​Kim Petrovic

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 The first one: outdated reports. Many consultant reports, for example the odour, traffic, noise, evacuation, relied upon the applicant are outdated, with some dating back to 2016 and 2017.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. 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 Outdated data cannot support informed decision making.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, the applicant 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 planning comments made 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 inconsistencies. A lack of concrete assurances. Claims linking the golf club's viability to the hotel's success substantiated commitments. Additionally, as aspirational statements about a five-star hotel failed to address the broader community's concerns. Trust. The absence of measurable outcomes continues to undermine 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.

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.

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.