DEPUTATION: MCU21/0110 - Noosa Springs Proposed Development Applicant: Kim Petrovic Speakers: Kim Petrovic and John Cochrane

Thank you. Mayor, CEO, and Councillors for allowing us the opportunity to speak at the final Ordinary Meeting of 2024. My name is Kim Petrovic, a resident of Noosa Springs, and I represent numerous residents who have submitted concerns. Regarding the hotel development of Noosa Springs in its current and previous formats. We've got seven basic concerns. The first one: outdated reports. Many consultant reports, for example the odour, traffic, noise, fire evacuation, relied upon the applicant are outdated, with some dating back to 2016 and 2017. These reports. Failed to account for significant developments such as the construction of Parkridge Estate and Elysium. Which together represent over 50% of the properties directly affected by the proposed hotel. We urge the Council to mandate updated independent reports that reflect current realities, including increased population, amplified events and council's proposed rezoning of the Parkridge Estate from tourist accommodation to high density residential. The MCU application has been prepared on the basis that Parkridge Estate was already zoned as tourist accommodation. Outdated data cannot support informed decision making. Two, the bushfire risks. Links Drive is situated within a high potential bushfire intensity zone, presenting serious. Evacuation challenges due to its single access road. The Queensland fire and emergency services do not recognise Eenie Creek Road as a safe evacuation option. Their concerns contrast with statements made by planning staff at the P&E meeting of 11 June 2024, who suggested hotel buildings could shelter evacuees. This disparity raises critical questions about the safety of all residents and guests during emergencies. Third, applicant the survey. The applicant survey is fundamentally flawed. It relied on a small, non-representing sample, including non-residents and visitors, without targeting those directly affected by the development. Furthermore, the methodology was unqualified, with misleading assumptions, for example, attributing neutral responses as being supportive. We call for a professionally conducted independent survey to accurately capture residents' views. Planning and engagement issues. We reject the applicant's dismissal of over 400 resident objections as near standardised responses, and the similar comments made planning staff at the PME meeting of 11 June 2024. The notification period: strategically set during the Christmas season. Limited meaningful community engagement. Request for deadline extensions. Were denied and inadequate signage obscured the process further. Our concerns remain unaddressed. Despite multiple submissions and petitions. Demonstrating informed and genuine opposition. Community discussion forums. The held by the applicant on 24 June and 1 July 2024 revealed inconsistent. And a lack of concrete assurances. Claims linking the golf club's viability to the hotel's success lacked substantiated commitments. Additionally, aspirational statements about a five-star hotel failed to address the broader community's concerns. Trust. The absence the of measureable measurable of outcomes continues to undermine to trust. In this proposal. Six mental health impacts. The proposed development risks disrupting the community sense of security and peace, leading to increased stress and mental health concerns among residents. The displacement of key facilities such as pilates physio, school holiday camps and junior tennis programs further compounds this stress. These activities are vital for community wellbeing and their loss will be deeply felt. 7. Developers history and transparency. The applicant's history, including delays in changes prior projects such as ITON, Milton and hope island, raises concerns about their reliability and intentions. Approving this major change of application without clear guarantees risks exacerbating unresolved issues, potentially allowing for expansion beyond what is currently approved or proposed. In summary, this proposal does not adequately address critical zoning, safety and community concerns that have been raised over the past three years. The outdated reports, flawed survey methodology and lack of transparency undermine its credibility. We urge Councillors to prioritise the wellbeing and the voices of the residents who will bear the direct consequences of this development. It is worth noting here that tourism only supports one third of the Noosa economy and the application does not assist Council in any way to achieve its desired health. Housing compounds. We respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous decision to refuse this application as taken by the General Committee on 17 July 2023.

