Council assess the application against the
Superseded Planning Scheme. Council agreed to this request as it was
considered to be largely consistent with The Noosa Plan 2006 at the time. A
Preliminary Approval for a Material Change of Use Multiple Dwellings (10
Units) was approved on 24 January 2008. A Negotiated Decision Notice for
a Development Permit was issued on 15 May 2008.
132006.1395.02 A change to the approval was issued on 14 July 2008 which changed
conditions relating to land identified as open space.
132006.1395.03 An Extension to the Relevant Period was refused on 4 April 2012. The
applicant subsequently appealed the refusal. A Judgement was issued by the
Planning & Environment Court on 5 July 2013 allowing the appeal and
extending the Relevant Period until 15 May 2016.
132006.1395.04 A request to Extend the Relevant Period was lodged by the applicant on 22
December 2015. The request was refused on 19 July 2018. On 20 August
2018 Council was notified that the applicant had lodged an appeal to the
Planning and Environment Court seeking the Court extend the currency
period.
On 12 August 2019 the below minor change application was received
(132006.1395.05). The court proceedings were paused until the assessment
of this application was finalised, which was required by 20 March 2020 by the
Court. The below minor change application was refused on 19 March 2020,
and the appeal to the Planning and Environment Court seeking the Court
extend the currency period was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. As
such, this approval has lapsed.
132006.1395.05 A minor change to an existing approval for Material Change of Use – Multiple
Dwelling (10 Units) was refused on 19 March 2020.
The minor change application sought approval to change the existing
development approval to address the issues raised by Council’s decision to
refuse to extend the currency period of the approval (132006.1395.04 –
discussed above).
The applicant submitted revised plans of development and supporting reports
in respect of koala habitat, bushfire and stormwater. The revised site plan
resulted in the location of the structures and roads being adjusted slightly
from the existing approved layout, with the applicant’s primary intent being to
retain additional koala trees compared to the original layout (refer to Figure
8).
Page 6 of 38
Page 7
Figure 8 - Proposal Plan for 132006.1395.05
The minor change was refused on various planning grounds under Noosa
Plan 2006, including:
• The proposal was contrary to the Planning Regulation 2017, as the
development was situated in a koala assessable development area and
did not provide for habitat connectivity or safe koala movement.
• The proposal was inconsistent with biodiversity assessment benchmarks
of the State Planning Policy, as the development would have adverse
impact upon koala habitat and linkages.
• The proposal was inconsistent with water quality assessment
benchmarks of the State Planning Policy, as the development did not
adequately demonstrate that water quality objectives could be achieved.
• The proposed development would adversely impact upon the site’s
ecological values, including koala habitat and linkage for koala movement
throughout the site, contrary to the Biodiversity Overlay Code.
• The proposed development was inconsistent with the Noosa Heads
Locality Code as the proposal would adversely impact on the site’s
environmental values.
• The proposed Bushfire Management Plan proposed vegetation removal
and management within a part of the site which was zoned Open Space
Conservation, which was intended to be protected and managed to the
exclusion of development under Noosa Plan 2006.
• The development was contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code, as
bushfire mitigation measures did not avoid or minimise impacts on the
natural environment and ecological processes.
• The proposed development was contrary to the Water Sensitive Design
Code, as modelling for stormwater treatment did not included all relevant
run-off areas.
• Insufficient detail was not provided to demonstrate the extent and
potential impact of the proposed height variation for the dwelling units.
• The proposed development was contrary to the draft Noosa Plan
provisions (ie the current Noosa Plan 2020 provisions), which reinforced
the Noosa Plan 2006 requirements for an appropriate response to the
site’s natural hazards and protection of the site’s environmental values,
including vegetation retention.
Applications and Approvals relating to existing RACV Noosa Resort (Lot 203)
Page 7 of 38
Page 8
App No. Details
51993.1590 The existing development is subject to a Court Order granted by the Planning
& Environment Court on 10 November 1999 for Town Planning Consent
Permit (TPC 2645). The approval was issued pursuant to an Order given on
10 August 1999 and approved 149 units, subject to conditions.
The development approval was subsequently amended on two (2) occasions
by the Planning and Environment Court on 11 July 2007 (51993.1590.02)
and 19 March 2010 (51993.1590.03). Ultimately, the maximum number of
units approved was 149, some of which were dual key.
51993.1590.04 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 14 December 2011 which
acknowledged that the alterations and additions to the central facilities area
was generally in accordance with the existing approval.
51993.1590.05 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 28 December 2012 which
acknowledged that the addition of a timber deck to the existing pool area was
generally in accordance with the existing approval.
51993.1590.06 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 26 July 2013 which
acknowledged that an extension of the previously approved timber deck to
the existing pool area was generally in accordance with the existing approval.
51993.1590.07 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 13 March 2015 which
acknowledged that a 250m2 extension to the existing kitchen and
reconfiguration of carparking was generally in accordance with the existing
approval.
51993.1590.08 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 23 August 2018 which
acknowledged that the proposal to roof a portion of the outdoor pool terrace
and the bar / pizza terrace and to enclose and roof the existing 70m²
restaurant breakout area was generally in accordance with the existing
approval
51993.1590.09 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 8 October 2018 which
acknowledged that the proposal to enclose and roof 124m² of existing
grassed areas to be used as break out area for the existing function rooms
was generally in accordance with the existing approval.
51993.1590.10 A generally in accordance letter was issued on 3 April 2019 which
acknowledged that alterations and additions to the central facilities of the
resort, including a new 2 storey wing to the central facilities, a change of roof
form to the previously approved roof and outdoor use areas near the
swimming pool, a small quantity of additional landscaping and shutters to the
outdoor eating area of the pizza restaurant were generally in accordance with
the existing approval.
2.2. Site Description
The subject site is over two lots, being 94 & 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. 94 Noosa Drive (Lot
203 and Lot 0) contains the existing RACV Noosa Resort, comprising of 149 multiple dwelling units
and resort facilities.
142 Noosa Drive (Lot 3) is currently vacant and contains significant vegetation and a small wetland
area towards the northwest corner of the site. Lot 3 is generally triangular in shape, comprises
5453m2 in area and has frontage to Noosa Drive. The western boundary of the site is adjacent to
Weyba Creek. The site has a north-westerly aspect, with a gradual slope towards the west,
adjacent to Weyba Creek.
Both lots have split zoning, with a majority of the sites, being zoned Tourist Accommodation, whilst
the eastern boundary of Lot 203 and the western boundary of Lot 3 are zoned Environmental
Page 8 of 38
Page 9
Management and Conservation. The Environmental Management and Conservation zoning on Lot
203 incorporates an area of treed open space fronting Noosa Drive along the length of the existing
resort, which has width of about 10m. The Environmental Management and Conservation zoning
on Lot 3 correlates with the mapped riparian buffer area under the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay and is situated directly adjacent to the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries identifies Weyba Creek as a ‘Fish Habitat
Management Area A’. The site is also identified as including “essential habitat” by the State
Regional Ecosystem mapping as it potentially supports species that are endangered, vulnerable,
threatened or rare (the Nature Conservation Act 1992) which are known to utilise this habitat
including koalas and acid frogs.
The following image details the split zoning applicable to the site.
Page 9 of 38
Page 10
Figures 9 & 10 – Zone Mapping
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
North: Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve and developed Low Density Residential zoned land.
South: Road reserve and Noosa Drive
East: Road reserve and Noosa Drive with developed Low Density Residential zoned land beyond.
West: Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
• State Planning Policy;
• South East Queensland Regional Plan;
• Planning Regulation 2017;
• Noosa Plan 2020.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) has been integrated in the Noosa Plan 2020, though
the state’s policies for Natural hazards, risk and resilience - coastal hazards have only been
integrated in part. The proposal is within the mapped coastal management district, however, is not
mapped as erosion prone area, and as such, assessment against the State Planning Policy is not
required, with Natural hazards, risk and resilience – coastal hazards assessment benchmarks not
applicable to this application.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
Page 10 of 38
Page 11
The site is located within the Urban Footprint of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is consistent
with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmarks from the Planning Regulation 2017 apply to the application:
• Koala Habitat Area
The whole of vacant Lot 3 is mapped by the state as a Core Koala Habitat Area, as well as the
frontage along the existing RACV Resort (Lot 203) as shown in Figure 11 below. Where
development interferes with koala habitat within a mapped Core Koala Habitat Area, referral is
required to the state (SARA) and assessment undertaken against the State Code 25: Development
in South East Queensland Koala Habitat areas. Refer to Biodiversity assessment later in this report
for further details.
