06/0823 - Proposed change to development approval · 132006.823.04

Mr Wakefield Sykes
Solicitor
Sunshine Coast Regional Council

1 July 2009

 

statement for any or all bodies corporate having control of the Resort or any part thereof
shail incorporate this condition.”

The relevant issues for consideration by Council are:

1. Does the change introduce the start of a new use, or a material change in the scale or
intensity of the use of the 39 villas and 15 penthouses?

2. If the answer to question 1 is “no” (which in my view is the correct answer), does the change
result in any other form of assessable development? Again, the answer to this question is
“no” in my view, given that the relevant dwelling units are exactly the same before and after
the change.

3. Lastly, if the Council asserts that the answers to these questions are “yes” such that this
aspect of the request then falls for consideration under section 3.5.24, would the change be
likely to give rise to adverse submissions. Again, for the reasons given in my advice of
7 November, and below, the answer to this question is “no”.

These matters were fully addressed in my letter of 7 November 2008 however, for completeness, in
addition to the matters discussed in that letter | make the following observations:

1. Under the Planning Scheme “visitor accommodation” is defined by reference to two things —
design and predominant use. As previously mentioned we are concerned here with large
self-contained dwelling units within a resort, which are designed for independent living,
although they are equally capable of being occupied by visitors on a short-term basis. The
proposed change is to facilitate intermittent semi-permanent occupancy of these units by
their owners, or relatives and friends of owners, in addition to the units being made available
through the resort's letting pool.

2. Condition 23 has its genesis in a similar condition of the earlier development approval issued
by the Court, which reflected our client’s arguments and expert opinion about the economic
benefits of the resort to Noosa generally. This condition appears to have been the
motivation for the specific zoning of the subject site for visitor accommodation. However the
zoning does not place an absolute restriction or prohibition on the use of dwelling units for
more than short-term accommodation. The predominance test in relation to use by visitors
remains. Viewed in that light, condition 23 is more restrictive than the zoning.

3. The evident basis for the imposition of the condition, and the zoning, was and remains the
need to support Noosa’s core economic base, namely tourism. This is reflected in a number
of the provisions of the current Planning Scheme. The proposed development will
undoubtedly strengthen significantly Noosa’s tourism focussed economic base. The
question that is relevant in this context is whether the use of the large villas and penthouses
for intermittent semi-permanent residence purposes would detract from those economic
benefits. This gives rise to a number of subsidiary questions discussed in the following
paragraphs.

4. To what extent will the nominated semi-permanent occupancy units be held out of the hotel
letting pool, or be occupied by other than tourists or holiday makers? There is clear
anecdotal evidence that the majority of the villas and penthouses will remain available for
letting. This is what has occurred for the adjoining 23 Viridian residences, and it occurs in
other unit complexes in and around Hastings Street. There is no reason to think that the
owners of the Viridian villas and penthouses would behave any differently in the way they
use these units.

5. For those units that are occupied semi-permanently, how will the spending patterns of those
unit owners be different from the spending patterns of tourists and holiday makers? Are they
less likely to use the restaurants, bars and shops in Hastings Street? in reality, for those
occupants Hastings Street will be akin to their local centre. The shops, bars and restaurants
will be within walking distance and will be used for recreational and/or shopping purposes
where travel by car is not necessary or desired. Why wouldn't semi-permanent occupants

3082523_1.D0C Page 3 of 5