Minor Change Report 51991.438.01 (As Published)

Page 2

               1.     PROPOSAL
               The applicant seeks approval to change an existing development approval through the removal of
               Condition 8, which requires the operator to provide security personnel to patrol Bay Village Centre
               and the adjacent public areas of Noosa Parade and Hastings Street.
               The locality plan is included below.




                                                         Figure 1 – Locality

               It is noted that there is no proposal plans required for the requested change, as it relates only to a
               request to remove Condition 8 of the approval.
               2.     BACKGROUND
               A town planning consent TPC 2268 was approved for Indoor Entertainment Cabaret/ restaurant in
               February 1990 located on Lot 1 on RP214446, situated in the upper level of the Bay Village
               complex in Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. Extensions to an Existing Nightclub were approved on
               22 November 1991 through the town planning consent TPC2389.
               3.     ASSESSMENT
               3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
               Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
               statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
               •      State Planning Policy;
               •      South East Queensland Regional Plan;
               •      Planning Regulation 2017; and
               •      Noosa Plan 2020 (Amendment 2 - 26 September 2026).
               3.2. Statutory Process
               The applicant has requested to make a minor change to a development approval under s78 of the
               Planning Act 2016. An application for a minor change to a development approval can only be made
               in circumstances where a change would constitute a ‘minor change’.
               The proposed change to the development approval requested by the applicant is determined to
               constitute a minor change on the grounds that:
               •      the development would not result in substantially different development as the proposal does
                      not:
                      o     change the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; or
                      o     introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts.
               •      the change does not include prohibited development;



                                                                                                        Page 2 of 6

Document Set ID: 24665366
Version: 9, Version Date: 25/05/2026

Page 3

               •      the change would not require the application to be referred to an additional referral agency
                      or cause a referral agency to have regard to new matters prescribed by regulation;
               •      where the original application was code assessable, the change would not cause the
                      application to become impact assessable.
               3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
               The original application was lodged and assessed under the now superseded now superseded
               1985 Planning Scheme and the associated Schedule to the Planning Scheme. Pursuant to s81 of
               the Planning Act 2017, Council must consider the planning scheme in effect when the original
               development application was lodged, however Council may give weight to Noosa Plan 2020 as the
               planning scheme in effect at the time of the minor change application being lodged.
               The following codes from Noosa Plan 2020 are applicable to this development:
               •      Tourist Accommodation Zone Code;
               •      Noosa Heads Local Plan Code;
               •      Entertainment Activities Code;
               •      Works Codes;
               Existing Condition 8
               The developer or operator shall to the satisfaction of Council provide for security personnel to patrol
               Bay Village Centre and adjacent public areas of Noosa Parade and Hastings Street during the
               hours of 12.00 midnight and 4:00 am for the purposes of prevention and restraint of unruly
               behaviour, undue noise, loud or foul language or abuse by patrons who have departed the
               premises.
               Applicant’s Request
               The applicant has requested existing Condition 8 be deleted.
               The applicant submits that the condition was imposed in 1991 in the context of a materially different
               venue configuration, trading hours, and regulatory environment, and is no longer necessary or
               proportionate given the current operation of the premises and contemporary patron management
               controls.
               Assessment of Request
               Condition 8 was originally imposed to manage late-night patron behaviour associated with a
               nightclub operating into the early morning hours under historical regulatory arrangements. Since
               that time, the operational characteristics of the premises have evolved, including a reduction in
               trading hours to a 2:00 am close, the introduction of mandatory ID scanning, the provision of in-
               house security personnel, comprehensive CCTV coverage with extended retention periods, and
               structured procedures for the management of patron dispersal.
               Collectively, these measures attempt to provide a contemporary management framework that both
               prevents and responds to disorderly behaviour associated with the use. In this regard, the current
               operational controls partially achieve the intent of Condition 8 without reliance on external public-
               area patrols for the full duration of 12:00 am to 4:00 am. Having regard to the statutory tests under
               section 65 of the Planning Act 2016, which require conditions to be relevant to the development
               and not an unreasonable imposition or reasonably required to address impacts arising from the
               use, it is considered that the removal or modification of Condition 8 is unwarranted.
               In considering the incident data and stakeholder feedback, including submissions from the Bay
               Village Body Corporate and the Hastings Street Association, it is evident that the most frequent
               and acute impacts associated with patron behaviour occur between 12:00 midnight and 4:00 am.
               On this basis, it is considered reasonable and proportionate to maintain the scope of Condition 8
               and not remove or amend the requirement for security personnel to patrol Bay Village Centre and
               adjacent public areas of Noosa Parade and Hastings Street.
               Accordingly, the request to remove Condition 8 is not supported based on the concerns raised by
               stakeholders (as summarised in Section 4.3 of this report). This will ensure that an explicit and
                                                                                                         Page 3 of 6

Document Set ID: 24665366
Version: 9, Version Date: 25/05/2026

Page 4

               enforceable mechanism remains in place to manage off-site impacts and achieve the amenity
               outcomes required under Condition 9.
               Recommendation
               It is recommended existing Condition 8 be maintained and it not be removed or amended.


