Original source · versioned page text
FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 7 November 2023 - Item 5.4) · ATTACHMENT 2 – Development Assessment Manager’s Report
ATTACHMENT 2 – Development Assessment Manager’s Report
REPORT
A report was presented to Council at the Planning and Environment Committee on 11 July 2023
for a development application which seeks to develop a 106 room hotel on land within Noosa
Springs.
The report addressed a range of issues including the sites split zoning, the potential odour impacts
of the nearby sewage treatment plant, bushfire risk, ecology, carparking and built form. The
officer’s recommendation was to approve the application on the basis that the odour impacts had
been satisfactorily addressed and matters relating to bushfire, ecology, carparking and built form
had also been suitably addressed.
Three deputations were made at this meeting, the deputations were made by residents of Noosa
Springs, Unitywater and the applicant. Notably, Unitywater advised they were opposed to the
proposed development based on insufficient separation being provided to the existing sewage
treatment plant.
The matter was referred to the General Meeting dated 17 July 2023 at which time a motion was
put forward to refuse the application. The motion was successful, and the application was
recommended to be refused based on the following grounds;
General Meeting Minutes, 17 July 2023, Item 5.1, Page 3
1. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where:
a. Part of the proposed land use is a resort complex, in circumstances where part of
the subject land is outside of the urban growth boundary in Noosa Plan 2020;
b. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for Resort Complex, which is an inconsistent
use in the Recreation and Open Space zone;
c. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of
the natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation
and Open Space zone;
d. The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject
land, at the expense of its environmental values, as it proposed that an area of
existing open space be developed;
e. It results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important
area and an environmentally sensitive area;
f. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable.
In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions
of Noosa Plan 2020:
i. Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2(g), 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p);
ii. Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b)
and (c), Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO5 and PO12;
iii. Recreation and Open Space Zone Code – 6.6.1.2(2)(a)(c)(f)(g) and(s),
Table 6.6.13 PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO15, PO16, PO17, PO18, PO19 an
PO38;
iv. Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – 7.2.5.2(2)(b)(e), Table 7.2.5.3 PO5,
PO26 and PO27
2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not involve unacceptable
acoustic amenity impacts, as:
a. the acoustic impacts of plant, equipment and services associated with the proposed
development have not been adequately assessed;
b. if it is the case there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been
proposed to ameliorate those impacts.
Page 1 of 5
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 4 pages
Page 2
3. The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy, State interest -
emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment
Plant and risks inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively
due to potential reverse amenity impacts.
4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (SEQRP) does not
lend support to the proposed use of the land, as:
a. the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for this region
up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of residential developments
occurring within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the planning for which
is implemented through local government planning schemes;
b. the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply that all
that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and
c. when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not
suitable for urban development.
5. Noosa Plan 2020 appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland
Regional Plan 2017, as set out in section 2.2 of the planning scheme.
6. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to
develop outside of the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed
and where inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding
community benefit been demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflict with
the planning scheme.
7. Many valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal represents
an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development
exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because of the change to the
Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised.
On 19 July the applicant stopped the decision-making period until 29 September 2023, as this was
done prior to prior to the Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2023 Council was not able to decide the
application. The decision-making period recommenced on 29 September 2023.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 20 July 2023, Item 8.3 Page 10
That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. MCU21/0110 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Bar, Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and
Recreation, Resort Complex at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and note that the Applicant
has stopped the current period.
The applicant has not amended the layout of the proposed development however has provided
several written submissions (ATTACHMENT 4) which have included an analysis of the
submissions made during the notification period, a letter from a solicitor reviewing the grounds of
refusal, and a further letter from the applicant’s planning consultant seeking to justify grounds to
support the development.
The applicant’s submissions include an assessment of planning need, referring to an Economic
Impact Assessment provided as part of the application material which identified a significant need
for short-term accommodation in Noosa with an estimate that, even now, there is a shortage of
683 rooms. The report also forecasts a gross regional product of $25.71M and employment for
202 people during construction. When operating, the annual gross regional product is $14.29M
and generates 159 jobs. It is noted the economic benefits of the proposal we not discussed
during the July round of meetings.
Unitywater have recently provided additional written correspondence to Council in which they
maintain the position that they do not support the development in its current location.
