Minor Change Report 51991.438.01 (As Published)

               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