713 - 735 Main Western Road, Tamborine Mountain QLD 4272

Nature-Based Tourism

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 8 months ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Scenic Rim Regional Council, reference MCU21/054)

15 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Andrew Fellowes commented

    The Scenic Rim Council state that this application is against The Planning Scheme and list 8 areas of concern.
    Quite simply this should not be allowed as it is against the Planning Scheme and to call this commercial operation as nature based stretches the imagination beyond belief.

  2. Simone Stelmasiak-van Mourik commented

    I strongly object to this development. Unfortunately it appears that the developers expect approval looking at the building activity already taking place on this site.
    This is a Rural Residential zone and not a business district. The Scenic Rim Council states that it does not comply with The Planning Scheme. Tamborine Mountain needs all the bore water for residential supply and not for a commercial "nature based" onsen development. The area nominated for the villas is one of the few left enabling wildlife to cross from the eastern to western escarpment and as such should not be developed. