Kim Petrovic

16:08 Kim Petrovic: My name is Kim Petrovic, a resident of Noosa Springs and I represent numerous residents who have submitted concerns regarding the hotel development at 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 The first one, outdated reports.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reports, for example, the odour, traffic, noise, parking, fire evacuation relied upon the applicant are out, are outdated, with some dating back to 2016 and 2017. These reports fail to account for significant developments such as the construction of Park Ridge 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 the council's proposed rezoning of the Park Ridge Estate from tourist accommodation to high density residential. The MCU application has been prepared on the basis that Park Ridge Estate was already zoned as tourist accommodation.

17:25 Outdated data cannot support informed decision making. Two, the bushfires. 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 Amy 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-representative 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 mutual responses as being supportive.

18:40 We called for a professionally conducted independent survey to accurately capture residents' views. Four, planning and engagement issues. We reject the applicant's dismissal of over 400 resident objections as near standardized responses and the similar comments made by planning staff at the P&E meeting of 11 June 2024. The notification period strategically set during the Christmas season limited meaningful community engagement. Requests 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. Five, community discussion forums. The forums held by the applicant on 24 June and 1 July 2024 revealed inconsistencies 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 the five-star hotel failed to address the broader community's concerns.

20:03 The absence of measurable outcomes continues to undermine trust in this proposal. Six, mental health impacts. The proposed development risks disrupting the community's 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. Seven, developers' history and transparency. The applicant's history, including delays and changes in prior projects such as Icon Milton and Hope Island, raises concerns about their reliability and intentions. Approving this major change of use application without clear guarantees risks exacerbating unresolved issues, potentially allowing for expansion beyond what is currently proposed.

21:20 In summary, this proposal does not adequately address critical zoning, safety and community concerns that have been raised over the past three years. The updated 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 goals. We respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous decision to refuse this application as taken by the general committee on 17 July 2020.

22:17 John Cochrane: Thank you, Councillors, for the opportunity to address this meeting. My submission is in regard to the Noosa Springs Hotel.

22:23 My name is John Cochrane and I live in Noosa Springs. The objections to this application are broadly based and cover many issues. I am reminded that the application will not be submitted until it is paid 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 circumstances, 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 2020 for 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 loss, 45,000 tennis coaching places, loss, 23,000 Pilates and physiotherapy places, gain, no extra tennis courts, gain, no extra golfing or ancillary facilities, loss, public access and amenity.

23:44 Two, does the application satisfy a planning need? We say no, particularly now that there is approval in place for a better located hotel at Settlers Cove. Three, are current assessment benchmarks relevant? We say no. A higher level of impact assessment would be appropriate given the rezoning of the adjacent Parkridge site for high density residential. Four, are the assessment benchmarks based on material errors? We do not believe so. Nor,

24:17 is Honour Judge Wilkinson of KC in guidance states, they 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 include 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 decide an application they must have weight and they must include consideration of both positive and negative impacts. We are here today because the applicant has 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 applicant. We also note that this 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 that potential consequences are not all that law disguised.

25:35 The applicant has stated that 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 zoned land there is a considerable portion of land zoned 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 clock ratio controls and zoning. The site cover calculation is a little murkier. The planners report has concluded that the site cover will only comply if the site is aggregated. That's an aggregation of both TAZ and OSR zones. In fact the site cover on the OSR zoning is two and a half times the amount of 10%. 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 is it is acknowledged that the extent of site cover does not comply with the existing map for recreation and open space zone when considered in isolation. However the building and structures do not detrimentally reduce the usability of open space or dominate the site.

26:55 Well that is a matter of opinion and hardly a sound basis to overturn a principle of 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 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 an initial plan site cover relating to the TAZ would yield approximately 9,200 square metres

27:40 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 accruement 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 OSR zoning all they are really doing is banking clock ratio and site cover for future application. 2. Potential change of use by future application. The proposer will approve gain consent to construct a facility which includes an overscaled foyer with attributes which would make it enormously attractive to operate as a function space. A commercial kitchen and backup house provision will be on the scale 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 club.