               4.     CONSULTATION
               4.1. Referral Agencies
               Not applicable
               4.2. Internal Council Referrals
               Not applicable
               4.3. External Referrals
               Key external stakeholders were advised of the requested change and invited to provide feedback.
               This included Queensland Police, the Manager of Bay Village and the President and Secretary of
               the Hastings Street Association.
               These stakeholders all provided feedback, which has been uploaded into ECM.
               Senior Sergeant Nick Paterson provided a response via email which supported the removal of the
               condition.
               The Body Corporate for Bay Village engaged a consultant to examine the matter and provide
               feedback on their behalf in a response letter. The position of the Body Corporate is that it does not
               support the removal or dilution of Condition 8. There key concern is that the removal of the
               requirement for external security patrols would create a gap in managing behaviour outside the
               venue. Documented evidence and details of incidents were provided to Council. The number of
               incidents demonstrates that even with Condition 8 in place there is a continued need for managing
               public areas, escorting patrons and responding to incidents post venue departure. Maintaining
               Condition 8 satisfies s65 of the Planning Act 2016 and ensures Condition 9 (amenity) is achieved.
               An email dated 8 May 2026 from the President and Secretary of the Hastings Street Association
               outlines that the association supports the retention of an active security presence and aligns with
               the Bay Village Body Corporate position. Their feedback highlights the impacts that occur after
               patrons leave the premises, including damage to shopfronts, awnings and public areas. This type
               of anti-social behaviour affects staff, guests and public space. If hours or form are amended in the
               condition, ensure the condition still covers peak dispersal periods and maintains an active public-
               area management function (not purely passive or internal controls).
               5.     CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
               Having regard to the submissions received from both the Bay Village Body Corporate and the
               Hastings Street Association, the proposed removal or amendment of Condition 8 raises
               substantive concerns in relation to whether the development would continue to achieve the
               required amenity outcomes under Condition 9 and satisfy the statutory tests in s65 of the Planning
               Act 2016.
               Both submissions consistently identify that the primary impacts of the use arise not within the
               premises, but during the late‑night dispersal period when patrons enter the public realm, resulting
               in noise, disturbance, anti‑social behaviour and property damage affecting adjoining land and the
               broader Hastings Street precinct.
               The evidence provided by the Body Corporate, including documented incident records and CCTV-
               supported examples, demonstrates that such impacts are ongoing and occur during the midnight
               to early morning period, notwithstanding the current operation of Condition 8. This supports a
               finding that the current condition, which is specifically directed at managing patron behaviour in the
               public domain remains directly relevant to the use and is reasonably required to mitigate its off‑site
               impacts.

