Original source · versioned page text
MCU25/0006 - Development Application For Material Change Of Use - Short Term Accommodation (Backpackers Accommodation) At 17 Russell St, Noosaville · Attachment 1 - MCU25 0006 - Planning Officer’S Report
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 07 OCTOBER 2025
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Not applicable
5.2. Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers for review and/or comment:
• Development Engineering - Senior Development Engineer
Engineering has identified the following matters relating to the proposed carparking layout:
o There is insufficient head clearance for the car stacker to operate - relocating the car stacker
beyond the “line of building over” will further reduce the rear setback and require Unitywater
build-over (sewer) approval.
o The use of the car stacker is not appropriate for the users that are likely to be unfamiliar
with their use and the general carpark arrangement.
o The applicant’s consulting Traffic Engineer has suggested that the “proposed bus space
will also function as a staff parking space, in which a staff owned VAN (B99 design vehicle)
will be utilised to transport guests”. Engineering suggests that a B99 design vehicle is not
a suitable substitution for a ‘shuttle bus’ and imposes an unreasonable expectation that the
staff member (who is also a Guest) owns a van.
o The applicant’s consulting Traffic Engineer has anticipated that a weekly servicing from a
Medium Rigid Vehicle (MRV) and biweekly servicing from a Small Rigid Vehicle (SRV) will
be required for the development. Insufficient loading bays and turn around areas have been
proposed to allow the onsite servicing of these vehicles.
The applicant has not addressed how waste generated by the development will be serviced.
Engineering has identified the following with respects to waste collection:
o A Waste Management Plan has not been submitted.
o On-site servicing is not possible due to head clearances, driveway widths and the inability
for waste collection vehicles to manoeuvre on site.
o The applicant’s consulting Traffic Engineer proposes that biweekly “general servicing
occurs outside of peak road network periods via a kerbside servicing arrangement”. The
proposal is insufficient in justifying kerbside servicing instead of onsite servicing.
Engineering recognises the following issues with kerbside servicing that have not
been addressed:
▪ kerbside servicing may be limited due to the existing on-street parking – Council is
highly unlikely to accept the loss of 2 on-street carparks in this location.
▪ servicing from the driveway crossover is not appropriate given the large pedestrian
presence in this location.
▪ servicing via the traffic lane will impede traffic flow.
Engineering recommends the application be refused.
• Strategy and Sustainability - Principal Strategic Planner,
The site is in the High Density Residential Zone and has a history of medium to high density
residential zoning back through the 1985 planning scheme. The use of short-term
accommodation is currently consistent in the HDR zone and is subject to impact assessment.
It is Council’s policy to make the use inconsistent in current amendments which are with the
State for a second State Interest Review. Whilst low cost accommodation is generally
supported as a visitor accommodation type, it should not be at the expense of long term
housing solutions. Given this site is within the High Density Residential zone, any form of
visitor accommodation is not considered appropriate in this zone. The Housing Strategy and
Short Term Accommodation Monitoring Report clearly recommend the High Density
Residential zone is for permanent residents, with ample dedicated Tourist Accommodation
zoned land for visitor accommodation uses.
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 up to a minute.