Figure 11 - Core Koala Habitat Area
The application was referred to SARA, who issued an approval, subject to conditions. Conditions
included (but not limited to) limiting the number of koala trees to be removed to 33 non-juvenile
koala habitat trees, as identified on the Tree Removal plan. Additionally, a condition requiring all
areas outside of the building footprint (including the elevated boardwalks) are to be protected by
an environmental covenant (refer to Figure 12).
Page 11 of 38
Page 12
Figure 12 - SARA approved plan
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The subject site is located in Noosa Heads, with 94 & 142 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads being a split
zoned Tourist Accommodation and Environmental Management and Conservation (EM&C). The
proposed short-term accommodation is identified as a consistent use in the Tourist
Accommodation zone and an inconsistent use within the EM&C zone. The application is required
to follow an impact assessable process and therefore must be assessed against the whole of
Noosa Plan 2020, to the extent the provisions are relevant to the development.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
The Strategic Framework sets the policy direction for the planning scheme and forms the basis for
ensuring appropriate development occurs in the planning scheme area for the life of the planning
scheme. The Strategic Intent in the Strategic Framework includes the following statements:
3.2 Strategic Intent
3.2.2 A well managed and sustainable Noosa Shire
This planning scheme seeks to maintain Council's long standing commitment to a
sustainable population and well managed growth through firm Urban Boundaries,
development densities and building heights. Unrestrained and unplanned development is
resisted in Noosa Shire. Any unanticipated development requires demonstration of a high
level of community need.
3.2.5 Noosa's natural environment
A network of habitat areas and linkages provide ecological connectivity from a wide cross
section of ecosystem types and altitudinal ranges. These connecting habitat areas are shown
on Strategic Framework Map SFM-4 - Biodiversity. A diverse network of wetlands is also
present, of good ecological condition and encompassing over 16,000 hectares. This
interconnected biodiversity network has strong adaptive capacity to endure the impacts of
climate change and other emerging challenges because of the size and connectedness of
protected areas and remnant vegetation. Management actions and land use planning
Page 12 of 38
Page 13
decisions are focused on strengthening and building linkages to facilitate ecosystem diversity
and movement both within and beyond Noosa Shire.
3.3 Strategic Outcomes
3.3.1 Settlement
The strategic outcomes for settlement by 2041 are:
(b) Urban development is consolidated and confined to urban areas within Urban
Boundaries. These boundaries are defined to maintain the distinct character of
individual communities; avoid biophysical constraints and natural hazards; protect
environmental values and landscape features; protect natural resources and quality
farming land; and plan for the effective and efficient delivery of infrastructure and
services. The boundaries also reflect the outcomes of detailed local investigations.
3.3.4 Biodiversity and Environment
The strategic outcomes for biodiversity and environment by 2041 are:
(b) The natural environment is protected and enhanced to maintain and improve
biodiversity, ecological processes, native habitat, connectivity, native species health,
landscape character and scenic amenity.
(p) Adverse impacts from development on biodiversity, ecosystem health, ecological
processes, soil, air and water quality are avoided. Where avoidance is not practicable,
adverse impacts are minimised or mitigated and it is demonstrated that:
(i) on the balance of social, economic and environmental considerations, the
development is in the interests of the community; and
(ii) any adverse impacts incurred are compensated by suitable habitat replacement
and replanting on site in the first instance or in a way that results in a net gain
and enhancement of the overall habitat values of the Noosa Shire.
The subject site is mapped under the Strategic Framework Settlement Map as Urban Area and
Major Conservation Area, with the Major Conservation Area located outside of the Urban Boundary
(see Figure 13). The proposal includes development outside of the Urban Boundary, within the
Major Conservation Area and therefore does not comply with 3.2.2 and 3.3.1(b) of the Strategic
Framework.
Figure 13 - Strategic Framework Settlement Map
The subject site is mapped under the Strategic Framework Biodiversity Map as a Connecting
Habitat Area (see Figure 14). The proposal includes the removal of native vegetation, including
koala feed trees, within the mapped Connecting Habitat Area.
Page 13 of 38
Page 14
Figure 14 -Strategic Framework Biodiversity Map
The subject site forms part of a large contiguous patch of Threatened Ecological Communities
(TEC) that connects to Regional Ecosystem 12.3.4, an expansion of this TEC, which extends to
the north of the site. The development of this site fragments this TEC and as a result of the
developments footprint and bushfire requirements, modifies the regional ecosystem / TEC and
diminishes the ecological significance.
BIODIVERSITY, WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS OVERLAY & KOALA HABITAT AREA
The subject site is mapped as containing Areas of Biodiversity Significance, MSES Environmental
Values and Riparian Buffer Area under the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay (refer
to Figure 15 - 17). In addition, the site is mapped by the State Government as Core Koala Habitat
(refer to Figure 18).
Page 14 of 38
Page 15
Figure 15, 16 & 17 – Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Mapping
Figure 18 – Core Koala Habitat Area
The purpose of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands overlay code is to ‘protect, rehabilitate
and enhance ecologically important areas and improve connectivity and ecological linkages across
Noosa Shire. The overall outcomes sought for the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands overlay
code that are relevant to the proposal are as follows:
(a) The natural resources and ecosystem values of Noosa Shire are protected and
enhanced including ecologically important areas and land and environmental values of
scenic, aesthetic, cultural, educational, recreational, scientific, economic and social
value.
(b) Development is designed, sited, constructed and operated in a way that avoids adverse
impacts on ecologically important areas, ecological systems and processes.
(c) Development design and layout provides for ecological connectivity across the
landscape through the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of native vegetation
and ecological linkages.
Page 15 of 38
Page 16
(d) Ecological linkages and riparian vegetation are conserved, managed, enhanced and
rehabilitated to protect and improve biodiversity, ecosystem health, landscape stability
and resilience.
(e) Development design and layout provides for the protection and establishment of
appropriate buffers to waterways, wetlands, native vegetation and significant fauna
habitat.
(f) The terrestrial and aquatic native flora and fauna and their habitats are protected and
enhanced.
(g) Development and its associated landscaping provides for the rehabilitation of
ecologically important areas, degraded ecosystems and habitats to achieve a
functional and healthy ecosystem state that requires minimal human intervention.
(h) Development is designed, sited, constructed and operated to avoid or minimise
adverse impacts on koalas and their habitat and to provide for connectivity and safety
for the long term viability of the koala population.
(i) In urban areas, biodiversity values are protected and enhanced to assist with
ecosystem health, flora and fauna, urban amenity and quality of life.
As part of the application material, the applicant has provided an Ecology Report and Koala Impact
Assessment addressing the environmental requirements under Noosa Plan 2020, and has
provided the following comments in relation to the Biodiversity, waterway and wetlands overlay
code:
‘…it is considered the proposed development meets the overall outcomes of the Biodiversity,
waterway and wetlands overlay code for the following reasons:
• the development seeks to protect and enhance ecological important areas by removing
the invasive weed species, protecting koala habitat, and managing the site as an ongoing
concern (a);
• the development has been designed, sited and will be constructed and operated in a way
that minimises adverse impacts of ecological important areas (b);
• the development’s design and layout provides for connectivity across the landscape
through protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of native vegetation (c);
• the development will maintain the ecological linkage through the site and significant koala
habitat (d); and
• the development and its associated landscaping will provide for the rehabilitation of this
ecological important area (g).
While the subject land is heavily degraded and lacking a native under (and mid) storey, the
land supports ecological values in so far as native canopy trees exist (albeit are infested with
the vine) and the land is adjacent to an open space area. Further, the proposed low-impact
eco-style development achieves an acceptable balance by integrating the villas with the
ecological values of the landscape. The project also has the ability to enhance the local (and
surrounding) ecological values, would not compromise the intent or relevant assessment
benchmarks of the Noosa Plan and could be approved with reasonable and relevant
conditions. Where necessary and relevant, offsets could be applied as a condition of
approval.
