MCU21/0154.02 – Application For A Minor Change To Development Approval For Home Based Business (Meat Processing Facility) At 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah · Attachment 1 - (MCU21/0154.02) - Planning Officer'S Report

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT                                11 FEBRUARY 2025




2.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The following codes from the Noosa Plan are applicable to this development:
•    Rural Residential Zone Code; and
•    Home-based Business Code.
An assessment against the relevant sections of the Home based business code for the minor
change is as follows:
Home Based Business Code

Effects of Use
PO3 The home-based business is ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling.

AO3.1 The home-based business is operated by a resident (or residents) of the dwelling.
AO3.2 The home-based business occupies no more than 40% of the dwelling.

Scale
PO5 The home-based business is an inconspicuous component of the primary use of
the dwelling as a permanent residence.

AO5.5 Outside the circumstances of AO5.3 and AO5.4 above, the maximum number of persons
on site for business purposes, including the resident operator(s) is:
 1. in the Rural Zone or Rural Residential Zone— six persons;
 2. otherwise— four persons
Assessment of Request
The home based business will continue to be operated by the owner and resident of the site. The
proposal to change the approval to allow a maximum of two employees and the resident to be
engaged within the Home based business (a maximum of 3 staff) maintains compliance with AO3.1
and AO5.5 of the Home based business code. Further as previously indicated, the proposal does
not seek to change the hours of operation or the capacity of the business and it remains ancillary
to the residential use on the site.


Condition 6
6.    The approved use must be conducted by a permanent resident or residents of the detached
      house. No employees are permitted.
Applicant’s Request
The Applicant requests deletion of condition 6 of the approval and submits;
It is requested Condition 6 be deleted as it is superfluous being a double up of Condition 10 with
the word ‘conducted’ used rather than ‘operated’. These words have the same intended meaning
in the context of the 2 conditions. However, the Planning Scheme uses ‘conducted’ differently
which doesn’t make sense in the approval’s context.
For example, AO5.1 of the Home-Based Business Code requires a Home-Based Business to be
‘conducted within a structure’ different to the meaning as written in this condition, ‘as conducted by
a permanent resident’.
Council has certainty that the resident operates the business as outlined in Condition 10. Condition
10 also provides for employee requirements, the intent of both Condition 6 and Condition 10.
Assessment of Request


                                                                                         Page 5 of 9