At last week’s Ordinary meeting, Council voted 4/2 in favour to support the Onsen and Cabins development on Main Western Road, and instruct Council’s solicitor to not oppose the development in the Planning and Environment Court appeal.

It’s hard to believe, but, just like the Eagles Retreat case, Council again missed the timeframe for a decision, and the developer took a deemed refusal and lodged an appeal to the P&E Court because of Council’s failure.

The application was for a sizable commercial development in a Rural RESIDENTIAL Zone and rural RESIDENTIAL A Precinct, under the guise of “Nature-Based Tourism”. This development on 713 Main Western Road has two stages, the seven Onsens in a large separate building with Beauty Room and Massage Room, four permanent staff and a 17-vehicle carpark in stage one, and five cabins and carpark for five vehicles in stage 2, each being able to operate independently of each other.
320 submitters opposed the application.

It is essentially a large-scale day spa that can operate from 9.00 am to 8.00 pm six months of the year and in the Autumn/Winter months to 6.00 pm. The development is likely to generate 80 car movements a day as opposed to a single house generating 10. The Onsens can have as many as 24 persons in the facility at any one time. The carpark will be illuminated at night.

Under the Planning Scheme, Cabins are permissible as nature-based tourism, subject to the Strategic Framework for the locality and Zone. It is believed the cabins may not comply because of the scale and Intensity being far greater than the Primary use of a dwelling house. The planning scheme says the use of a small-scale tourism activity must be subordinate to the primary use. It is hard to see that both stage one and two are subordinate to a Residential house.

With respect to the Onsens, the plan shows six beehives. The applicant claims they will be showing clients “western views” and argues that these views should be available not just for the “ENTITLED FEW ”that reside on the Tamborine Mountain plateau. The applicant also lists some nature-based discussions/seminars/activities for patrons such as honey harvesting and composting to qualify it as “Nature-Based Tourism. ”
I recently attended a Progress Association Meeting where all these matters were discussed with members who listened online to the three hours of Council deliberations on this planning item. The Progress Association plans to represent the co-respondents to defeat this precedent that can impact lives and destroy residential amenity.

The Onsens do not fit the definition of “Nature-based tourism”. The sentiment was, Tamborine Mountain cannot allow our own Scenic Rim planners to interpret the planning scheme in a fanciful way, that favours big business that wants to put profit before residential amenity and destroy the certainty that Commercial uses will not be approved next door to you when buying or building a house in a Rural RESIDENTIAL zone.

In the Council meeting I asked the Manager Planning if this development was a Commercial development, in a residential Zone. The answer was that the Planning Scheme doesn’t define a commercial Use, just a retail use.

Extraordinarily, in the Council recommendations for approval, it shows that Council has assessed headworks charges for the applicant based on the Onsens being:-
1. A COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOP (Lodge/Reception) 171 square metres, $28,182.60
2. COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOP (Onsen) 202 square metres, $33,242.00

Cr McConnell and I voted against the approval. To me personally, this approval for appeal purposes was an inexplicable and incomprehensible decision. The Association members commented that it shows compete disregard for Tamborine Mountain.

Would we fare better in Gold Coast? I, like 65% of residents, may suspect yes.

For those who remember, this decision has some of the hallmarks of the SRRC’s support for their approval of the Hyacinth Development in 2008. That development was also supported by the Brent Council for 92 single bedroom apartments on land opposite the North Tamborine State School. The Community channelled by the Progress Association funded expensive court action and won the case. The Judge wiped all approvals from the land and said the Council actions were just as I have described for this approval … “Inexplicable and Incomprehensible”. They had exceeded their powers.

A Judge said that development should not have been burdened on the community.

in 2018, Hyacinth Developments relied on Council approvals and started the development. To its detriment, the company commenced legal action, claiming negligence of the Scenic Rim Council and others, for issuing the minor change approvals, and the matter was subsequently settled in its favour in mediation. See Hyacinth Developments Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional Council - [2018] QSC 230.

Councils can and do get things wrong. That case cost Scenic Rim Ratepayers over $200,000 to fight the Progress Association and lose.

The Message from the Progress Association’s meeting is that your help is needed to defend Tamborine Mountain’s lifestyle and liveability in the Planning and Environment Court, and to send your Mayor and Council a strong message to start making planning decisions in the public interest of Mountain residents.

THE ASSOCIATION IS SETTING UP A GO FUND ME page in coming weeks and are asking residents to consider donating to this cause, large or small. These cases can cost up to $100,000 and take more than a year to run, but if the burden of donations is distributed across many households the Community can raise this money.

If funding is achieved, The Progress Association will engage a National Specialist law firm in planning matters to represent our community and the submitters who have elected to join the appeal.

More information and publicity around this will occur in coming weeks.

It is interesting to note, that even one of the Scenic Rim Regional Council Planners wrote to the developer on 1st April 2022, advising that Council would be unlikely to support the application. The letter can be found on DAP online.

The planner concluded:
“The proposed development effectively represents two tourism uses (Cabin accommodation and Onsen Spas), which has the potential to attract two separate clienteles to the site and could operate independently. This is not considered to be small scale tourism activity in the context of Strategic outcomes 3.5.2 (12). Furthermore, the conversion of the existing dwelling and the minor nature of the Managers residence represents development where the residential use of the land would not be the primary use.

“It is considered that the proposed development in its current form would result in development that is not consistent with the scale, form, and intensity of development which is envisaged for the Rural Residential A Precinct and would not accord with the reasonable expectations of residents of the Zone. Furthermore, the proposed tourism use is not considered to function as a subordinate use to the residential use of the land.”

I can only ask the question you will now be asking: “What changed to make the Council do a complete backflip from reasons to refuse the approval to the exact opposite?”

Derek Swanborough
Councillor. Division 1
derek.s@scenicrim.qld.gov.au
Ph 0436 351 567