The applicant also advised that a range of mitigation measures can be implemented during and
post development that will reduce environmental impacts and improve ecological values.
The following assessment outlines non-compliance with the above overall outcomes sought for the
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code.
Ecology and Vegetation Clearing
The subject site is mapped as containing Areas of Biodiversity Significance and MSES
Environmental Values under the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay.
The development layout has a disturbance footprint of approximately 1797m². The application
material indicates post development will include the rehabilitation and revegetation of the site in
amongst the cabins, equating to approximately 3043m2. It is noted that under the State government
approval, the entirety of the undeveloped area (ie anything outside the building and walkway
footprint) would be required to be protected via a vegetation protection covenant.
Page 16 of 38
Page 17
The proposal plans indicate that there are 242 surveyed native trees on the site, with the following
works proposed:
• 160 to be retained
• 71 to be removed
• 11 proposed to be retained, pending an arborist review during construction
Of the trees surveyed on site, 150 are by the State definition as ‘koala trees’, with:
• 117 to be retained
• 27 to be removed
• 6 proposed to be retained pending arborist review during construction
The following Acceptable and Performance Outcomes of the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay Code are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO1 AO1.1
Development is sited and designed to protect Ecologically important areas are conserved or
the physical and ecological integrity and improved to ensure their ongoing contribution
biodiversity of ecologically important areas to the natural resources and biological diversity
through protection of: of Noosa Shire.
(a) existing habitat areas and ecological
AND
linkages; and
(b) existing riparian vegetation, waterways and AO1.2
wetland habitat values.
Buildings, structures and associated works are
located within existing cleared areas or areas
of lowest ecological value.
PO3 AO3.1
Development is designed and sited to manage Where clearing of vegetation cannot be
adverse impacts on ecologically important practicably avoided, the development:
areas by:
(a) ensures the design and siting limits the loss
(a) minimising the total footprint within which of vegetation to the smallest extent
all activities, buildings, structures possible;
driveways and other works are contained; (b) protects and retains ecological values and
(b) locating development in existing cleared ecosystem processes to the greatest
areas or areas of low ecological value over extent possible within and adjacent to the
other areas to the greatest extent possible; site;
and (c) provides measures to allow for safe
(c) incorporating siting and design measures movement of fauna through the site; and
to protect and retain ecological values and (d) provides suitable habitat replacement and
ecosystem processes within or adjacent to replanting in accordance with PSP3
the development site; and Ecological Assessment Guidelines.
(d) where adverse impacts have been
AO3.2
minimised, any residual impacts on
ecological values are compensated for Habitat trees, recruitment habitat trees, and
through suitable habitat replacement and roosting, breeding and feeding areas are
replanting on site in the first instance or in protected for native fauna habitat.
a way that results in a net gain and
enhancement of the overall habitat values
of Noosa Shire.
Assessment
Page 17 of 38
Page 18
Council’s Senior Environment Officer has reviewed the application material and noted that the
development does not maintain or enhance connectivity in the north south direction. The
development layout reduces the width of the current ecological linkage and proposes
development within the linkage that will result in increased interaction between koalas, humans
and built infrastructure.
The submitted application material does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate
compliance with Performance Outcome PO1 and PO3 of the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay Code. The development requires the removal of vegetation identified within a
mapped riparian buffer area, area of biodiversity significance, core koala habitat, connecting
habitat area, MSES high ecological significance wetland, MSES declared high ecological value
waters and Regional Ecosystem 12.2.7. The development application material has not
sufficiently demonstrated ecologically important areas are conserved or improved to ensure their
ongoing contribution to the natural resources and biological diversity of Noosa Shire, or that the
development will protect existing habitat areas, ecological linkages riparian vegetation or
wetland habitat. The development layout has not been designed or sited to manage adverse
impacts on ecologically important areas, as the sites habitat trees, recruitment habitat trees,
roosting, breeding and feeding areas are proposed to be cleared to accommodate the
development.
The ecological values of the site are being compromised and the ecological values of the sites
ecosystem diminished due to the impacts of vegetation clearing and construction of the
development within a mapped core koala habitat area and connecting habitat.
In addition, the proposal brings development closer to identified Threatened Ecological
Communities, riparian areas, wetlands and waterways located north and west of the site. This
will result in a disturbed eco tone closer to the sensitive ecological communities adjacent the
western boundary.
The proposal therefore does not comply with PO1 and PO3 of the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay Code.
Riparian Buffer Area
Portions of the subject site are mapped as being a riparian buffer area under the Biodiversity,
Waterways and Wetlands overlay, as well as a Matters of State Ecological Significance (MSES)
high ecological significance wetland and MSES declared high ecological value waters (wetland).
The proposal includes development within the mapped riparian buffer area, including portions of
Cabins 2 – 7 and the proposed bioretention basin.
The following Acceptable and Performance Outcomes of the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay Code are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO6 AO6.1
The biodiversity and ecosystem values of Development and clearing of vegetation does
waterways, wetlands and adjacent riparian not occur within:
zones are protected by:
(a) a riparian buffer area;
(a) avoiding any new development in a riparian (b) a wetland area; or
buffer area and wetland area; (c) 10 metres either side of the centre line of
(b) retaining aquatic and terrestrial habitat in other waterways identified on a
riparian zones; Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands
(c) maintaining and enhancing wildlife Overlay Map.
corridors and connectivity along
watercourses and drainage lines for native
fauna movement; AO6.2
(d) avoiding edge effects and damage from Development provides for the rehabilitation of
adjacent land uses; land within:
(a) a riparian buffer area;
Page 18 of 38
Page 19
(e) maintaining stream integrity and bank (b) a wetland area; and
stability by minimising bank erosion and (c) 10 metres either side of the centre line of
slumping; any other waterway identified on a
(f) maintaining water quality through filtering Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands
sediments, nutrients and other pollutants; Overlay Map.
and
(g) removing pest species and replacing them
with local native species.
Assessment
Portions of the development, including Cabins 2-7 and the bioretention basin, are located within
the riparian buffer area, as well as mapped areas of Matters of State Ecological Significance
(MSES), high ecological significance wetland and MSES declared high ecological value waters
(wetland). The applicant indicates that the development footprint has been designed in this way
to avoid further koala habitat clearing. It is acknowledged that portions of the area within the
riparian buffer area have been historically disturbed (circa 1980), with some historical
infrastructure still present on site (rock wall, concrete, fill). Regardless of historical disturbance,
the development significantly intensifies development within a mapped riparian buffer area which
is directly adjacent to Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve North, which drains to the Noosa River.
The development significantly increases the development footprint of RACV Noosa Resort and
will result in clearing in areas currently vegetated, (including within the riparian buffer area), a
reduction in the width of the terrestrial habitat within the riparian zone, and a reduction of the
width of the wildlife corridor and connecting habitat.
It is noted that Noosa Plan 2020 seeks rehabilitation works within mapped riparian buffer areas
in accordance with AO6.2. The applicant has provided a Rehabilitation Plan that includes
rehabilitation planting in the riparian buffer area. The proposal includes several ‘zones’ of
rehabilitation planting, with species appropriate for each area proposed. Council’s Senior
Environment Officer has reviewed the Rehabilitation Plan and confirmed the proposed species
are appropriate for rehabilitating a riparian buffer area.
Although it is noted that rehabilitation works are proposed within the buffer, the proposal does
not avoid development in a riparian buffer area and wetland area, as required by PO6. Given
the site has an area of approximately 3800m2 that is not mapped as riparian buffer area, it is
considered that development within the riparian area can and should be avoided. The submitted
application material therefore does not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with Performance
Outcome PO6 of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code.
Koala Habitat
The subject site is mapped as being a Koala Habitat Area under both Noosa Plan 2020 and under
the Southeast Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy mapping administered by the Department
of Environment & Science (DES).
The following Acceptable and Performance Outcomes of the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay Code are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO11 AO11.3
Development is designed, constructed and Development is designed to maximise and
operated to— enhance connectivity between koala habitat
trees and ensure safe koala movement.
