Skip to the record
NoosaWatch™: The source of truth.
Item 7.3.2025-10-07 · Planning & Environment CommitteeOfficial item record

MCU25/0006 - Development Application For Material Change Of Use - Short Term Accommodation (Backpackers Accommodation) At 17 Russell St, Noosaville

← Meeting agenda & transcript

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 RecommendationCarried
1Committee RecommendationCarried

Moved: Amelia Lorentson · Seconded: Brian Stockwell

That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 October 2025 regarding Application MCU25/0006 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation (backpackers accommodation), situated at and 1-3/17 Russell Street Noosaville and:

A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 6.3.3.2 (2) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h) (j) (n) and (p) and performance outcomes and acceptable outcomes PO6, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO15, AO9.1(c) and AO15.2 and AO15.3 of the High Density Residential Zone Code as;

a. The scale of the development is not consistent with structures on adjoining or nearby land and is likely to dominate and adversely impact the surrounding residential amenity.

b. The proposed development will result in a site cover which significantly exceeds the site cover requirements of the planning scheme providing a building that is not consistent with the street and surrounding area.

c. The proposed development does not satisfactorily incorporate design elements and materials reflective of the local streetscape character of the area, with the building not designed in the Noosa sub-tropical style.

d. The proposal will result in a plot ratio which significantly exceeds the plot ratio requirements of the planning scheme and is of a size that is not compatible with surrounding development.

e. The proposal rear setback of the third floor and rooftop terrace significantly encroaches into the rear setback as required by the planning scheme and contributes to building bulk and provides opportunities for overlooking to adjacent properties.

f. The proposed roof top terrace creates opportunities for potential privacy impacts on neighbouring properties due to overlooking.

2. The proposal does not comply with Overall Outcomes 9.4.1.2 (2) (a) (b) (c) and Performance Outcome 6 and Acceptable Outcomes 6.1and 6.2 of the Driveways and Parking Code as:

a. Sufficient carparking is not available on site to accommodate the likely demand for carparking on site and the site is located where on street parking is insufficient and undesirable.

b. The proposed car stacker is not suitable for parking as it lacks sufficient clearance for operation and is impractical for use by guests and staff unfamiliar with such systems.

c. The development does not provide the required number of functional car spaces including service vehicles as the proposed bus park is not sized to accommodate a small rigid vehicle.

d. No provision has been made for motorcycles and bicycles.

3. The proposed does not comply with Performance Outcome 7 and Acceptable Outcome AO7.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as:

a. The development fails to provide adequate loading and manoeuvring areas on site to accommodate the anticipated service vehicles.

4. The proposal is not consistent with Overall Outcome 9.4.10.2 (2) (d)  and Performance and Acceptable Outcomes PO3, AO3.2(b), AO3.2(d), AO3.2(e) and AO3.2(f) of the Waste Management Code as:

a. The development has not adequately demonstrated that waste can be serviced on site.

b. The proposed waste storage area has not been designed to allow for unobstructed access for collection by service vehicles (i.e., on-site servicing).

c. Kerbside servicing is unable to occur while remaining clear from all existing on-street carparks, pedestrian footpaths and without impeding traffic flow on Russell Street.

5. The proposal is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO9 and the corresponding  Acceptable outcomes AO9.1 & AO9.2 of the Visitor accommodation Code as:

a. The proposed area of landscaping is significantly less than the area required by the planning scheme;

b. The proposed landscaping widths to side and rear boundaries are significantly less than that required by the planning scheme;

c. The undersupply of onsite landscaping area and widths to boundaries results in a development which restricts the ability to incorporate landscaping between the site and neighbouring premises / buildings and to assist with softening the built form.

There are no relevant reasons to approve the proposed development to vary from development intensity specified by the Noosa Plan 2020 for this area.

B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

C. Note the report incorrectly identifies the required number of bicycle spaces and motorcycle spaces which should each be identified as 7.

Carried.

For 4 named

Brian StockwellTom WegenerAmelia LorentsonFrank Wilkie

Against 0 named

No names recorded on this side.

Official minutes · section 1

Read complete item-specific minutes
Committee Recommendation
Moved:Cr Amelia Lorentson
Seconded:Cr Brian Stockwell

That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 October 2025 regarding Application MCU25/0006 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation (backpackers accommodation), situated at and 1-3/17 Russell Street Noosaville and:

  1. Refuse the application for the following reasons:
  1. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 6.3.3.2 (2) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h) (j) (n) and (p) and performance outcomes and acceptable outcomes PO6, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO15, AO9.1(c) and AO15.2 and AO15.3 of the High Density Residential Zone Code as;
    1. The scale of the development is not consistent with structures on adjoining or nearby land and is likely to dominate and adversely impact the surrounding residential amenity.
    2. The proposed development will result in a site cover which significantly exceeds the site cover requirements of the planning scheme providing a building that is not consistent with the street and surrounding area.
    3. The proposed development does not satisfactorily incorporate design elements and materials reflective of the local streetscape character of the area, with the building not designed in the Noosa sub-tropical style.
    4. The proposal will result in a plot ratio which significantly exceeds the plot ratio requirements of the planning scheme and is of a size that is not compatible with surrounding development.
    5. The proposal rear setback of the third floor and rooftop terrace significantly encroaches into the rear setback as required by the planning scheme and contributes to building bulk and provides opportunities for overlooking to adjacent properties.
    6. The proposed roof top terrace creates opportunities for potential privacy impacts on neighbouring properties due to overlooking.
  2. The proposal does not comply with Overall Outcomes 9.4.1.2 (2) (a) (b) (c) and Performance Outcome 6 and Acceptable Outcomes 6.1and 6.2 of the Driveways and Parking Code as:
    1. Sufficient carparking is not available on site to accommodate the likely demand for carparking on site and the site is located where on street parking is insufficient and undesirable.
    2. The proposed car stacker is not suitable for parking as it lacks sufficient clearance for operation and is impractical for use by guests and staff unfamiliar with such systems.
    3. The development does not provide the required number of functional car spaces including service vehicles as the proposed bus park is not sized to accommodate a small rigid vehicle.
    4. No provision has been made for motorcycles and bicycles.
  3. The proposed does not comply with Performance Outcome 7 and Acceptable Outcome AO7.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as:
    1. The development fails to provide adequate loading and manoeuvring areas on site to accommodate the anticipated service vehicles.
  4. The proposal is not consistent with Overall Outcome 9.4.10.2 (2) (d)  and Performance and Acceptable Outcomes PO3, AO3.2(b), AO3.2(d), AO3.2(e) and AO3.2(f) of the Waste Management Code as:
    1. The development has not adequately demonstrated that waste can be serviced on site.
    2. The proposed waste storage area has not been designed to allow for unobstructed access for collection by service vehicles (i.e., on-site servicing).
    3. Kerbside servicing is unable to occur while remaining clear from all existing on-street carparks, pedestrian footpaths and without impeding traffic flow on Russell Street.
  5. The proposal is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO9 and the corresponding  Acceptable outcomes AO9.1 & AO9.2 of the Visitor accommodation Code as:
    1. The proposed area of landscaping is significantly less than the area required by the planning scheme;
    2. The proposed landscaping widths to side and rear boundaries are significantly less than that required by the planning scheme;
    3. The undersupply of onsite landscaping area and widths to boundaries results in a development which restricts the ability to incorporate landscaping between the site and neighbouring premises / buildings and to assist with softening the built form.

There are no relevant reasons to approve the proposed development to vary from development intensity specified by the Noosa Plan 2020 for this area.

  1. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
  2. Note the report incorrectly identifies the required number of bicycle spaces and motorcycle spaces which should each be identified as 7.






Carried.

 For:Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie
 Against:None





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.

Amelia Lorentson33:04
Just want to make sure we've got the right one. Yep. That was supported unanimously. So item 7.3, MCU25/0006, development application for Material Change of Use, short-term accommodation, backpackers accommodation at 17 Russell Street, Noosaville. And Nadine again, if you can speak to the report in front of us and the recommendation for us today.
▶ Watch Amelia on NoosaWatch TVRead in transcript
Nadine Gordon33:33
Okay. This is an application for a Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation for a 48 bed hostel, which involves the retention. And renovation of an existing three storey building on site and the construction of a new three storey extension behind that, which includes a rooftop Terrace to accommodate this 48 bed hostel. The proposal includes a main reception and entrance as well as a accommodation unit on the ground floor of the and existing building a new sort of wing at the back which will include outdoor decks and a rooftop Terrace to the rear of the site the use under the site is included in the high density residential zone which is and is a consistent use within this zone at present sorry under the previous scheme sorry let me start again on that this application was lodged under the which is now the superseded scheme it was lodged in January 2025 and under this the previous scheme it was included in the high density residential zone in which visitor accommodation short-term accommodation is actually a impact assessable application consistent use the application was supported subject to public notification and 178 properly made submissions were received with the majority of the submissions against the proposal raising concerns about impact traffic network, scale of development, privacy and overlooking. The proposal seeks a number of relaxations to setbacks, GFA, site cover, plot ratio and on-site servicing. As well we've got of the loss of permanent accommodation in this area. The intent of the high density design is to cater for permanent residents. This area is well serviced, there's a map within the report that shows the amount of short-term accommodation within this area, which shows this area is very well serviced with short-term accommodation. The further approval of backpacker for short-term accommodation will further erode our permanent residents in this area. So based on the on inconsistencies the with our intent for this zone as well as the non-compliance with the built form provisions the application is recommended for refusal
▶ Watch Nadine on NoosaWatch TVRead in transcript
1 suggested discussion start time
  • 0.0 seconds on the council source timeline · Recording time not yet verified. The end of the discussion is not yet confirmed.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.