The officer recommendation remains in support of the application. During the July General
Committee Meeting it was identified that the proposed condition requiring guests to be advised of
the potential for odour from the sewage treatment plant may influence guests’ perception of the
presence of odour, and result in unsubstantiated odour complaints. In this regard, it is
recommended that condition 13 of the original recommendation be deleted.
Page 2 of 5
Page 3
The grounds of refusal resolved at the General Committee Meeting dated 17 July 2023 have been
reviewed by Council’s legal representatives and have been refined as follows:
1. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop
outside of Noosa Plan 2020's urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity
proposed and where inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding
community benefit been demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflict with
the planning scheme.
2. Many valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal will result in
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds
what a community member could reasonably expect because of the change to the Tourism
Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised.
3. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where:
a. The proposed development seeks to develop land as a resort complex, in
circumstances where part of that land is located outside of the urban growth boundary
in Noosa Plan 2020;
b. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for Resort Complex, which is an inconsistent
use in the Recreation and Open Space zone;
c. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of the
natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation and Open
Space zone;
d. The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land, at
the expense of its environmental values, as it is proposed that an area of existing open
space be developed;
e. The proposed development would result in unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an
ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area;
f. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable;
g. The proposed development will involve unacceptable bushfire risk to people and
property in circumstances where:
i. the development has not taken into consideration the impact on adjoining or
nearby residential communities and the capacity of SES to evacuate persons in
case of fire, and
ii. The development will unduly burden disaster management response or recovery
capacity and capabilities.
In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following
provisions of Noosa Plan 2020:
i. Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2(g), 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p);
ii. Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b) and (c),
Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO5 and PO12;
iii. Recreation and Open Space Zone Code – 6.6.1.2(2)(a)(c)(f)(g) and(s), Table
6.6.13 PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO15, PO16, PO17, PO18, PO19 and PO38;
iv. Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – 7.2.5.2(2)(b), (e) and (f) Table 7.2.5.3 PO5,
PO26 and PO27;
v. Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code – 8.2.3.2(2)(b) and (e)
4. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable
acoustic impacts on the amenity of the locality, as the acoustic impacts of plant, equipment
and services associated with the proposed development have not been identified but not
adequately assessed nor have appropriate measures been proposed to address the
identified impacts.
Page 3 of 5
Page 4
5. The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy, State interest -
emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment Plant
and risks inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to
potential reverse amenity impacts.
6. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (SEQRP) does not
lend support to the proposed use of the land, as:
a. the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for this region up
to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of residential developments occurring
within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the planning for which is
implemented through local government planning schemes;
b. the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply that all that
land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and
c. when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not suitable
for urban development.
CONSULTATION
Referral Agencies
Not applicable
Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
• Senior Environment Officer
• Coordinator Development Engineering
Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following external experts for review and/or comment:
• Bushfire
• Hydraulic Engineer
• Traffic consultant
• Acoustic consultant
• Odour consultant
CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
A report for this application was presented to Council at the Planning and Environment Committee
on 11 July 2023 for an application which seeks to develop a 106-room hotel on land within Noosa
Springs.
The report addressed a range of issues including the sites split zoning, the potential odour impacts
of the nearby sewage treatment plant, bushfire risk, ecology, carparking and built form. The
officer’s recommendation sought to approve the application.
The matter was referred to the General Meeting dated 17 July 2023 at which time a motion was
put forward to refuse the application. The motion was successful, and the application was
recommended to be refused.
On 19 July the applicant stopped the decision-making period until 29 September 2023, as this was
done prior to prior to the Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2023 Council was not able to finalise a
decision on the application. The decision-making period recommenced on 29 September 2023.
The applicant has not amended the layout of the proposed development however has provided
several written submissions which have included an analysis of the submissions made during the
notification period, a letter from a solicitor reviewing the grounds of refusal, and a further letter from
the applicant’s planning consultant further justifying the development.
The officer’s recommendation remains in support of the development, it is recommended the
condition requiring guests to be advised of the potential for odour from the sewage treatment plant,
be deleted.
Page 4 of 5
Page 5
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 Procurement
Commercial Property
Strategy & Environment Development & Regulation Infrastructure Services
Director X Director Director
X 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 Waste
Innovation & Digital Hub Building & Plumbing Building & Facilities
Property / Permits Disaster Management
Page 5 of 5