Letter to Noosa Council · OPW11/0335

Type 4 – Conventional, Commercial Business Type 1– Office, Retail Business Type 2 – Shop and Salon
and entertainment and Dining Business Type 1 – Food and Beverages.

An extension to the relevant period for the MCU approval was obtained by way of the Judgment made
15 November 2013. A change was made to condition 31 of the approval, which states:

The Development Permit for material change of use lapses if the first change of use has not started by
28 September 2016, and all works associated with the development have been completed by 4 February
2018.

The development of the site has not progressed due the relatively unstable economic conditions in
recent years. Since the above MCU approval was obtained, another development application for material
change of use has been lodged over part of the land in response to an identified need for a small scale
supermarket in the Peregian Beach locality. This proposed ‘Peregian Village Market’ development
overlaps with Stage 1 of the current MCU approval and therefore neither of these developments can
progress until the development application is decided.

Given that the development application has not been finalized, there is a need to ensure that the MCU
approval and the related approvals for operational work and reconfiguring a lot remain current to allow
for maximum flexibility. Since the relevant period for the MCU approval has recently been extended,
there is a corresponding need to extend the relevant period of the related approvals for operational
work (OPW11/0335) and reconfiguring a lot (1520.627.01)(to be lodged separately).

Town Planning

Pursuant to Section 388 of the SPA, in deciding the request the assessment manager must only have
regard to:

    a) the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with the current laws and policies
       applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure
       contributions, or charges payable under chapter 8, part 1; and
    b) the community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
    c) whether, if the request were refused –
       (i)     further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development
               application; and
       (ii)    the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
    d) the views of any concurrence agency for the approval given under section 385.

With respect to part (a) above, the current operational works approval stems from the conditions of
approval under the MCU. As such, the MCU remains current and the conditions of approval have not
changed since the approval for operational works was granted. Further, the approval for operational
work remains current under the Noosa Plan 2006, which was the planning scheme in place at the time
the application was assessed. Therefore, no further assessment is required against the planning scheme
and there is no reason not to grant the request.

With respect to part (b) above, this is really a matter that is associated with the development approval
for MCU. The general Peregian Beach community remains acutely aware of the development proposal
for the ‘Essence of Peregian’ over the land and this issue has been considered recently with the
extension to the relevant period granted. Consequently, this matter does not need to be considered
further.

With respect to part (c) above, this aspect is not relevant to an extension to a relevant period for a
development approval for operational work, given that the application was code assessable, not
requiring public notification. The ability of a person to make a submission about the proposed
development is therefore not relevant.




                                                                                            2|Page