(d) protect and enhance koalas and koala
habitat and avoid adverse impacts;
(e) provide measures to assist the survival of
koala populations in the area to mitigate
any potential threats or risk to koalas; and
Page 19 of 38
Page 20
(f) provide for safe and appropriate koala
movement across the landscape.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comments relating to development within mapped koala
habitat:
Ecoteam has advised the design aims to protect and enhance koala habitat and avoid
adverse impacts by retaining those features (trees and connectivity) crucial to koala habitat
function, but also through a long-term approach to managing the habitat with weed
management, replanting and replacement. Further, that strategically placed exclusion
fencing to separate koalas from the risk of road trauma in combination with koala-
permeable fencing to encourage movement of koalas in safer areas will meet the koala-
sensitive fencing guideline.
Ecoteam has considered the “do nothing” approach against the “limited development”
approach for the site. It is advised the koala habitat is degrading, because of weed
infestation and without intervention the prognosis is not good for many of the existing trees.
The facility of the site for koalas is an important element of the linking vegetation along
Noosa Drive, and the site forms a node of habitat that should be maintained and improved.
The proposal seeks to enhance the habitat through weeding, tree replacement and infill
planting with E. robusta warrants consideration in balancing some level of development
(and tree removal) at the site.
It is also advised that the design reflects input for developing a permeable and safe koala
habitat amongst tourist facilities and has the potential to enhance koala habitat at the site
in the long term, especially through the retention and enhancement of koala food resources
at the site.
The Southeast Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy mapping administered by the
Department of Environment & Science (DES) identifies the site as containing Koala Habitat Area
(core). The proposal includes vegetation clearing, including the removal of koala food trees. The
application material indicates a total of 117 Koala Trees (food or habitat) have been confirmed
on the site, with the proposal requiring a total of 27 of the koala trees to be removed and another
6 possible removals, subject to arborist assessment. Therefore, a total of 33 koala trees may be
required to be removed to facilitate the development footprint. It must be noted however that the
true total vegetation loss cannot be known at this point due to the time it can take for disturbance
to large tree root systems (as a result of construction activities) to affect the tree, resulting in
damage and/or loss of the tree.
The application material has not addressed how developing within the middle of a core koala
habitat area will assist in the survival of koala populations in the area and/or mitigate potential
threats to koalas, including providing safe and appropriate koala movement across the
landscape. The submitted application material does not provide sufficient information to
demonstrate compliance with PO11, as the development requires the removal of koala habitat
and feed trees to achieve the development footprint, and as such does not maximise and
enhance connectivity between koala habitat trees, nor protect and enhance koalas and koala
habitat or avoid adverse impacts.
Although it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in rehabilitation works being carried
out on site, it is the responsibility of the property owner to carry out ongoing maintenance and
pest management on a regular basis to ensure the property does not become degraded. In
regard to the comments from the applicant that the ‘koala habitat is degrading, because of weed
infestation and without intervention the prognosis is not good for many of the existing trees’, it is
considered that the applicant is using the historical degradation of the site due to a lack of
maintenance by the property owner as justification to allow development of the ecologically
significant area to potentially reduce further degradation on site, rather than carrying out the
necessary maintenance on the site (regardless of any proposed development) to ensure existing
vegetation is salvaged and protected into the future.
It is also noted that Council requested the applicant to provide evidence that the proposal can
be constructed on site and operate whilst complying with the SARA conditions and covenant
Page 20 of 38
Page 21
requirements in perpetuity. A Construction Methodology was provided, which included the
following statements:
The arborist will be required to tag and tape off ‘no-go’ areas within the site to ensure tree
protection under a Construction Management Plan, to be prepared. The construction
Management Plan will also need to address the parking of construction vehicles within the
RACV Resort site, or an alternative site if shuttle buses are necessary.
With the guidance of the arborist, some minor adjustments to the cabin location might be
required during construction for the betterment of existing trees (TPZ) to be retained;
however, much of this work has been completed to date as detailed on the proposed plans.
Weed removal will be largely undertaken by hand and localised hand spraying. Once the
site has been mostly cleared of vines and exotic vegetation the site will be re-examined
for location and construction methodology of the cabins with the builder
Areas will be marked and barriered off as ‘no-go’ areas in consultation with the arborist.
Access and transport will be channelled along the routes of the proposed
boardwalk/walkways. This means the use of small agile machinery, designated walking
tracks and services lines that can manoeuvre along these paths. Ground protection along
these routes will be laid and maintained during the course of the construction. The use of
a fauna/koala spotter will also be required during construction.
The Construction Methodology provided does not provide sufficient detail to confirm that the
proposal can be constructed on site and operate whilst complying with the SARA conditions and
covenant requirements in perpetuity, as the specific details required under the Construction
Management Plan have not been provided.
WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The application is assessable against Noosa Plan 2020’s Water Quality and Drainage Code. The
purpose of the Water Quality and Drainage Code is to ensure development is planned, designed,
constructed and operated to manage wastewater, stormwater, groundwater and environmental
flows and as part of an integrated water cycle in ways that protect environmental values, water
quality and public health. The following overall outcomes are relevant to the proposal:
(a) Waterways, wetlands, drainage lines, receiving environments and other ecologically
important areas are protected and enhanced by managing the quality and quantity of
stormwater runoff from development in accordance with best practice.
(b) Stormwater drainage systems are designed and constructed to effectively manage or
convey stormwater in a way that protects people, property and the natural environment.
The following Performance and Acceptable Outcomes of the Water Quality and Drainage Code
are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO6 AO6.1
Development is located, designed, constructed Stormwater runoff discharging into High
and operated to protect and enhance Ecological Value waters as a result of
environmental values and water quality of development causes no increase in gross
waterways, wetlands, lakes, ground waters pollutants, total suspended solids, total
and drainage systems. phosphorous or total nitrogen compared to a
pre-development scenario.
AND
AO6.2
All stormwater runoff is treated to achieve
maximum removal of nutrients, gross
pollutants and suspended solids as determined
by cost to efficiency ratios. (e.g. bioretention
basins must be sized to achieve at least 80%
Page 21 of 38
Page 22
reduction in total suspended solids, 60%
reduction in total phosphorous, 45% reduction
in total nitrogen and 90% reduction in gross
pollutants >5mm).
Assessment
The subject site is mapped as being an MSES high ecological significance wetland and MSES
declared High Ecological Value (HEV) waters (wetland) under the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay. The application material has not addressed these aspects of the site in
relation to stormwater management, nor how the development will prevent any direct or indirect
impacts to this ecologically important area. Development should protect the physical and
ecological integrity and biodiversity of the ecologically important areas through protection of
terrestrial habitat and existing riparian, waterway and wetland habitat areas.
The Stormwater Management Plan (SMMP) provided with the application material proposes to
achieve AO6.1 and AO6.2 by the provision of a rainwater tank for each cabin, plus the provision
of a bioretention basin (ie stormwater treatment device), which would receive runoff from the
carpark and also the rainwater tank overflows from the cabins. Council’s stormwater
management consultant has raised concerns with the methodology used in the SMP to
demonstrate compliance with the AO’s. Council’s stormwater consultant has rerun the modelling
and estimates that the bioretention basin would be required to triple in size to that which is
currently proposed, in order to achieve the required stormwater treatment targets, stating:
The revised model also shows increased pollutant loads compared to pre-development
conditions, and also the minimum pollutant load reductions required will not be achieved.
This demonstrates quantitatively that developing a forested land parcel adjacent to a HEV
waterway is unsustainable and will result in a worsening of off-site water quality, even
when fairly extreme measures, which go well beyond normal practice, are employed. As
such, PO6 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code is not achieved.
It is considered that the stormwater quality issues are not able to be conditioned to achieve
compliance with the scheme.
Stormwater treatment is critical for the protection of downstream receiving waters and without a
finalised design that Council can be sure meets the water quality reduction targets, sufficient
evidence has not been provided to confirm that the development can achieve the protection of
biodiversity areas on and adjacent to the site as required under the planning scheme. The
proposal therefore has not provided evidence of compliance with PO6.
Additionally, it is noted that the requirement to triple the size of the bioretention basin has the
potential to increase the total number of native trees/koala habitat required to be removed.
Without knowing the total area and location required for this device, the total number of additional
trees to be removed cannot be accurately quantified.
