Skip to the record
Trusted by locals. Built for Noosa.
Item 11.2.3.2025-10-16 · OrdinaryOfficial item record

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

Final resolution: Carried, adopted en bloc

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 … Full wording ↓

Named vote on the en bloc resolution: For 7: Brian Stockwell, Karen Finzel, Frank Wilkie, Jessica Phillips, Nicola Wilson, Amelia Lorentson, Tom Wegener.

Watch Frank Wilkie discuss the topic ↗
← Meeting agenda & transcript

See the votes on this matter →

What was decided?

Final supported resolution

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.




Adopted with the other recommendations in this section by one Council resolution at item 11.2.4. · Event 1

1Council Resolution (adopted en bloc)Carried
1Council Resolution (adopted en bloc)Carried

Moved: Amelia Lorentson · Seconded: Jessica Phillips

Council adopted this recommendation en bloc, with the others in this section, by one resolution: “That the Recommendations of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 7 October 2025 be received and adopted.” (item 11.2.4.). The mover, seconder and named vote shown here are that resolution's.

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.




Against 0 named

No names recorded on this side.

Official minutes · item 11.2.4., section 1

Read complete item-specific minutes

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.




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 Wilkie38:31
We're back everybody. The meeting's been reopened. It brings us to item 9. There are no Mayoral minutes. We have no notified motions. It brings us to consideration of committee reports. 11.1 Audit and Risk Committee recommendations. 11.1.1 governance and policy update, 11.1.2 risk management and BCP update, 11.1.3 ICT Cyber Risk Report, 11.1.4 internal audit update, 11.1.5, 24, 25. Draft financial statements, NANDA financial year update, 11.1.6 is the Queensland Audit Office KPMG combined interim report, and there's a summary report of this one directed to Council on the subject later in the agenda at item 12.3. And the 11.1.7 is the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations en bloc. I have a move and a seconder for the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations, Councillor Wilson. I have a seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. 11.2 Planning & Environment Committee recommendations. 11.2.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority for August. 11.2.2 it's an MCU development application for other change to develop an approval for Commercial Business Type 1 office, Commercial Business Type 2, medical to healthcare centres, hospital and infusion centre, and RAL19000407 reconfiguration lot at 36.40 Huffington Noosaville, 11.2.3. As it's an MCU development application for Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation, backpackers accommodation at 17 Russell Street, Noosaville. 11.2.4, Planning & Environment Committee recommendations en bloc. Now we have a mover and seconder for planning the and environment committee recommendations to be adopted. Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's unanimous, 11.3, Services & Organisation Committee Recommendations. 11.3.1.1 is Minor Amendments to Fees and Charges Register for Commercial Fees. 11.3.2, Noosa Shire Council's solar specialised supplier lists. Councillor Phillips. Thank you.
▶ Watch Frank on NoosaWatch TVRead and hear in context →

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗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”.