MCU12/0012 notice of submission Noosa Parks Association - signed copy of email NPM

.   "




        Submission: MCU Application Home-Based Business (Quad Bike Tours) at 298 Tablelands Road Cooran                2



             b) The conduct of commercial operations of this nature within Rural Zone or the Open Space
                  Conservation Zone is impact assessable and due to the tenure would require a State resource
                  entitlement. The application provides no evidence of a land use approval for this to occur and the

                  Department of Environment & Resource Management (DERM) Commercial Activity Permit
                  referenced in the application documentation is not a State resource entitlement.

        2)   Similar circumstances from 1)above, apply to land in the Gympie Regional Council area.

        3)   The NPA understands that the Forest Reserve tenure was utilised for the roads to enable access by
             horse-riders and bicycle-riders through this area. Indeed part of the network proposed to be used in
             the quad bike operation is identified as part of the Noosa Trail Network. For obvious reasons, a noisy,

             motorised, thrill-seeking quad bike operation is in radical conflict with the use of the trail network by
             horse-riders and bike-riders and therefore is in conflict with the original reasons for retaining Forest
             Reserve tenure.


        4)   While factors raised in i) and 2) above relate to aspects that are not part of the application before
             Council, it is a classic case of the tail trying to wag the dog. It is pointless granting an approval for the
             base for an operation, when the operation itself must traverse a similar development application path
             and when the major aspects of such a proposal will generate significant land use conflict with the
             intent and purpose of land with National Park and Forest Reserve tenure. The NPA is outraged that
             such land could be considered for the purposes of such tours let alone receive a permit and will be

             raising the matter directly with the DERM.

        5) The proposed home-based business does not comply with, nor can it comply with some aspects of the
             Noosa Plan:

             a)   The definition of a home-based business requires that the use be secondary to the principal
                  function of the residence. It includes scale-related provisions designed to prevent significant
                  commercial functions from     establishing. The details will be addressed below; however the
                  proposed use vastly exceeds the scale controls and in combination with the fact that this is the
                  base for a wider use indicates that the scale is beyond that which can reasonably be described as a
                  home-based business. In other words, this is a fully-fledged commercial, not a home-based
                  business.

             b) Specific Outcome 054 and its associated solution set out to identify a scale at which a business
                might be regarded as being secondary to a dwelling. It stipulates a maximum of 300m2 that can be
                utilised for the business. The areas depicted on the plans accompanying the application that will
                serve as the buildings and practice areas for testing participants comprises 1,2OOm2, some four

                times the maximum scale deemed to be appropriate and this excludes the areas of Forest Reserve
                tenure that are essential to the conduct of the business. At this scale, the business does not meet

                  the home-based business definition.

             c) Specific Outcome 055 and its associated solution also seek to control the scale of use. It stipulates
                  a   maximum of 6 persons that can be involved in the          use.   The subject proposal involves a
                  maximum of 13 persons, more than double the maximum stipulated. Once again at this scale, the
                  business does not meet the home-based business definition.

        The application should be rejected.


        Yours faithfully,

                01
          .Ifiw;~
        Rose Marie Stewart

        A/HON. SECRETARY