                                                                                                        Page 4 of 6

Document Set ID: 24665366
Version: 9, Version Date: 25/05/2026

Page 5

               In contrast, the Hastings Street Association submission reinforces, from a precinct-wide
               perspective, that unmanaged patron dispersal has the potential to adversely affect public safety,
               business operations and the reputation of Hastings Street as a key tourism destination.
               Both submissions also raise a consistent concern that the proposed reliance on Operational
               Management Plan measures (including CCTV, ID scanning and internal security) would not provide
               an equivalent or enforceable mechanism to manage behaviour external to the premises, noting
               such measures are predominantly reactive and venue focused. In the absence of a clearly defined
               and enforceable requirement for public-area patrols or active dispersal management, there is a
               demonstrated risk that the mechanism currently used to achieve the amenity outcome in Condition
               9 would be diminished or lost. This would likely result in increased reliance on police and third
               parties to manage impacts, rather than the operator of the use.
               In this context, Condition 8 performs a critical functional role by providing an operational
               mechanism to give effect to Condition 9, linking the use to a tangible and enforceable management
               response during the period when impacts are most likely to occur. The submissions support a
               finding that the condition is not an unreasonable imposition, as it is proportionate to the scale and
               nature of the use and is directed at mitigating clearly identified externalised impacts.
               The removal of Condition 8 without a directly equivalent condition requiring active and visible
               management of the public realm during late-night patron dispersal would not satisfactorily
               demonstrate compliance with the s65 tests, nor ensure the continued achievement of the amenity
               outcomes required by Condition 9. Retention of Condition 8 that expressly requires public-area
               patrols and dispersal management, is therefore considered necessary to mitigate the identified
               impacts and maintain the established amenity of the locality.
               Overall, the proposed change introduces a material weakening of impact mitigation, resulting in a
               development that no longer demonstrably achieves the performance outcomes of the Tourist
               Accommodation Zone Code, Noosa Heads Local Plan Code, and Entertainment Activities Code,
               particularly in relation to amenity protection, public realm safety, and responsible management of
               late-night entertainment uses.
               The report is provided in accordance with Section 83(9) of the Planning Act 2016.
               RECOMMENDATION
               With regard to Application No. 51991.438.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for
               Town Planning Consent for Extensions to an Existing Nightclub situated at Bay Village 28/18
               Hastings Street, Noosa Heads Qld 4567 and described as Lot 28 on SP140844, Council on 25
               May 2026 decided to:
               A.     Refuse the change based on the following grounds:
               1.     Condition 8 remains directly relevant to the approved development and is a reasonable and
                      necessary control to mitigate off-site impacts associated with late-night entertainment uses,
                      consistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Entertainment Activities Code, which
                      require adverse impacts on surrounding uses to be mitigated and managed.
               2.     Removal of Condition 8 would likely result in increased noise, disturbance and anti-social
                      behaviour, causing adverse amenity impacts on surrounding premises and the Hastings
                      Street locality, contrary to:
                      a.      PO4, PO11 and PO13 of the Entertainment Activities Code requiring nightclub uses to
                              avoid noise and disturbance impacts and minimise adverse amenity effects; and
                      b.      Overall Outcome (2)(i) and PO21/PO22 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code
                              requiring development to maintain a high level of amenity and avoid unreasonable
                              impacts on surrounding premises.
               3.     Condition 8 provides a clear and enforceable mechanism for managing patron behaviour in
                      public areas external to the premises, consistent with PO11 of the Entertainment Activities
                      Code, which requires operational measures (including crowd control and management) to
                      minimise impacts.

                                                                                                       Page 5 of 6

Document Set ID: 24665366
Version: 9, Version Date: 25/05/2026

Page 6

               4.     Evidence indicates that late-night patron-related incidents persist, particularly between
                      midnight and 4:00 am, and would likely intensify if the condition were removed, contrary to
                      PO2 and PO11 of the Entertainment Activities Code, which require uses to be of an
                      appropriate intensity and effectively managed to avoid adverse impacts.
               5.     The applicant has not demonstrated that alternative measures would provide an equivalent
                      or enforceable level of impact management or achieve the approved amenity outcomes, as
                      required to meet PO11 and PO12 of the Entertainment Activities Code (management of
                      impacts and hours of operation).
               6.     The proposed change is contrary to the public interest, as it would increase reliance on
                      external agencies and diminish safety, amenity and public realm quality, inconsistent with:
                      a.      Overall Outcomes (2)(l), (u) and (z) of the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code, which require
                              a safe, vibrant, pedestrian-friendly environment with high amenity; and
                      b.      Entertainment Activities Code overall outcomes, which require a safe and secure
                              environment for patrons and the community.
               7.     The change is inconsistent with the planning scheme, including:
                      a.      PO2 and PO3 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code, requiring non-residential
                              uses to be compatible with and ancillary to accommodation and not compromise
                              amenity or the function of the zone;
                      b.      PO2, PO12 and PO14 of the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code, which require
                              development to contribute to local amenity, maintain Hastings Street as a high-amenity
                              visitor destination and reinforce its pedestrian-focused character; and
                      c.      PO2 and PO4 of the Entertainment Activities Code, requiring entertainment uses to be
                              compatible with locality character and avoid adverse impacts.
               8.     Removing Condition 8 would reduce the ability to manage off-site behavioural impacts,
                      increase the likelihood of disturbance incompatible with surrounding sensitive uses, and
                      contribute to cumulative late-night impacts, contrary to Overall Outcomes (2)(c) and PO2 of
                      the Entertainment Activities Code, which require consideration of cumulative impacts and
                      suitability of scale and intensity.
               9.     The change does not demonstrate compliance with Performance Outcomes requiring that:
                      a.      Uses coexist without adverse amenity impacts, contrary to Overall Outcome (2)(i) of
                              the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code; and
                      b.      Development contributes to and protects local amenity, contrary to PO2 and PO8 of
                              the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code.
               10.    The removal of Condition 8 undermines the proactive and comprehensive management of
                      operational impacts required by the planning scheme, and is inconsistent with:
                      a.      PO11 of the Entertainment Activities Code, requiring an operational management
                              framework addressing patron behaviour, crowd control and safety; and
                      b.      PO11 and PO27 of the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code, which seek to maintain a high-
                              quality, pedestrian-oriented public realm and avoid adverse amenity impacts within the
                              Hastings Street precinct.




                                                                                                        Page 6 of 6

Document Set ID: 24665366
Version: 9, Version Date: 25/05/2026