BUSHFIRE HAZARD OVERLAY
The subject site is mapped as containing High Potential Bushfire Intensity and Potential Impact
Buffer under the Bushfire Hazard Overlay (refer to Figure 19). The area of mapped high potential
bushfire intensity coincides with the mapped area of biodiversity significance under the
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay.
Page 22 of 38
Page 23
Figure 19 – Bushfire Hazard Overlay Mapping
Changes made to the proposal throughout the assessment process, including relocating Cabin 1,
resulted in a reduction of clearing required for bushfire hazard mitigation, with the proposal now
requiring the removal of two Melaleuca quinquenervia trees (with additional mid and understorey
clearing also required) for bushfire purposes.
Council’s Senior Environment Officer has confirmed that the Bushfire Hazard Assessment and
Management Plan provided with the application material is generally in accordance with the
Bushfire hazard overlay code and SPP State interest guidance material that ensures that bushfire
risk is low, stating:
With regard to potential fire runs and exposure of the proposed development to a running
vegetation fire, the development has been setback into the site and as such the existing
RACV Noosa Resort provides a significant screening effect from potential fire runs from the
north. As a result of this setback and screening the assets protection zone can be minimised
to a width of 10 metres with the proposed stormwater quality treatment device also located
within the assets protection zone.
The asset protection zone will become a managed area that will have the ability to retain
individual trees as identified on the proposal plans, noting no further tree planting can occur
however shrubs groundcover layers are acceptable.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of the Bushfire Hazard
Overlay Code.
It is noted that the applicant has provided a Rehabilitation Plan with the application material which
specifies the planting, management and species pallet for the development, taking into
consideration the requirements for vegetation within the bushfire hazard area. Council’s Senior
Environment Officer has reviewed the Rehabilitation Plan and confirmed that the proposed planting
within the bushfire hazard area is appropriate.
NOOSA HEADS LOCAL PLAN AREA
The subject site is within the Noosa Heads local plan area. The following overall outcomes apply
to the Noosa Heads local plan area and are relevant to the development:
(b) Development is limited to land within the urban boundary to protect and reinforce the
character and identity of Noosa Heads, provide efficient provision of infrastructure and
Page 23 of 38
Page 24
services, avoid constrained land and protect the surrounding significant environmental
areas.
(d) Development is sited and designed to retain the key natural environment, landscape
and built form elements and significant views and vistas that contribute to the vegetated
setting and character of the Noosa Heads local plan area, including Weyba Creek,
foreshore areas and associated riparian communities;
(e) Development, through its design and siting, reinforces the correlation between the
natural and built character of the area by development sitting lightly in the landscape,
being responsive to the topography and protecting views to or from important
landscape features.
(ad) Key areas of vegetation on both private and public lands are protected for landscape
and habitat values.
The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to the overall outcomes of the Noosa
Heads Local Plan Code:
• while a minor part of the development extends beyond the urban boundary, it is within
the Urban Footprint under the SEQRP. Further, extends into the Environmental
Management and Conservation Zone because the areas of the site proposed for
EcoCabins 1, 3 and part of 4 (noting the proposal plans have been amended since this
statement was provided) are devoid of significant habitat trees and have been utilised to
reduce tree removal elsewhere within the site, which is important to maintain koala
habitat and connectivity (OO(b));
• the design and siting of the development maintains the appropriate balance and
maintains the correlation between the natural and built character of the area (OO(e);
• the proposed development is consistent with the intended built form character and
identity of Noosa Heads. The built form is compartmentalised into six smaller building
forms, having a low rise contemporary and subtropical building design, within a
landscaped setting that emphasises a casual and outdoor lifestyle (OO(h));
• the proposed built form has been designed to have a strong relationship with the outdoors
and use of materials as expected for this site (OO(j)); and
• the site is well removed from other properties and will maintain the high level of amenity
for Noosa Heads residents. The development is well located within Noosa Heads forming
part of the existing RACV Noosa Resort and is included within the Tourist
Accommodation Zone and provides for visitor accommodation only (OO(p), (t), (u) & w)).
The proposal includes development outside of the urban boundary, within a significant
environmental area. It is acknowledged that the applicant has designed the development in such
a way as to lessen the environmental impact of the development by elevating the buildings and
structures on site, however the proposal still results in the removal of vegetation adjacent to Weyba
Creek, impacting on the natural environment by removing ecologically sensitive and koala habitat
vegetation.
The following Performance and Acceptable Outcomes of the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code are
relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO4 AO4
The visual amenity and character surrounding Development adjacent to the major road
the major road network and entrance roads, is network, particularly Sunshine Beach Road,
protected and enhances the entrances to Eenie Creek Road, Noosa Drive and Noosa
Noosa Heads. Parade incorporates landscaping that
complements the natural species occurring in
the local area, protects existing vegetation
within the road reserve and incorporates
design elements that add visual interest to the
streetscape.
Assessment
Page 24 of 38
Page 25
The subject site is adjacent to Noosa Drive. The applicant has provided the following comment
in relation to PO4:
‘the proposed development will not have an impact upon the visual amenity and character
of the surrounding major road network or entrance roads given the relatively small scale
of the built form integrated within existing vegetation’
‘No vegetation is required to be removed from the Noosa Drive frontage with the exception
of one (1) tree shown on Site Plan -Tree Retention/Removal. As discussed, the other trees
are to be retained and the frontage is to be rehabilitated, including mid to high strata
planting and scattered koala feed trees.’
Although the applicant is not proposing to remove vegetation within the road reserve, the
proposal will require significant under and mid storey vegetation removal across the entirety of
the site, in addition to the removal of existing mature native vegetation. The proposal does
include a planting plan which is proposed to include ‘dense planting along southern and eastern
boundary with suitable native species and mid to high strata screening’, however it is considered
the required vegetation removal would significantly ‘open up’ the site, with rehab planting likely
to take several years to achieve satisfactory screening of the development.
In addition, proposed cabins 6 to 15 create a development front of approximately 80m along the
Noosa Drive frontage, with each of the buildings being in excess of 8m in height. Although the
planting will provide some screening (upon reaching maturity), the proposal will be of a bulk and
scale that will still be highly visible from Noosa Drive.
The development will be visually dominate when viewed from Noosa Drive and will impact on
the visual amenity and character along Noosa Drive, detracting from one of the main entrances
into Noosa Heads.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO5 AO5
Development retains enhances the existing Development retains and enhances existing
mature trees and character vegetation mature trees and character vegetation
contributing to the vegetated backdrop, contributing to the vegetated backdrop,
character and habitat values of the local area. character and habitat values of the local plan
area, including:-
(a) Noosa National Park and Weyba Creek
conservation areas;
(b) the foreshore areas of the Noosa River,
Lake Weyba, Weyba Creek and their
associated riparian communities;
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO5:
‘the proposed development retains a significant number of mature trees, primarily koala
habitat and other vegetation which contributes to the vegetated backdrop, character, and
habitat values of the local area’
The proposal includes the removal of a minimum of 71 trees, up to a maximum of 82 (160 to be
retained), of which a minimum of 27, up to a maximum of 33, are koala trees (117 retained).
Although the proposal includes rehabilitation and revegetation of the site, the proposal to remove
up to 82 mature native trees (and mid and understorey growth) does not meet the requirement
to retain and enhance existing mature trees and character vegetation and will result in a
reduction in the vegetated backdrop, character and habitat values of the Weyba Creek area.
The proposal therefore does not comply with PO5.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO26 AO26
Page 25 of 38
Page 26
Development has no significant adverse Connecting Habitat Areas as identified on Map
impacts on biodiversity, natural vegetation, SFM-4 - Biodiversity (Strategic Framework)
native fauna habitat, landscape quality, water are protected from fragmentation and
quality or cultural heritage values, including encroachment by development.
those related to—
(a) changes to natural drainage;
(b) disturbance to any wetland system;
(c) management of fire risk;
(d) erosion and the transport of sediments off
site;
(e) unmanaged public access;
(f) changes to fauna habitat and behaviour.
Assessment
The subject site is identified as a Connecting Habitat Area on Map SFM-4 - Biodiversity
(Strategic Framework).
