2014-02-25 Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                             25 FEBRUARY 2014


     The change would not result in a substantially different development because the proposed
      change is intended to relate to one unit.
     The change would not require the application to be referred to additional concurrence
      agencies;
     The original application was impact assessable and the proposed changes would not likely
      cause a person to make a properly made submission because the proposed change is
      intended to relate to one unit. Notwithstanding this, concern is raised that owners consent
      has only been provided in relation to lot 10105 with the body corporate not consenting to
      the application and yet the proposed changes to condition 23 seek to control the Resort
      use through the body corporate’s community management statement.
     The change would not cause the approval to involve prohibited development.

3.    Assessment

The proposed change is difficult to reconcile given the application material states that permanent
residency rights for the subject villa is not sought, whereas the proposed change to the condition
specifically excludes the subject villa from the proposed permanent residency restrictions clause.
Notwithstanding the application material, the intent of the proposed change appears seek to
allow permanent occupation of the unit.

The Viridian Resort has a current approval for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional,
which is defined as:

      Two or more dwelling units or accommodation units, for the purpose of providing short term
      visitor accommodation. The use may include common recreation or dining facilities and
      includes an ancillary dwelling unit for onsite manager. The use includes a guesthouse,
      visitor hostel, motel, resort and serviced rooms, but does not include Visitor accommodation
      Type 1 home hosted or Type 3 Rural as separately defined.

The proposed change is not consistent with the current development approval for the site being
for short term visitor accommodation. The proposed change is also contrary to the Noosa Plan,
which identifies this site as one of several key sites in Noosa to be protected for resort
development. The retention of a range of visitor accommodation choices is important to the
economy of Noosa, given the economy has a large tourism component. The loss of visitor
accommodation to permanent residential housing reduces visitor choice and therefore has the
potential to have a negative effect on the economy for Noosa. Mixing long term accommodation
for residents with short-term accommodation for visitors also has the potential to cause conflicts
between users of the resort and permanent residents.

While the proposed change is intended only to one unit and may not result in any significant
impacts, approving the change is likely to result in other resort unit owners seeking similar
concessions reducing the available accommodation for visitors to Noosa.          There are also no
grounds in the community’s interest to justify approving the application in conflict with The Noosa
Plan.

While the Noosa Springs Resort approval does include a condition similar to the applicant’s
requested change, Noosa Springs was given approval under the Superseded Planning Scheme
for a multiple dwelling. The Superseded Planning Scheme also lacked a use definition specific to
short term visitor accommodation.

FINANCE & RISK

Nil



                                                                                    Page 42 of 92