2024.03.26 - Parker Capital Submission - Final

Noosa Shire Council                                                                           26 March 2024


           (c)        size of the yoga studio in comparison to the main dwelling that Mr. Hughes resides
                      in.

           Rather, the Purported Site Plans are merely floor plans of the yoga studio and the Premises
           are clearly separate to the residential dwelling. Appropriate site plans should be provided that
           depict the whole of the proposed use as it is intended on the Land.

54.        Thirdly, the information about provision of car parking spaces on the Premises is ambiguous.
           The Crowcombe Letter indicates that there will be "over 10 cars and have included 1 x
           disabled, plus staff parking". It is unclear whether a total of 12 car parking spaces are
           provided for 10 clients and 2 yoga staff (excluding David Hughes). This uncertainty is
           exacerbated given that:

           (a)        on the basis of Annexure A, 15 to 20 vehicles have attended the site at one time;
                      and

           (b)        the Purported Site Plans also outline that a 'large paddock' offers an additional 30
                      car parking spaces. This is indicative of patrons consistent with the observations
                      made by SLR, and those in Annexure A.

55.        Fourthly, there is no confirmation that all activities of the Business occur indoors, with the
           doors closed to control noise, particularly where our client has previously witnessed and
           experienced noise generated from the use of drums on the Premises.

56.        Given the (lack of) detail as presented in the Development Application, these deficiencies are
           unlikely to be able to be sufficiently addressed.

57.        For all of the above described reasons, our client opposes to the Development Application in
           light of these identified deficiencies, and the other matters outlined above with respect to

           (a)        the misrepresentation of the use as a Home-Based Business;

           (b)        the scope of the Development Application; and

           (c)        non-compliance with the assessment benchmarks in the Planning Scheme

58.        This letter will constitute part of the 'common material' for the Development Application under
           the Planning Regulations. Accordingly, and pursuant to section 27 of the Planning
           Regulations, Council must have regard to this letter when carrying out the assessment of the
           Development Application.

59.        Our client's submission is that the Development Application is misconstrued for all of the
           above described reasons, and cannot be corrected by lawful conditions. The Development
           Application should not be recognised as 'properly made' given the inherent issues addressed
           in this submission. Alternatively, if Council is inclined to progress its assessment despite the
           concerns raised in this submission, a refusal of the Development Application ought to follow,
           given that lawful conditions are unavailable to correct its shortfalls.

60.        Finally, please be reminded that section 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (Human
           Rights Act) makes it unlawful for Council to act in a way that is incompatible with human
           rights, or make a decision which fails to give proper consideration to human rights. Any
           decision made by Council, which does not properly account for this letter, and the concerns
           repeatedly raised by our client, would be contrary to the Human Rights Act. Our client
           reserves its rights in this regard.




L\352889898.1