Objection MCU18

therefore assert, not only is it fair, ethical and consistent to refuse the application: in good
faith with residents of this locale; and in order to foster community trust and respect for
Council; it is imperative the application be rejected.

Councillors noted (meetings 12/7 and 15/7), inter alia, that STA density has reached
saturation levels in Sunshine Beach; and in some areas comprises more than 50%.
Councillors expressed concerns about ‘policy on the run’; ‘investors paying good money for
applications made in good faith’; ‘engendering trust with the community’; being ‘consistent
and fair’ and most concerning of all, describe legitimate refusal, an option fully available to
Councillors in accordance with the provisions of the Plan as: ‘changing the Noosa Plan’.

Glaringly absent from the debate was fairness to residents who rely on Council and
Councillors to represent their interests; protect their (often life-time) investment in their
residential homes and the community - by appropriately applying the provisions of the
Noosa Plan. Absent from the debate was the duty of care; the obligation Councillors have,
to protect those residents who purchased their residential properties in good faith in what
was a predominantly residential neighbourhood. Residents could not have reasonably
foreseen that the residential value of their properties and their residential amenity would
be severely degraded and diminished by laissez faire Council management, and now overt,
Council decision making - against residents’ interests, in contravention of the provisions and
principles of the Noosa Plan.

At the meeting of 12/7, Councillors (with the exception of Clrs Wilkie and Wegener)
indicated, as did Mayor Stewart, that they would, in fairness and justice, vote to support all
STA applications ‘in the pipeline in Medium Density areas’. These statements are on the
public record and are demonstrably improper. It grieves me, as a resident, to have to draw
such matters to the attention of Councillors and the Mayor.

Such statements of intent are clearly improper and would not withstand even the most
basic scrutiny in any appellate or review process or as evidence in any further action on
behalf of affected residents. Councillors are obliged to assess applications informed by
provisions of the State Planning Act 2016; the whole of the Noosa Plan 2020; Planning Staff
recommendations and any objections submitted in accordance with the Act. Councillors,
and most egregiously, the Mayor, in her position of leadership, cannot and patently should
not, make assessments on any of these applications until they have received full advice from
the applicants; Planning Staff’s recommendations; and: fully and properly considered;
assessed, and made decisions according to merit; on any objections received. It is available
to be argued that to indicate a voting position ahead of receiving the requisite advice and
facts is not only improper, it is likely to constitute misfeasance. Councillors are obliged to
afford residents the opportunity to lodge objections to MCU applications and are obliged to
afford those objections full and proper consideration. To form a position ahead of receipt of
any such objections is to totally prejudice the application process against residents and
objectors and is clearly improper.

Mayor Stewart, speaking to an MCU application at Peregian Beach, at the Council Ordinary
Meeting 15/7, arbitrarily dismissed objections by 76 residents living more than 100 metres
from the site with the very unfortunate, contemptuous comment (and I quote) ‘who cares’. I

                                                2