MCU10/2127 Notice of submission Kjerulf Ainsworth

Page 2

     portion of resort units to enable permanent accommodation would undermine
     the current and future rental bank of accommodation for the area.

3. The applicant indicates that the units are to be changed to permit short term,
   semi permanent or permanent use.

4.   The Noosa Plan does not support permanent accommodation on the site.
     Multiple Housing is indicated as being an inconsistent use.

        k) Multiple Housing if on Lot 889 SP203086 being the Viridian Noosa Resort
        at Viewland Drive or Part of Lot 603 on SP188270 being the Settlers Cove
        resort site (as identified as Lots 10 & 11 on Plan 1128 RHD OA Amendment A
        prepared by Ken Hicks & Associates and dated 23 July 2004);

5. The applicant has not provided any justification as to why the resort units should
   be changed to enable permanent accommodation. Section 326 of the
   Sustainable Planning Act states that:

        (1) The assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a relevant
        instrument unless-
             (b) there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict;

     No grounds have been submitted and there are concerns that the community as
     a whole will be negatively affected as the loss of additional units from the rental
     pool available will affect the future provision of tourist accommodation for the
     area.

6. The proposal is short sighted and does not consider the desired intentions for
   the site which is to provide a pool of rental accommodation for the existing
   resort and hotel on site as well as serving the Hastings Street area. It is noted
   that the Noosa area has lost significant numbers of rental accommodation to
   permanent residents through recent redevelopments of sites and concerns are
   raised that this proposal will further erode the ability for the area to attract
   tourists.

7. Permanent resident and visitor accommodation are known not to coexist well as
   the needs of permanent residents are often different to visitors. Visitors often
   have a higher tolerance to noise and parties whereas permanent residents do
   not support such activities over a prolonged period. No details have been
   provided as to how the two opposing users will be managed on site.

8. Vehicular access and its impacts have not been addressed and are raised as a
   ground of objection. It is understood that Visitor accommodation has been
   assessed for the site at a lesser rate with several concessions granted for the

Page 3

       resort. As part of the original approval of the resort a condition 284 required an
       On Site Carparking Management Plan to be submitted. Concerns are raised as to
       how this current proposal complies with this Management Plan as the plan was
       based on use of the units being used for visitors' not permanent residents. In
       particular the condition states:

           •   patrons would be encouraged not to use vehicles
           •   carparking was not to be titled
           •   guests may be allocated a carparking space that was not near their unit
           •   external visitors to be assigned a carspace by reception

       The current application does not provide any information as to how carparking is
       to be addressed for permanent accommodation. This is of great concern as
       permanent residents are more likely to have one or two cars and will attract
       visitors to the site.

   9. The application also does not address the impacts of permanent residents
      residing on site in terms of traffic movements. Currently there are significant
      impacts on the surrounding area, in particular the Viridian Noosa Residences, in
      terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as noise from resort guests. No
      information has been provided that clearly demonstrates that the proposal will
      not exacerbate the current vehicular and pedestrian traffic noise levels and
      conflict issues. It is considered that the proposed use for permanent use will
      encourage more traffic to the area as most residents will have one or two cars
      which will increase congestion on site and in Hastings Street. The use will
      therefore negatively affect the surrounding residents and local community.

The application is considered to be short-sighted and does not address the potential
impacts on the surrounding community in terms of tourism and traffic. The application
is therefore requested to be refused.


Yours Faithfully




Kjerulf Ainsworth