MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD, AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 - Item 5.1)
See the votes on this matter →
What was decided?
The minuted decision sequence
No separately labelled carried Council Resolution has been identified here. Read each formal event and the complete item minutes; a lost motion is not necessarily the final outcome.
1Committee ResolutionCarried
Moved: Joe Jurisevic · Seconded: Amelia Lorentson
That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Cr Stockwell’s queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice.
Carried unanimously.
Official minutes · section 10
2Committee RecommendationCarried
Moved: Brian Stockwell · Seconded: Amelia Lorentson
That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding MCU21/0110 development permit for material change of use for resort complex (106 rooms), food and drink outlet, bar and outdoor sport and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads and
A. Refuse the Application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where:
a. Part of the proposed land use is a resort complex, in circumstances where part of the subject land is outside of the urban growth boundary in Noosa Plan 2020;
b. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for Resort Complex, which is an inconsistent use in the Recreation and Open Space zone;
c. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of the natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation and Open Space zone;
d. The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land, at the expense of its environmental values, as it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed;
e. It results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important area and an environmentally sensitive area;
f. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable.
In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Noosa Plan 2020:
i. Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2(g), 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p);
ii. Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b) and (c), Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO5 and PO12;
iii. Recreation and Open Space Zone Code – 6.6.1.2(2)(a)(c)(f)(g) and(s), Table 6.6.13 PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO15, PO16, PO17, PO18, PO19 and PO38;
iv. Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – 7.2.5.2(2)(b)(e), Table 7.2.5.3 PO5, PO26 and PO27
2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not involve unacceptable acoustic amenity impacts, as:
a. the acoustic impacts of plant, equipment and services associated with the proposed development have not been adequately assessed;
b. if it is the case there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts.
3. The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy, State interest - emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment Plant and risks inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts.
4. 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 that 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Many valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised.
B. Note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds:
1. Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan 2020 maps. Further, that:
a. Council is of the opinion that the demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors, over and above the acceptable line of odour nuisance. During the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, as would be the case in any future potential scheme amendment, avoidance of areas mapped in the Biodiversity Overlay and protection of vegetated and noise buffers to adjacent residences were/would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint;
b. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the Planning Scheme.
2. The proposal represents an excessive use of Recreation and Open Space Zone land for an inconsistent use, and does not adequately achieve the Desired Outcomes for the zone, including those listed below:
• Development does not adversely impact on the Shire’s environmental values or reduce the quality of recreational experiences provided by land or waterways within this zone;
• Adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, including natural habitats, bushland, wetlands and waterways are avoided or minimised;
• Impacts are managed with landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of facilities and infrastructure:
3. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the Biodiversity Overlay and, amongst other things, does not meet Performance Outcome 3 with respect to the following requirements:
Development is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by:
a. minimising the total footprint within which all activities, buildings, structures driveways and other works are contained;
b. locating development in existing cleared areas or areas of low ecological value over other areas to the greatest extent possible; and
c. incorporating siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values and ecosystem processes within or adjacent to the development site.
4. A large number of valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters and Council is satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a result of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised.
5. A valid submission from Unitywater identifies potential risks and flow on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in proximity to the Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant.
Carried unanimously.
Official minutes · section 16
Read complete item-specific minutes
As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready is associated with Altum Property Group. On 24 February 2020 I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer (ICEO) as to the public claims of the Future Noosa Team in regard to Ms Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at that time were in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
Committee Recommendation |
Moved: | Cr Brian Stockwell |
Seconded: | Cr Amelia Lorentson |
That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding MCU21/0110 development permit for material change of use for resort complex (106 rooms), food and drink outlet, bar and outdoor sport and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads and A. Refuse the Application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where:
In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Noosa Plan 2020:
2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not involve unacceptable acoustic amenity impacts, as:
3. The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy, State interest - emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment Plant and risks inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts. 4. 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:
5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Many valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B. Note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds: 1. Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan 2020 maps. Further, that:
2. The proposal represents an excessive use of Recreation and Open Space Zone land for an inconsistent use, and does not adequately achieve the Desired Outcomes for the zone, including those listed below:
3. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the Biodiversity Overlay and, amongst other things, does not meet Performance Outcome 3 with respect to the following requirements: Development is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by:
4. A large number of valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters and Council is satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a result of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. 5. A valid submission from Unitywater identifies potential risks and flow on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in proximity to the Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant. |
Carried unanimously. |
This summary follows this item’s minutes. The established voting totals use their existing method while differences are checked against the full records.
