The state government has submitted its list of reasons it wants a contentious hinterland development proposal to be approved, as part of a court appeal to have council’s rejection of the proposal overturned.
The appeal relates to a development application that was lodged in May 2023 by Presidential Capital Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Geoffrey Thomas Family Trust, for six two-storey buildings including 38 units, a manager’s residence and a reception area, along with car parks, at 862 and 894 Landsborough-Maleny Road, Bald Knob.
Sunshine Coast councillors voted to reject the proposal in January, with Presidential Capital filing a notice of appeal on March 5.
The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning lodged a notice of election with the Planning and Environment Court in May, stating it was seeking to join the appeal to protect state interests.
The move drew criticism from the Opposition, who referred Planning Minister Jarrod Bleijie to the Crime and Corruption Commission and said it didn’t “pass the pub test”.
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.
On June 13 the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning submitted its reasons for approval, citing traffic and tourism as matters of state interest.
“The proposed development … does not result in unacceptable traffic or traffic safety impacts, subject to the imposition of lawful conditions,” it says.
“The proposed development will contribute to the creation of jobs; will contribute to and strengthen the local and regional economy; is complementary to other land uses nearby; and is otherwise an appropriate and sustainable opportunity.”
It also says there is a need for the proposed development.
“The size, scale and density of the accommodation facilities for the proposed development is appropriate to its location and setting and does not otherwise detract from the character and amenity of the locality, subject to the imposition of lawful conditions,” the submission says.
“The proposed development will support rural tourism and not otherwise compromise the use of land for rural activities.
“The proposed development will provide economic benefits for the locality through the increased tourism activity.”
A council officer’s development assessment report delivered before January’s vote stated that the proposal wasn’t a good fit for the area and recommended it be refused.
“The proposed development is in clear and substantial conflict with the Planning Scheme, particularly in relation to the Strategic Framework, Rural Zone Code, Scenic Amenity Overlay Code, Landslide Hazard and Steep Land Overlay Code and the Nature and Rural Based Tourism Code,” it stated.
“The proposal will detract from the visual amenity of the Landsborough-Maleny Road scenic route and will be visually obtrusive relative to its non-urban setting and surroundings.
“The built form of the proposal does not integrate with or complement the predominant rural character intended for the zone.”
The matter was discussed in Queensland Parliament earlier this month, with Shadow Minister for Public Works Charis Mullen taking aim at the government over its stance on the appeal.
“We have a situation where the Sunshine Coast Regional Council has rejected an application to build 38 new short-stay luxury units in Maleny – but hang on, the government suddenly will not give voice to council’s concerns on this one,” she said.
“Instead, they have joined the developer’s appeal in the court, citing what they say is an important state interest: tourism.
“Here are the facts. The only relevant state interest identified in the planning process was proximity to a state-controlled transport corridor. TMR reviewed the matter and recommended the state not join the appeal. On the basis of that advice, the planning department formally determined on March 14 to not join the appeal. Then on April 28 the Member for Glass House (Andrew Powell) wrote to the Planning Minister advocating for state involvement in the appeal.
“Suddenly the director-general, John Sosso, effectively directed the department to join the appeal, despite no new advice from his department or the tourism department and no change in the state interest trigger.
“The department’s affidavit on the matter makes for very interesting reading on what is a truly murky matter.
“The developer of this luxury tourism development is, unsurprisingly, also an LNP donor.”
The court appeal is ongoing.
