Sunshine Coast wedding venue: Planners consider Kiels Mountain facility proposal

A proposal for a wedding and conference facility which sparked hundreds of submissions is being weighed up by council planners.

Sunshine Coast Council planners are weighing up whether or not to approve a new wedding and conference facility proposal which sparked hundreds of submissions.

Plans were lodged with the council to develop a 535sq m function facility at 426-430 Kiel Mountain Road, Kiels Mountain, within an existing shed on the property.

The new facility would cater mainly to weddings and educational/business seminars up to 100 people.

The proposed function centre would use communal facilities already included in a previous approval of eight cabins and a 15-site camping ground on the property.

Planning documents submitted on behalf of Memlaw Pty Ltd – a company directed by Dymphna Boholt – state functions would be held up to midnight, with some amplified music or live speakers possible.

Ms Boholt’s company Bojo Holdings Pty Ltd is listed as owner of 426 Kiel Mountain Road while Brian Boholt is listed as owner of 430 Kiel Mountain Road.

More than 300 submissions have been made to the council and a community meetings has been held in recent months about the proposal.

Key themes that emerged from the feedback centred on noise from live music and patrons, traffic access and safety in what some said was a known black spot, environmental concerns and fears an approval could set a precedent for development within the rural zone.

One of the hundreds of submitters was Marion Jonkers, a Kiels Mountain resident of four decades, who lodged their views publicly.

She said several species of vulnerable animals had been identified on the site, including koalas.

Ms Jonkers also raised her concern with the potential for high volumes of traffic entering and exiting the site, fearing blind corners and sweeping bends close to the Julusa Lane access point.

An overview of the proposed new facility at Kiels Mountain.

Tony Pynsent was another of the nearby residents who made a submission.

He raised concerns about the current use of the site as well as run-off provisions for sewerage, traffic accessing the site and possible noise impacts on the area.

In a response to the feedback, consultants engaged by Ms Boholt outlined the case for the project.

They stated the noise impact assessments had shown the proposed facility could maintain the council’s desired noise levels, while noise and anti-social behaviour could be addressed with property management and security.

The response stated the scale and hours of operation had been reduced in accordance with the noise assessment findings.

Traffic concerns were also able to be calmed according to the consultants, who wrote that the driveway complied with visibility requirements and the traffic generated by the facility wasn’t expected to have a significant impact on the local road network.

The consultants stated environmental concerns had been addressed and noted the proposed function facility didn’t involve any clearing.

They argued the planning scheme already established a function facility was a potentially consistent use within the rural zone, in response to concerns about a precedent being set.

The consultants noted the proposed facility was more than 320m away from the nearest residence and was completely surrounded and screened by mature vegetation.

Ms Boholt was unable to be contacted for comment as she was travelling in a remote area.

The council’s decision-making period started on June 2.