28:55 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 different intention. In closing let's be clear what the applicant is asking of Council. I have one parcel

29:18 for you. I would like to build a hotel on the open space 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 uniquely water the multiple environmental and social impacts and concerns of many residents so we can build a bigger and 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 Council has altered their previous position on the hotel. Thank you Council. Thank you Mr Cochrane.

30:00 Mayor Wilkie: Our third and last dedication also on Noosa Springs is from Christy Kim on behalf of the Noosa Springs Tennis Club. Welcome Christy.

30:08 Christy Kim: Hi. Thank you so much. Good morning Mayor, CEO and Councilors.

30:13 My name is Christy Kim. I'm a local here in Noosa. Sorry I'm a bit nervous. Today I am here to communicate concerns around the proposed hotel development at Noosa Springs on behalf of the tennis community

30:33 Noosa Springs Tennis Club has developed significantly over the last 20 years. It is a very much appreciated facility that is enjoyed by Noosa Springs members, junior tennis players, mothers groups, fathers groups and interstate tennis enthusiasts. Currently there are 210 junior tennis players and 140 adult players who participate in wonderful programs offered at this thriving sporting club every week. That's 210 junior tennis players. Programs offered at Noosa Springs include private tennis lessons, pop shop squads, elite squads, adult sessions, female training groups, tennis camps and more. Just a few months ago two of the under 11 female tennis players that train in our club were selected to represent Queensland in a major event against New South Wales. There were only 16 girls out of the whole state that were selected. Two of them were our girls. We have many aspiring young athletes, tennis players starting to make a name for themselves in ranked tournaments, not just locally but on a state and national level which has been made possible due to the professional programs offered at Noosa Springs and due to the dedicated caring coaches who facilitate exceptional training methods.

31:59 Should the tennis courts become unavailable it would not only impact obviously everyone's sessions but it would not be possible for our tennis players to go to other clubs. Other tennis clubs could not absorb the immense quantity and quality of training sessions that are currently being provided to the players at Noosa Springs. Some of our junior players train like twice a day. There are wait lists everywhere. For private lessons and squat intake at other tennis clubs junior players would crawl out of the sport, would have their sporting pathways taken away from them and also coaches would leave their jobs. Harry who operates outside the box gym which is located at the back of the tennis courts at Noosa Springs has become a very important business to the Noosa community. He works with children, youth, adults, seniors and aspiring athletes to improve strength, fitness, confidence and overall well-being. Harry probably most importantly offers a kid fit academy during the holiday periods between 9am and 3pm where children can be outside off screens in a safe place while staying active.

33:20 During these days Harry has an average of 40-50 children that get dropped off there by their parents.

33:30 I spoke with many parents and I always do because I'm always there with my kids as they were dropping their kids off earlier this week I'm so sorry.

33:42 Most of the parents told me that it allowed them to actually continue working through the holiday period. As you all know some of the private schools take two months off over the Christmas break and times are tough. It's extremely difficult for parents who must work due to the cost of living so he's like a saviour for local families who can continue working. Finally, there is Burn Pilates and Physio a wonderful business that supports our community in so many ways. The Burn Pilates and Physio studio have approximately 160 people attend each week. Over 48 weeks this is over 7,000 users per year. With many of these people from Noosa Springs in Byron's which has an ageing population many of these users will be affected by the proposed development. They attend these important sessions as a pathway to healthy ageing and the programs perform both physical and psychological practices. Such sessions help our ageing community with functional autonomy, life satisfaction and sleep quality. Removing such important programs will have adverse impacts on our beautiful community.

34:57 This development will remove all of these recreational activities which are currently used by Noosa community and significantly impact our community in a detrimental way. The proposed development will also mean that the dreams of our children, some of our children at those tennis clubs are aspiring to compete in our Olympics in Brisbane. This will all be destroyed. If this development

35:31 is successful, we respectfully request that you maintain the decision to deny this application as taken by the General Committee on the 17th of July, 2023. And I have to be genuinely honest, like if our tennis community is pulled apart, it will never be the same again. Like that place is just, if you come to one of the training days, which is every day, there are literally 80 kids on the floor. They cannot be absorbed by other clubs. There are weightless everywhere. Just won't happen.