Thank you, Councillors, for the opportunity to address this meeting. My submission is in regard to the Noosa Springs hotel. My name is John Cochrane and I live in Noosa Springs. The objections to this application are broadly based and cover many issues. I'm reminded that the aphorism, the path to hell, is paved with good intentions. I have no reason to doubt the applicant's good intentions, but the Planning Act does not list good intentions as a relevant matter. The act is quite clear that a person's personal circumstance, financial or otherwise, are not relevant matters. Why is this important? Well, the applicant has chosen this development form over one which would comply with the Noosa Plan 2024 financial reasons. We have proven that a smaller scale development could be constructed on land zone for the purpose of complying with all controls. The strategy used to support the application relies on good intentions and the interpretation of relevant matters as defined in the Planning Act. However, we do not believe that the matters raised in the application as relevant are sustainable. Are they matters of public not private interest? We do not believe so. The application restricts public use and amenity to affect private gain. The simple equation is over a three-year construction program in broad numbers lost 45,000 tennis coaching places, lost 23,000 pilates and physiotherapy places, gained no extra tennis courts, gained no extra golfing or ancillary facilities, lost public access and amenity. Does the application satisfy a planning need? We say no, particularly now that approval in place for a better located hotel at settlers cove. 3. Are current assessment benchmarks relevant? We say no. A higher level of impact assessment could be appropriate given the rezoning of the adjacent parkridge site to high density 4. Are how the assessment benchmarks based on material errors? We do not believe so. Nor, as I understand, does Unitywater. Indeed, in considering the issue of relevant matters, his honour judge Wilkinson KC in guidance states: may include matters which mitigate for and against approval. We believe that there are a multitude of relevant matters mitigating against approval of this application. Indeed, relevant matters may also include amenity impacts and environmental impacts. It is important to note that amenity impacts not only the effect of the place on the census, but also the residents' subjective perception of the locality. Key takeaway here is that if relevant matters are to design an application, they must have weight and they must include consideration of both positive and negative impacts. We're here today because has the delayed the final decision on the application after Council voted to refuse. The applicant's amended submission seeks to persuade Council that there are sufficient grounds to reverse the prior decision. We believe that the amended application brings no new information but simply reiterates prior statements by the we also note that submission contains only minimal changes to the proposed design and no mitigation of impact outlined in council's motion to refuse. This application is full of inconsistency and potentially unforeseen consequences. Except the potential consequences are not all that well disguised. One, let's look at what potential expansion by future application. The applicant has stated that the tourist accommodation density control would yield 15,240 square metres of floor area, whereas the hotel only contains 10,280. As the current scheme is cited mostly on open space recreation zone land, there is a considerable portion of land zone tourist accommodation available for future development. If the argument is accepted, a further application for an additional 5,000 square metres of hotel to be built over the existing car park area could be lodged. It would comply with the plot ratio. Controls and zoning. The site cover calculation is a little murkier. The planners report has considered. Has concluded that the site cover will only comply if the site is aggregated. It's an aggregation of both TAZ and OSR zones. In fact, the site cover on the OSR zone is two-and-a-half times the level of 10 per cent. This zoning of approximately 15,000 square metres would yield 1,500 square metres of site cover. However, the application cites 3,800 square metres of building on the OSR zone. The only acknowledgement of this non-compliance in the planning report acknowledged the extent of site cover does not comply with the existing map, Recreation and Open Space Zone when considered in isolation. However, the building and structures do not detrimentally reduce the usability of open space think or dominate the site. Is that there that is a matter of opinion and hardly a sound basis to observe a principal density control. Further, the only planning justification given is the assumption that the only basis for the OSR zone is the ODEC contour. No rigorous planning assessment no rigorous planning assessment can justify acceptance of such a gross non-compliance with the planning controls for zoning without reference to all objectives of the zone. These are not addressed. Further, if in the future one was asked to assess an application on the basis of the Noosa initial plan, a site cover related to the TAZ would yield approximately, it would yield 9,200 square metres of site area, site cover. The current scheme utilises 7,000 of the amount of site cover for the TAZ. This leaves an untapped 2,000 square metres of site area. What the developer is potentially asking Council to do is to approve a building outside the allowable zone in order to make available land in the proper zone for possible future development. 5,000 square metres of additional allowable floor space would equate to 100 rooms based on 30% travel and engineering and a room size to those proposed in the current application. So the hotel could be 206 rooms with little possibility of refusal. Even if the applicant were to reduce the size of this hotel in this application and shuffle it around on the LSR zoning, all they are really doing is banking clock ratio and site cover for future application. Two, potential change of use by future application. The proposal will approve gain consent to construct a facility which includes an overscaled foyer with an attribute which would make it enormously attractive to operate as a function space. A commercial kitchen and backup house provision will be on the scope of service appropriate to breakfast for 200 guests. It is of little comfort that these uses are carved out by conditioning at this stage. It would only be a matter of a further application to achieve a fully independent facility capable of operating to the exclusion of the existing golf bar. You must remember, the hotel will be leased to a fully independent operator. The suggestion that the management system expressed by the applicant can be maintained is fanciful, albeit another intention. In closing, let's be clear what the applicant is asking of Council. I have one parcel of land zoned tourist accommodation and another zoned open space recreation. I would like to build an hotel on the open zoned land. The only reason I can give for doing so is that it will be bigger and better than it might be if sited on the tourist zoned land. So, Council, will you put aside your properly made plan, your environmental overlay. The warnings of Unitywater, the multiple environmental and social impacts and concerns of many residents so we can build a bigger, more profitable hotel than we might otherwise be able to build? In this application, we have no new information, a real danger of future. Unforeseen development and no real reason to request that Councillors alter their previous position on the hotel.

The question the definition of a strategy? Of a structure used in determining site cover under the Noosa Plan 2020? How is this definition derived and what guidelines are used to ensure consistency in the application return?

My second question is specifically with regard to MCU 210110, the Noosa Springs hotel. I would like to read the background of this if I may, because it is significant in terms of answering the question. Are we going to be hearing anything other than what we heard during the 15-minute deputations, Mr coffin? Yes, indeed. Thank well, you. The associated background material is the applicant states in the application that deliveries and waste collection activity are expected to occur at the existing clubhouse and hence no significant noise impact. The reason it is significant obviously is the rezoning of park ridge to high density residential, which is materially affected by any waste movements in the area. This case why is there a need to assess the suitability of refuse truck access to the proposed loading dock in the traffic report? The above statement is correct. How is the waste transported to the existing loading dock? Bearing in mind that most commercial waste facilities will use minimum 60.640 litre bins. These bins would need to be whirled up a 1 in 10 ramp at the loading dock and then down a spur road to the existing loading dock a distance of over 100 metres. The waste management process has considerable visual, olfactory and noise impacts on adjacent high density residential areas such as park ridge. Architectural drawings indicate a facility which is inconsistent with the applicant's statement. So my question is specifically how is waste management to be carried out in the Noosa Springs hotel, specifically where are the bins located and what size are they? How is waste transported to the bins? How is noise associated with the bins mitigated? Is the glass crusher proposed and where do garbage trucks access the bins?

Um, my first question is basically around the concerns that community has in relation to the multiple extensions that have been granted to the applicant and the second question which is this really quite timely too, is failure of planning staff to put application and an extension approval up on the planning portal in a timely manner. So my question is, when does a request to extend the decision period cease to be dealt with by way of a delegated authority and brought to councillor's attention information or social information that these have been issued previously, including how many? Secondly, in the case of multiple rolling approvals to extend the at what point does it become the council's decision to determine if these approvals should be issued rather than being issued by the development assessment manager? I'd really like some follow-up action taken on this. Thank you.

So my second question is does the re-signing of the adjacent Parkridge the estate as high density residential materially affect? The assessment of the hotel.