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO26:
the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact upon biodiversity,
natural vegetation, native fauna habitat (discussed further below), landscape quality, water
quality or cultural heritage values, including:
• changes to natural drainage;
• disturbance to any wetland system;
• the management of bushfire risk;
• erosion and the transport of sediments off site;
• unmanaged public access; and
• changes to fauna habitat and behaviour, which will be improved by the development
The proposal plans indicate that there are 242 surveyed native trees on the site, of which:
• 160 will be retained
• 71 will be removed
• 11 are proposed to be retained pending an arborist review during construction
Of the trees surveyed on site 150 are by ‘state’ definition ‘koala trees’ with
• 117 to be retained
• 27 to be removed
• 6 are proposed to be retained pending arborist review during construction
The development layout reduces the width of the current ecological linkage and proposes
development within the linkage which will result in undesirable interaction between koalas and
development/infrastructure. The development does not maintain or enhance connectivity in the
north south direction, and is likely to result in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural
vegetation and native fauna habitat, including changes to changes to fauna habitat and
behaviour.
Additionally, as outlined above in the Stormwater assessment, Councils Stormwater consultant
has provided advice that the proposal (in its current form) will result in significant adverse impacts
Page 26 of 38
Page 27
on water quality, due to proposed changes to natural drainage and insufficient stormwater
management devices. The proposal therefore does not comply with PO26.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION ZONE
Portions of the development are located within the mapped Environmental Management and
Conservation (EM&C) zone (refer to Figure 20), noting that this zoning correlates with the mapped
riparian buffer area under the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay mapping. Short-term
accommodation is an inconsistent use with the EM&C zone, with the purpose of the zone being to
provide for the protection and maintenance of areas that support biological diversity, ecological
integrity, naturally occurring landforms and/or coastal processes.
Figure 20 – Zoning
The overall outcomes sought for the Environmental Management and Conservation Zone and
relevant to the proposal are as follows:-
(a) Land identified as ecologically important areas, water catchments, beach protection or
coastal management areas or natural areas with historical or cultural values are
protected from development;
(b) Development avoids and mitigates against adverse impacts on the values and
processes within ecologically important areas;
The subject site is identified as an ecologically important area and coastal management district
(under the State’s Coastal Protection mapping), and as such the proposal to develop the land is
contrary to Overall Outcome (a). Additionally, although it is acknowledged that the design of the
development aims to mitigate against adverse impacts, as discussed above, the proposal does not
avoid impacts on the values and processes within an ecologically important area.
The applicant has provided the following comments in regard to development within the EM&C
zone:
• While the development encroaches into the EMCZ, this is because the vegetation on the
site has been surveyed and identified and carefully considered by the koala expert, ecology
and bushfire experts and also the expert arborist. The proposed eco-cabins have been
specifically designed and located within the areas shown on the tree retention and removal
plan to maximise tree retention and koala habitat.
Page 27 of 38
Page 28
• The subject land has been considered by the abovementioned experts and is considered
to protect the ecological important areas of the site. This is to be achieved by striking the
necessary balance by integrating the development within the site and avoiding the most
important ecological areas, with the priority being to protect koala habitat. The site is
currently significantly constrained by an invading weed species, which currently makes the
site unusable by koala. The proposed development will restore the site to be useable by
koala while allowing for limited amount of development consistent with the intent of the
Tourist Accommodation Zone;
• the proposed development provides for smaller building forms, with Eco-Cabins extending
into the EMCZ; however, these areas have less significant and important koala habitat,
which is the basis for the integrated design. The proposed design of the development has
been in response to an identified need by RACV to provide for an alternative form of visitor
accommodation, within the existing RACV Noosa Resort (Overall Outcome (c)
Environmental Management and Conservation Zone Code);
• the proposed buildings have been designed to maximise energy efficiency and water
conservation with water tanks to be provided (Overall Outcome (c) Environmental
Management and Conservation Zone Code (f)
The following Performance and Acceptable Outcomes of the Environmental Management and
Conservation Zone Code are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO1
The Environmental management and No acceptable outcome provided
conservation zone primarily protects land
identified as ecologically important areas,
water catchments, beach protection or coastal
management areas and land with historical or
cultural values.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO1:
‘the proposed development seeks to protect the primary koala habitat on the site’
The applicant has stated that the development has been designed in such a way as to lessen
the impact of the development on the environmental values of the site, (as outlined in the above
assessment of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code), however the proposal
includes development within the mapped riparian buffer area shown on Biodiversity, Waterway
and Wetland Overlay maps, and as such is not considered to protect land identified as an
ecologically important area.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO5
Development maintains the primary function of No acceptable outcome provided
the zone and protects ecologically important
areas, water catchments, waterway
connectivity, marine plants, beach protection
and coastal management areas and land with
historical or cultural values.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO5:
‘it is suggested given the degree of consideration of the ecological important areas of the
site in terms of protection of important koala habitat and maintaining riparian vegetation in
the northwest corner, the proposed development maintains the intent to protect ecological
important areas of the site’
Page 28 of 38
Page 29
The proposal includes development in an ecologically important area and coastal management
area. The proposal to develop within this area is not considered to maintain the primary function
of the zone, being the provision for the protection and maintenance of areas that support
biological diversity, ecological integrity, naturally occurring landforms, and/or coastal processes.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO7 AO7.1
Buildings and structures— Buildings and structures are no more than 4
metres in building height.
(a) are low rise, and have a maximum
building height of 1 storey; AO7.3
(b) have a minimal footprint on the land;
For any individual building or roofed structure,
(c) do not visually dominate the site or
no more than 150m² is under the roof.
surrounding spaces; and
(d) are low set and of a smaller scale to the
prevailing vegetation around them.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO7:
‘in terms of the built form, the buildings are low rise and integrated to not visually dominate
the site and the surrounding spaces, maintains a minimal footprint being comprised of
small building units that are to be elevated and connected by an elevated boardwalk’
Cabins 2 – 7 are all partially located within the EM&C zone. The six cabins are across three
buildings, all of which exceed 150m2 under roof, are over 4m in height (Cabins 2, 3, 6 & 7 being
approx. 8.4m and Cabins 4 & 5 being approx. 8.6m) and are 2 storeys. The proposal therefore
does not comply with AO7.1, AO7.3 and PO7.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO8 AO8.1
Buildings and structures are appropriately set Buildings and structures are sited on that part
back so as to – of the site with the least impact on the
ecological values of the land, water quality,
(a) avoid and minimise disturbance on the
coastal processes and heritage values.
ecological values of the land, waterways
and wetlands, water quality, coastal
processes and heritage values;
AO8.2
(b) provide adequate distance from
adjoining land uses; Buildings and structures are set back —
(c) allow for vegetation retention and (c) a distance greater than the width of the
regrowth around buildings and riparian buffer area shown on Biodiversity,
structures; and Waterway and Wetland Overlay maps
(d) protect the natural character and visual
amenity of the Noosa River system and
other watercourses.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO8:
in terms of the building setbacks and siting, this has been discussed and is a function of
the integration and protecting important koala habitat, with the development minimising the
impacts as far as practicable having regard to the intent of the Tourist Accommodation
Zone.
Cabins 2 – 7 are all partially located within the mapped riparian buffer area shown on
Biodiversity, Waterway and Wetland Overlay maps. The proposal to construct cabins within the
mapped buffer area does not:
• avoid or minimise disturbance on the ecological values of the land and wetlands,
Page 29 of 38
Page 30
• allow for vegetation retention and regrowth around the buildings and structures (due to
bushfire management requirements) or
• protect the natural character and visual amenity of Weyba Creek (when viewed from
Noosa Drive).
The proposal therefore does not comply with PO8.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO9 AO9.1
Buildings and structures present high quality Development does not result in a net loss of
built form and landscape design consistent native vegetation.
with the natural setting and landscape features
of the site by
(a) responding to the landscape and
landform of their site;
(b) preserving the natural amenity of the
site;
(c) incorporating existing natural vegetation
as an integral part of design;
(d) being discreet in appearance when
viewed from adjacent properties, roads,
waterways or other areas in the vicinity
of the site;
(e) incorporating roof forms, articulation,
materials and finishes that assist in
blending the building or structure into the
landscape; and
(f) using natural sustainable building
materials
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO9:
the building design is modular and appropriate for the setting, being discrete in appearance
that uses materials that will blend and will maintain the natural amenity and incorporates
the natural vegetation as an integral part of the design.
