MCU22/0118 – Development Application For A Material Change Of Use – Short-term Accommodation At 94 & 142 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads

You. All good. Thank you, Larry. We'll welcome everyone. So confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover please for the Planning & Environment Committee minutes dated the 12th of September 2023 and the Planning & Environment Committee minutes dated 10th of October 2023. I think we need to do those two separate motions. Can we do them together? Yeah, we can. Councillor Stockwell? I'll second it. Okay, Councillor Finzel? Second? All in favour? Yes. Thank carried unanimously. Thank you, Kath. We have no presentations and I believe that deputations have been withdrawn. So reports for consideration of this committee meeting. We have a number that have been asked to be referred to general. 5.1 has in fact asked to be put forward to general, but we will call up our staff in case there are any questions and this is the development application for Material Change of Use short-term accommodation at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. Is great. So I'm actually out on this.

I'll second that. All in favour? Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Cathy anonymous. Thank you, everyone. Item 5.3, minor change for development payment for a Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation at 515 Cooroy Noosa Road, Tinbeerwah.

Alright, so we've had our Material Change of Use lodged for this one for an extension to the existing RACV Resort. So the applicant's seeking approval for short-term accommodation at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive. So they're proposing eight new buildings comprising 15 separate units, self-contained dwelling units. All of them will be elevated above ground level and they're all connected by an elevated boardwalk. The proposal also includes 18 additional car parks and removal of.71 and up to 82 native trees on the site. Of those, 27 are koala trees. Up to 33 potentially have been removed. The access will remain from Noosa Drive as is. They are proposing to amalgamate the lots as part of this development. So the existing access easements would longer be required. The sites, actually over two lots, both of them are split development. So, sorry, split zoning. So the predominant development is over lot three, with the site being predominantly. Short sorry, term. Tourism Accommodation Zone and environmental management and conservation. So the proposal does include development in the environmental management and conservation zone, which is outside of council's urban boundary in the strategic framework in Noosa Plan 2020. So we are recommending refusal for this one. There is significant ecological impacts on the site. There is the whole site's mapped as koala habitat. The proposal has been designed to try and lessen the impacts as much as possible in terms of what they're actually proposing. However, we don't think that outweighs the impacts of the development. Essentially. There building outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management and conservation zone is contrary to the requirements of the planning scheme. Any questions on that one? Could you say that last sentence again? Outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management conservation, short-term accommodation in that zone is inconsistent. Councillor Stockwell,

Okay, so this one did come to the General Committee Meeting last month, but was requested to be deferred. The applicant's proposing, so an application was lodged in April, sorry, it was approved in April 2023 for short-term accommodation at this property, limiting the bedrooms to five bedrooms and eight people on site. The original applicant application requested 10 people on site, but through the assessment process, it was reduced to eight and conditioned at eight. The applicant has. Launched a changed to this approval requesting to increase the number of bedrooms to six and double the number of people from eight to 16 that's able to be accommodated on site. The report recommends refusal. It's considered that the application is, in fact, not a minor change, so the DA rules do have information around what. Constitutes substantially different development we believe this actually does not meet the minor change requirement as it is substantially different in terms of the impacts that the known impacts are likely to increase in terms of amenity impacts and noise so we believe this should have actually been lodged as an other change additionally the scale of the development is not compatible with the rural environment that it's located in so in terms of the context of the site believe that having 16 people and potentially up to 16 vehicles on the site is not compatible with rural amenity.