What was said?
Named discussion on NoosaWatch TV
These actual transcript passages match the item’s wording. The start and end of the item’s discussion are not yet confirmed; these excerpts are not measured item airtime or exact decision moments.
Frank Wilkie0:06Welcome everybody. I declare the meeting open. I begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we're gathered here today, which is the Kabi Kabi people. Pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Have all Councillors in attendance. We have no apologies, but I would like to apologise for the Council broadcasting at the wrong time for this meeting, which was incorrectly advertised as being a 10 o'clock start. It is 12.30 and that's been fixed, so we should be able to no confusion in the future, so I apologise for that. Going now we have someone to confirm the Minutes of the last month's General Committee Meeting with the Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Mayor Clare. All in favour? That's carried. Have we have no presentations, we have no deputations, we have items referred from the committees, and the first 21 one is an MCU-0-11 application for Material Change of Use, bar food and drink outlet, outdoor school and recreation, resort complex at Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads, which was referred from the training and environment committee meeting from last week due to the significance of the issue, and we have our manager of planning, Patrick. Yeah, and we do have some conflicts of interest to. Declare as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart. Thank you.
Brian Stockwell72:04I'd like to move motion please. I'd like to move the Council to note the report by the acting development system manager and take out word acting by the development the assessment manager for the planning environment course meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding NCU21/0110, development permit for Material Change of Use for resort complex 106 rooms, food and drink outlet. Bar outdoor sports and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads and A refused the application for the following reasons. One, the proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate in circumstances where A part of the proposed land use is a resort complex in circumstances where part is outside the urban growth boundary of the Noosa Plan 2020. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for resort complex which is an inconsistent use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land at the expense of the natural values of the land. It involves reduction of land in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. The proposed development could result in the overdevelopment of the subject land at the expense of environmental values. Um, have I read one line wrong? Yeah, right. As it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed, it results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area if the built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Noosa Plan 2020. Strategic framework 3.22, 3.25, 3.32G, 3.31B and 3.34B and 3.34B and 3 table eight point two three performance outcomes 1, 3 and 5 and 12. C, F, G and S, table 6.613 performance outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 38. Noosa Heads local plan code 7.245.22B, E. Table 7.2.5.3P, performance outcome 5, 26 and 27.2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not involve unacceptable acoustic and media impacts as A, the acoustic impacts of the planned equipment and services associated with the proposed development have not been adequately assessed. B, if it is the case that there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts. 3. The proposed development conflicts with the State planning policy, state interest, emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing sewerage treatment plant and risks inhibiting the sewerage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts. 4.4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 does not lend support to proposed use of the land as: a the SEQ regional plan sets a long-term 50-year vision establishing aspirations for this region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequence of residential developments occurring within the urban footprint is a finer-grained detail, the planning of which is implemented through local government planning schemes. The designation of the land as being within the urban footprint does not imply that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes and see, when assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020, 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. Proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed, and we are 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. Many valid planning grants have been raised by submitters. The proposal represents an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because the change of tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B, note that, oh, I need that first one, yeah, note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds: one, Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of the zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan maps. Further, that A, Council is of the opinion that demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors over and above the acceptable line of urban over nuisance during 12th and under plan 2020, as would be the case in any future potential scheme amendments, avoidance of areas mapped in the biodiversity overlay and protection of vegetation and noise buffers to adjacent residents were and would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the 2. Proposal represents excessive use of Recreation and Open Space Zone land for an inconsistent use and does not adequately achieve the desired outcomes for the zone, including those listed below. A. Development does not adversely impact on the shire's environmental values or reduce the quality of recreational experiences provided by land or waterways within the zone. 2. Adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, including habitats, bushlands, wetlands and waterways, are avoided or minimised. 3. Impacts are managed with landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of facilities and infrastructure. 4. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the biodiversity overlay and, amongst other things, do not meet performance outcomes 3 with respect to the following requirement. Development is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by: A. Minimising the total footprint within which all activities, buildings, structures, driveways and all other works are contained. B. Locating development in existing cleared areas or of low ecological value over other areas to the greatest extent possible. C. Incorporating siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values. Ecosystem processes within or adjacent to the development site. 4. A large number of valid planning grants have been raised by submitters and Councillors satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a change to the tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. 5. A valid submission for Unitywater. Identifies potential risk and flow-on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in its proximity to the necessary treatment plan.
1 suggested discussion start time
- 62.0 seconds on the council source timeline · Recording time not yet verified. The end of the discussion is not yet confirmed.