It is acknowledged that the applicant proposes to incorporate existing natural vegetation as a
part of the design (where possible) and rehabilitate the site, however as discussed above, the
proposal includes removal of existing mature native trees on site. Although the applicant has
provided a tree clearing plan, additional vegetation may be lost as a result of
disturbance/damage to tree root systems during the construction process, which may result in
the loss of the tree. As such, the true total vegetation loss cannot be known at this point due to
the time it can take for this disturbances effect to be known. As such, sufficient information is not
available to confirm the application will not result in a net loss of native vegetation.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO11
Existing significant trees are incorporated into No acceptable outcome provided
building design and complemented by
additional endemic vegetation.
PO13
Natural vegetation is not lost for car parking. No acceptable outcome provided
Assessment
Page 30 of 38
Page 31
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO11 and PO13:
the building design and layout is integrated within the existing vegetation and will be
complemented by additional endemic vegetation as provided for on the Landscape
Concept Design
the loss of some of the vegetation within the site for carparking is unavoidable and is
located within the Tourist Accommodation Zone
It is acknowledged that the applicant has attempted to reduce the environmental impacts of the
development by elevating the buildings and structures, and retaining existing significant
vegetation where possible, however the proposal still includes the removal of a minimum of 71
and up to 82 native trees on site. It is noted that a minimum of 24 native trees are proposed to
be removed for the carparking, however as stated, this vegetation is located within the mapped
Tourist Accommodation Zone.
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION ZONE
Portions of the development are located within the mapped Tourist Accommodation zone. Short-
term accommodation is a consistent use with the Tourist Accommodation zone, with the purpose
of the zone being to provide for short-term accommodation and other small-scale supporting uses.
The following Performance and Acceptable Outcomes of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code
are relevant to the development:
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes
PO9 AO9.1
Buildings and other structures: Buildings and other structures have a building
height of no more than:
(a) are low rise and present a building height
consistent with structures on adjoining and (ii) Lot 3 SP126203, Lot 203 SP267424, 94
surrounding premises; - 142 Noosa Drive; where building
(b) do not visually dominate the street or height is no more than 8 metres
surrounding areas;
(c) preserve the amenity of surrounding
premises including privacy, views and
access to sunlight;
(d) respect the scale of any nearby vegetation,
retaining a vegetated skyline;
(e) respond to the topography of the site;
(f) have a maximum building height of:
(i) Noosa Heads—three storeys with the
exception of:
(A) Lot 3 SP126203, Lot 203 SP267424,
94 - 142 Noosa Drive where a
maximum height of two storeys is
permitted
PO10 No acceptable outcome provided
Development:
(a) is of a scale compatible with surrounding
development and the particular
circumstances of the site; and
(b) does not present an appearance of bulk to
adjacent properties, roads or other areas in
the vicinity of the site.
Assessment
The applicant has provided the following comment in relation to PO9 and PO10:
Page 31 of 38
Page 32
in terms of building height, the proposed buildings are two (2) storeys and below 8m in
height, contained within six (6) separate buildings, consistent with the expected built form
outcomes under the planning scheme. The proposed development will:
• not visually dominate the street or surrounding areas presenting as two storeys to
Noosa Drive;
• will preserve the amenity of surrounding premises including privacy, views, and access
to sunlight;
• will respect the scale of any nearby vegetation by maintaining a vegetated skyline;
• responds to the topography of the site being low lying with a built form that is
compartmentalised and provided as elevated structures;
in terms of building scale and bulk, the proposed development is of a scale that is
compatible with surrounding development including the existing resort. The proposed
development does not have a bulky appearance when viewed from adjacent properties,
roads, or other areas in the vicinity of the site;
Amended plans were provided through the application process (received after the above
statements were provided), with the final set of plans the following maximum heights:
• Cabin 1 – approx. 8.7m
• Cabin 2 & 3 - approx. 8.4m
• Cabin 4 & 5 - approx. 8.6m
• Cabin 6 & 7 - approx. 8.4m
• Cabin 8 & 9 – less than 8m
• Cabin 10 & 11 – less than 8m
• Cabins 12 – 15 – approx. 8.2m
It is acknowledged that the applicant has designed the buildings on stilts to lessen the
environmental impacts of the development on the site, however this additional elevation has
resulted in the proposal not complying with the 8m height limit in this location. Given the
development will be highly visible from Noosa Drive due to the proposed vegetation removal on
the site, it is considered likely that the development will visually dominate the street. As such,
the proposal does not comply with PO9 or PO10 of the Code.
It is noted that the proposal includes internal floor to ceiling heights that could be reduced in
order to comply with the 8m requirement, which would have been conditioned had the application
have been recommended for approval. Additionally, as discussed above, Cabins 2 – 7 are all
partially located within the EM&C zone. The proposed built form is also not consistent with the
built form requirements of the Environmental Management & Conservation Zone Code, which
allows a maximum of 4m and 1 storey in height.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following Referral Agencies:
• Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (SARA)
The Department is a referral agency for development interfering with koala habitat in koala habitat
areas outside koala priority areas. The Department responded on 8 August 2023 approving the
proposal, subject to conditions, including conditions relating to clearing and the requirement for
environmental covenants to be provided on Lot 3, as per the below annotated plan provided by
SARA.
Page 32 of 38
Page 33
Figure 21: Approved plan as annotated by SARA
4.2. Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
• Coordinator Engineering, Development Assessment
• Senior Environment Officer, Development Assessment
4.3. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following external experts for review and/or comment:
• Stormwater Management / Hydrology
• Bushfire Hazard
• Koala Habitat
4.4. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for sixteen (16) business days in accordance with the Planning
Act 2016. 125 properly made submissions were received, six (6) in support of the development
and 119 opposed to the development. The following table provides a summary of and response to
the issues raised by submitters.
Submissions Opposing the Development
Matters Raised Comments
General Environmental Concerns Agreed - as outlined in the above assessment,
the proposal does not meet the environmental
• The proposal is the antithesis to the aims
outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Zone
of the Biosphere or the expressed
Codes and Biodiversity, Waterways and
intentions of Noosa Council
Wetlands Overlay Code.
Page 33 of 38
Page 34
Matters Raised Comments
• Destruction of Koala habitat (discussed
below)
• Destruction of native wildlife and habitat
and habitat corridors
• Impacts from construction and use on
native flora and fauna (noise, lights etc)
• Noosa’s remnant bushland is literally
facing ‘death by a thousand cuts’. Instead
of removing carbon-sequestering trees to
facilitate tourism development, we should
be conserving remnant native vegetation.
Riparian vegetation and coastal wetlands
play crucial roles in ameliorating storm and
flood damage. It is a lot more effective, and
a lot less costly, to protect remnant
vegetation than planting, which if
successful, would take years to establish.
• Climate disruption and sea level rise will
increasingly impact the site. The
development will contribute to climate
change.
• We live in the subtropics, every tree that is
removed from this biosphere can create a
suburban desert. A concrete jungle will be
the final outcome of this land grab for the
gain of money for a company that will only
cause visual death on our streets.
• The proposed development is contrary to
the 2020 Noosa Plan provisions, which
require an appropriate response to the
site’s natural hazards and protection of the
site’s environmental values, including
vegetation retention
Koala Habitat Agreed - as outlined in the above assessment,
the proposal does not meet the environmental
• Destruction of Koala habitat
outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Zone
• Australia has national and international Codes and Biodiversity, Waterways and
obligations to foster recovery of Wetlands Overlay Code.
threatened species, the latter as a
signatory to the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity. Noosa
Shire is an IUCN Biosphere reserve, with
additional obligations inherent therein. If
there is any risk to threatened species
from this, or indeed, any future
development, then I think it incumbent on
decision-makers to refuse such
applications.
• Council has endorsed a 27-point action
plan to better protect Noosa Shire's
koalas.
• The applicant argues that the proposal
would enhance koala habitat by the
removal of frangipani vines and damaged
trees, and replanting. But such good work
can be done without putting in yet more
tourism accommodation and car parks.
