Further submission from applicant 13.10.2023

    When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (SEQRP) does not lend
    support to the proposed use of the land, as:

           (a)       the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for this
                     region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of residential
                     developments occurring within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the
                     planning for which is implemented through local government planning schemes;

           (b)       the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply that
                     all land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and

           (c)     when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not
                   suitable for urban development.
    Noosa Plan 2020 appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland Regional
    Plan 2017, as set out in section 2.2 of the planning scheme.


14.       We do not consider these grounds constitute proper grounds for refusal. In any case, we repeat
          and rely on the response in paragraphs 0 to 6 above.


    The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop
    outside of the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed and where
    inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding community benefit
    been demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme.

15.       There is a clear planning need for the proposed development. The Noosa Plan 2020 (strategic
          framework) refers to ‘a high level of community need’. In determining whether there is a need, it
          is important to note the following guidance provided by the Courts:

          (a)      need has to be considered against the background of the relevant planning provisions; 2

          (b)      need is not solely a factor of economics or supply and demand but rather a planning
                   circumstance which is the outcome of all relevant planning considerations be they
                   economic, social, environmental or strategic; 3

          (c)      need is a relevant concept to be given greater or less weight depending on all the
                   circumstances which the planning authority is to take into account;4

          (d)      whether need is shown to exist is to be decided from the perspective of the community,
                   not that of the applicant, a commercial competitor, or even particular objectors; 5

          (e)      need does not mean a pressing need, critical need, widespread desire or anything of that
                   nature. It relates to the general well-being of the community. A use would be needed if it
                   would, on balance, improve the services and facilities available in a locality. 6

16.       The economic impact assessment report by Lucid Economics, which was lodged in support of the
          development application identifies there is a chronic shortage of full-service, luxury hotel
          accommodation in Noosa. If approved, it is anticipated the project will deliver $25.7m to the local
          economy and 202 jobs (direct and indirect) during construction. Once operational, it is
          anticipated the resort will deliver $14.3m to the local economy and 158 jobs (direct and indirect).




2  PMM Group Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2006] QPELR 144;
3  Ecovale v Gold Coast City Council [1999] 2 Qd R 35.
4 Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2014] QPELR 479.
5 Intrafield Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council (2001) 116 LGERA 350.
6 Cut Price Stores, Retailers v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPLR 126.




Letter - Mr L Sengstock - Submissions on grounds for refusal - 02(43623133.1).docx                            5