Appeals lodged against Noosa Council for rural short-term accommodation

Two separate appeals have been made against the Noosa Council regarding short-term accommodation proposals after refusals were handed down with concerns about compromising future housing supply.

Appeals over short term accommodation proposals in Noosa have been lodged with court.

Two rural homes are at the forefront of separate appeals before court after the Noosa Council handed down refusals for proposals to transform the residential properties into short-term accommodation.

Read about the appeals:

428 Cootharaba Rd, Cootharaba

P&E Law has lodged an appeal against the Noosa Council in the Planning and Environment Court on behalf of John and Judith Johannesen on July 16 this year.

The pair appealed the council’s decision to refuse establishing short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Rd, Cootharaba initially lodged in December 2023.

Premises area of the 3.1ha site currently has a two-bedroom house and detached carport and no submissions were received during the public notification period.

Planning documents show the current house would be used as accommodation.

View of 428 Cootharaba Rd, Cootharaba. Photo: Ray White

The application was refused on June 20 this year due to the strategic framework, rural zone code, visitor accommodation code and bushfire hazard overlay code.

The refusal had stated the proposal did not provide for a “high-quality nature-based and rural tourism experience” and would not contribute to the rural industry.

The appeal states the development would provide for a “small-scale, well-appointed accommodation” in a vegetated environment for tourists and their application was not intended for nature-based tourism.

The proposal was also rejected due to the plans not protecting the “amenity enjoyed by residents” due to increased noise.

The appeal argued the proposal is of small scale on an existing residential property which would carry a maximum of four guests.

It was put forward the development will be compatible with current and future rural uses on the property and complies with the bushfire hazard assessment benchmarks.

Floor plan of 428 Cootharaba Rd, Cootharaba. Photo: Ray White

Council also referred to the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 and their short-term accommodation monitoring report from 2022.

In the refusal, referring to the strategy and report, it was stated a short-term stay development should not be at the expense of housing and compromise “adequate long-term housing stock”.

The pair responded the strategy and report should be discarded within the assessment as the material “informs the Noosa Plan 2020 amendments”.

The overall compliance with planning codes, outcomes and frameworks “weighs in favour of approval” and can occur without impacting the town planning.

A council planning officer report previously suggested approval subject to conditions which the couple have relied on as “further matters for consideration.”

561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin

Keypoint Law filed an appeal to the Planning and Environment court on behalf of Bruce Elliot regarding an application to establish short-term accommodation on a Kin Kin property, initially lodged with the Noosa Council in September 2023.

The appeal was filed on July 22 after receiving a notice their application was refused on June 25.

The property is at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin 22,500sq m in a rural zone and is currently occupied by a house with pool and spa, with the land and surrounding areas not used for rural purposes.

Planning documents state the current building is proposed to be used for accommodation in addition to its current residential use.

Lower floor plan of 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin. Photo: contributed

The proposal underwent public notification as the property is under 4ha, which resulted in one submission in support of the development.

Council refused the application on the basis the purpose is not consistent with rural or tourism activities as it does not protect the agricultural land from urban development “encroachment” and does not provide a “high quality nature-based and rural tourism” experience.

It has also been noted the proposal does not comply with the housing choice section of council’s strategic framework with there being no protection from noise for surroundings residents.

The site is also within 250m of an agricultural land conservation area, which the appellant’s law firm then stated in the appeal there were no current agricultural activities currently occurring within that area.

Identical concerns referenced from the Noosa short-term accommodation monitoring report were also reiterated for this proposal.

Upper floor plan of 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin. Photo: contributed

The law firm put forward their proposal should be approved considering the current property, not currently being used for rural activities, would not have its future “productivity” impacted.

The firm also argued the proposal will diversify the visitor experience across the Noosa shire, support the existing character of the hinterland and contribute to tourism in the area.

Documents stated the development will not impact the surrounding environment or prevent future rural activities and the house is appropriately set back to avoid conflict with nearby properties.

The firm suggested any conflicts with the Noosa Plan would be able to be addressed in approval conditions.