Page 34 of 38
Page 35
Matters Raised Comments
• Increasing vehicle movements in and
around development and adjoining
roadways increases the chances of
vehicle strikes, causing death and injury to
koalas.
• The proposal does not meet community
expectations of Council decision making
regarding preservation and enhancement
of koala habitat in Noosa Shire, and if
approved, would diminish public
confidence and trust in Council.
Weyba Creek Agreed - as outlined in the above assessment,
the proposal does not meet the environmental
• Weyba Creek and wetlands need to be
outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Zone
protected – erosion and runoff impacts –
Codes and Biodiversity, Waterways and
mangroves vital habitat, filtration
Wetlands Overlay Code.
compromised
• Weyba Creek is still relatively pristine and
devoid of homes. It still has old seagrass
beds and natural oyster beds (filtration
feeders), and is lined with mangroves,
which are nurseries for juvenile fish.
Development fly /run-off will be detrimental
to this fragile ecosystem
Oversupply of Short-term accommodation It is acknowledged that the site is partially
(STA) zoned as Tourist Accommodation, in which
Short-term accommodation is a consistent use
• Noosa is experiencing overcrowding and
in this location, with the planning scheme
does not need additional STA
partially zoning this area of land for tourism
• Excessive STA is resulting in loss of development. However, the proposal to
amenity for residents develop within the Environmental
• No additional STA should be approved Management and Conservation (EM&C) Zone
whilst there is an undersupply of portion of the lot is considered an
permanent accommodation overdevelopment of the site and is not
• Noosa’s very viability - its economy; social consistent with the intent of the scheme in
fabric; residential amenity and health and relation to this zone and/or development for
welfare of residents - is being adversely tourism purposes within the Shire.
affected by too many STA.
Community Expectations The proposal to develop short-term
accommodation within the Environmental
• Size of development is large and not in
Management and Conservation Zone portion
keeping with the surrounds. Could be
of the lot is considered an overdevelopment of
viewed as overdeveloping the area;
the site and is not consistent with Noosa Plan
• conflicts with the character outcomes 2020 or the community’s expectations of
sought by the planning scheme and values development within the region.
of the biosphere that is Noosa
Cultural Significance Requirements of the Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Act 2003 sit outside of the
• Area is culturally significant to the Kabi
requirements of the Planning Act 2016,
Kabi People and requires a cultural
however, an Advisory Note is generally
heritage assessment and management
included on Development Permits (where an
plan with the Traditional Owners,
application is approved) notifying applicants
otherwise is a breach of the Qld Govt
that there may be a requirement to establish a
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
Cultural Heritage Management Plan and/or
Page 35 of 38
Page 36
Matters Raised Comments
obtain approvals pursuant to the Aboriginal
Cultural Heritage Act 2003.
Submissions in Support of the Development
Matters Raised Comments
Residential Amenity It is acknowledged that additional short-term
accommodation has the ability to result in
• Unlike the issues currently raised by some
economic benefits to the area, however the
around Air BNBs, this has no impact on the
proposal is considered an overdevelopment of
residential amenity. In fact, I believe most
the site which will result in negative impacts on
resort guest are from Victoria, our highest
the environmental values of the area. The
spending tourists and most do not bring or
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
use vehicles, rather using the resort bus or
development will result in an overwhelming
onsite electric cars and escooters to
community benefit, to allow support of the
explore the region
proposal despite conflicting with the
requirements of the planning scheme.
Koala Habitat It is acknowledged that the applicant has
carried out substantial work to ensure the
• Expert advice and support has been
impacts of the development are limited where
provided by koala habitat experts,
possible, however the proposal includes
ecologist and arborists
development within a mapped koala habitat
• The remaining 20 per cent of the area will area, requiring the removal of koala feed
be converted into 16 elevated, light weight trees, which is contrary to the environmental
and connected boardwalk, also provides outcomes of the planning scheme.
for koala movement through the site.
Improvement on Current Situation The subject site has not been maintained by
the current owners, with little to no pest
• Limited development sustainably placed
management having been undertaken on site
on 20% of the land (while rehabilitating the
in recent years resulting in invasive pest
other 80%) and ongoing management of
species infiltrating the site and causing
the site is the best outcome for Koalas
damage to the natural environment. Although
compared to doing nothing.
it is acknowledged that the proposal would
• If left in its current state, the area will result in substantial rehabilitation works being
continue to degrade with the existing trees carried out onsite, it is the responsibility of the
being engulfed by the invasive vine. property owner to carry out ongoing
Further, the north-south avenue for maintenance and pest management
movement of koalas through the site will regardless of any development approvals
diminish or be lost. Because the land is to issued on a site.
be amalgamated and form part of the
RACV Noosa Resort, the ongoing Council’s Local Law 3 (Community and
maintenance of the site will be properly Environmental Management) 2015 regulates
funded and sustained in the long term. the control of pests (including plant species)
RACV Noosa Resort has Silver Earth and overgrown and unsightly allotments. As
Check Accreditation, the world’s leading such, there are mechanisms under the Local
scientific benchmarking certification and Law to allow Council to require the landowner
advisory group for sustainable travel and to take specified actions to control declared
tourism and takes a leadership role in local pests on the lot.
sustainability.
• The habitat area of the site has been
overtaken by weeds, particularly an
invasive vine. This vine is threatening the
existing koala habitat by strangling the tree
canopy and hindering their movement
through the site.
Page 36 of 38
Page 37
• The plan retains 80 per cent of the area,
which will be rehabilitated to provide a
healthy and safe habitat for koalas.
Because the land is to be amalgamated
and form part of the RACV Noosa Resort,
the ongoing maintenance of the site will be
properly funded and sustained in the long
term.
Community Benefits It is acknowledged that additional short-term
accommodation has the ability to positively
• This development will deliver
contribute to the environment and provide
environmental, social and economic
social and economic benefits, however the
benefits for all stakeholders including local
proposal is considered an overdevelopment of
suppliers, retailers and tourism operators
the site which will result in negative impacts on
along with the employment of additional
the environmental values of the area.
local staff.
Additionally, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that the development will result
in an overwhelming community benefit, to
allow support of the proposal despite
conflicting with the requirements of the
planning scheme.
5. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
This applicant seeks approval for a Material Change of Use for Short-Term Accommodation at 94
& 142 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads. The proposed development is an extension to the existing RACV
Noosa Resort, comprising of 15 self-contained dwelling units, a new lagoon pool within the existing
resort complex, an additional 18 car parks and alterations to the existing access.
The subject site is subject to split zoning, being Tourist Accommodation Zone and Environmental
Management & Conservation Zone. Assessment of the application found that whilst the nature of
the use is considered consistent and expected within the Tourist Accommodation zoned portion of
the land, the proposal to develop land zoned as Environmental Management and Conversation,
and outside of the mapped urban boundary is not consistent with Noosa Plan 2020 or community
expectations of development within the region.
The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of vegetation in a locality which
is ecologically important and environmentally sensitive and serves as an important ecological
linkage, and the proposed development is considered an overdevelopment of the land at the
expense of the natural values of the land.
The proposed development has failed to demonstrate any planning need to develop outside of
Noosa Plan 2020's urban boundary, particularly at the density and height proposed and is
inconsistent with the local landscape character. No overriding community benefit been
demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflicts with the planning scheme. Approval
of the proposed development would not be in the public interest as reflected in the provisions of
Noosa Plan 2020 referred to the above reasons for refusal. It is therefore recommended that the
application be refused.
Departments consulted:
Office of the CEO, Mayor & Community Services Corporate Services
Councillors
Mayor & Councillors Director Director
Chief Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Officers Sport & Active Lifestyles Fleet
Community Engagement Arts & Culture Revenue Services
People & Culture Community Connection ICT
Governance Customer Experience Commercial Property
Strategy & Environment & Development & Regulation Infrastructure Services
Sustainable Development
Page 37 of 38
Page 38
Director x Director Director
Strategic Land Use Planning x Development Assessment Infrastructure Planning, Design
and Delivery
Economic Development & Local Laws Civil and Asset operations
Destination Management
Environmental Services Environmental Health Asset Management
Innovation & Digital Hub Building & Plumbing Building & Facilities
Property / Permits Disaster Management
Waste
Page 38 of 38