The high-profile couple behind a multimillion-dollar Noosa Heads property have until December to respond to council notices over two luxury home applications, after a Planning and Environment Court matter over a missed deadline was resolved.
Heidi Meyer and Kim Carroll, through Skyfall Noosa Pty Ltd, are seeking to progress two dwelling-house applications at 39-41 Picture Point Crescent, where an approved subdivision would create future Lots 50 and 51.
The couple are the former owners of Buderim’s Malumba Estate, which they sold in 2021 after it was listed for $21 million.
They had planned to establish a five-star eco-resort called Badderam at the Buderim property and were successful in gaining Sunshine Coast Council approval for 111 hotel suites, restaurants, conference facilities, a wellness spa and a rail car to access cabins down the escarpment, but the project was scrapped in 2022.
The development applications for their Noosa project were lodged with council in September 2025. A Noosa Council spokesperson confirmed the two applications were seeking approval ‘each for a dwelling on separate parts’ of the one existing block of land.
The site was previously the subject of a Planning and Environment Court appeal after council refused plans to subdivide the block. The dispute was resolved in 2024, with the subdivision allowed subject to conditions.
“The separate parts of the site relate to proposed lots associated with an approved subdivision, however the subdivision has not been finalised at this stage,” the spokesperson said.
Council issued Action Notices for both applications on October 3 because it considered they had not been properly lodged.
The applications had been lodged as code-assessable dwelling-house applications, one for each future lot.
But council said the two applications, when read together, were for “two dwellings on one lot” and that the use was “in fact a dual occupancy use”.
It said the forms had therefore been incorrectly completed because they listed the applications as code assessable when, in council’s view, “the use, properly categorised, is impact assessable”.
The applicants were granted several extensions to respond to the Action Notices, with the deadline eventually extended to April 23.
A further extension request was made on April 24, but council responded that it could not agree because the request had been made out of time.
In that response, council said the applications were “taken to have not been made” and that “no further extension of time to respond to the Action Notices can be agreed”.
As a result, Ms Meyer and Mr Carroll began Planning and Environment Court proceedings against Noosa Shire Council on May 5.
On June 11, the court made orders allowing the missed deadline to be corrected and giving the parties until June 18 to agree on a further response period.
Noosa Council has since confirmed a further extension to the Action Notice response period was agreed on June 17.
“The new deadline for the applicant to respond to the Action Notices is December 18, 2026 unless a further period is agreed to,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson said the court matter relating to the extension of the Action Notice response period was resolved.
Council maintained that the applications should be treated as a dual occupancy and assessed as impact assessable, rather than as two separate dwelling-house applications.
Planning material shows each proposed dwelling would have a maximum building height of four storeys and 12m.
Each proposal includes a roofed terrace with a bar, dining area, plunge pool, sauna and lounge spaces, a master bedroom level, open-plan living areas, three ensuited bedrooms, a study and family room, gymnasium, games area, cinema, bar cellar and four-car garage.
The Lot 50 report relates to a 722.8sqm future lot, while the Lot 51 report relates to a 722.9sqm future lot.
Both applications are listed as code assessable in the town planning reports, with Noosa Council named as assessment manager.
Help us deliver more news by registering for our FREE daily news feed. All it requires is your email at the bottom of this article.
A separate Planning and Environment Court matter relating to alleged vegetation clearing on the same land is also before the court.
That matter, Noosa Shire Council v Meyer & another, concerns council’s allegations about clearing and revegetation. It is separate from the development-application dispute over the assessment pathway for the two dwelling applications.
Court records show the vegetation matter is listed for review on July 24.
The aerial imagery in this story is from Australian location intelligence company Nearmap. The company provides government organisations, architectural, construction and engineering firms, and other companies, with easy, instant access to high-resolution aerial imagery, city-scale 3D content, artificial intelligence data sets, and geospatial tools to assist with urban planning, monitoring and development projects in Australia, New Zealand and North America.
