The operators of a pet resort have launched a legal challenge seeking to overturn an enforcement notice issued by the local council.
Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd, which operates a six-hectare facility at 212 Seib Road in Eumundi, filed an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court on June 10.
The appeal challenges an enforcement notice issued by Sunshine Coast Council on May 13 alleging unlawful use of the site, which is zoned rural.
The court documents state the pet resort has approvals dating back as far as 1989 to operate the facility, but the enforcement notice claims it has intensified its operations beyond what was permitted.
The council claims the resort expanded the number of pens from an approved 41 to 56, exceeded the allowable 75 dogs on-site, and constructed unapproved outdoor exercise areas.
It also raised concerns about noise and environmental compliance, alleging kennel buildings failed to meet required acoustic standards and lacked proper certification.
The appeal by Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd, which is represented by Brisbane-based Connor O’Meara Solicitors, argues the grounds for the enforcement notice are not clear.
“The enforcement notice does not provide sufficient particulars to enable the appellant to understand with sufficient certainty the alleged development offences,” it states.
In a statement to Sunshine Coast News, the pet resort said it was working with the council to address the alleged non-compliance.
“Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd is aware of the enforcement notice issued by Sunshine Coast Council regarding our Eumundi-Noosa resort and has lodged an appeal with the Planning and Environment Court,” it said.
“Both the landowner – Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd – and the resort operator – Pet Resorts Australia – have respectful working relationships with the council and claims of any hostility are unfounded.
“Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd has taken the responsible step of appealing as a necessary precautionary step, not because we’re unwilling to comply, but to protect our ability to meet the timeframes should any delays arise.
“Enforcement notice conditions cannot be amended later and this appeal is the only way to seek flexibility. The matters identified by the council were already being proactively addressed and included submitting a town planning application, conducting a plumbing inspection and commissioning an independent acoustic audit to identify any outstanding works.
“Pet Resorts Australia is proud to provide superior facilities, professional employees and exceptional service standards to all pets in our care. Our dedicated team of trusted pet care professionals go the extra mile to ensure every pet is happy, healthy and well looked after.
Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb.
“As part of this commitment, the company has already significantly invested in upgrading the Eumundi-Noosa facilities including upgrades to all the rooms and lawns and providing luxury rooms for pets.
“We remain committed to working closely with the Sunshine Coast Council to resolve any compliance matters and to continue providing the highest standard of care for pets, ensuring peace of mind for their loving families.”
The council notice says it received a complaint in May 2024 about the resort’s outdoor dog areas and associated noise levels. The resort said the council was invited to inspect the facility upon receipt of that complaint.
“An inspection of the subject property was conducted by council’s authorised persons on August 12, 2024,” the notice says.
“As a result, council issued correspondence to Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd on August 19, 2024, advising that conditions of development approvals were being contravened and that the use had intensified.”
The council advised that an increase in pen numbers and addition of exercise yards in the Rural Zone would require a material change of use that was subject to impact assessment.
An initial development application was then submitted by Ian Buchanan Town Planning on behalf of Pet Resorts Property Investment Pty Ltd on September 16, but that application was deemed not properly made and returned on November 19.
On December 20 the council issued a show cause notice to the pet resort, the same day a second development application was submitted.
The council acknowledged the second development application was properly made on January 15, and public notification was undertaken from May 12 to June 2.
But on May 13 the council issued its enforcement notice, stating that the lengthy approval process would cause an unacceptable delay in addressing the alleged issues.
“The timeframe to complete the development assessment process for the development application … presents a risk of environmental nuisance to the community including any sensitive place,” it says.
The enforcement notice requires the pet resort to provide an acoustic consultant’s audit and treatment recommendations for the kennels by July 14, with the measures to be adopted by December 12.
It also says that by April 20, 2026, the number of pens must be kept to 41, the number of dogs must not exceed 75, and use of its outdoor splash park and commando course must cease.
Pet Resorts Australia told SCN the commando course was established by the previous landowner and was in use prior to the business’ purchase, and the splash park was constructed by an established contractor who advised that no additional approvals were necessary. It said the splash park features a series of water elements with a self-contained operation and filtration system, installed within a private and screened outdoor space, and that the space is separated from the road and adjoining property by noise barriers.
The appeal argues the enforcement notice should be set aside because it contains “irregularities”.
“The requirement for the appellant to comply with the recommended acoustic treatments by December 12 is uncertain and unreasonable given that the appellant does not know whether it can comply with any recommended acoustic treatments and within the time required,” it states.
“The appellant has made a change application to deal with some of the matters alleged in the enforcement notice, but the outcome of the change application is presently unknown.”
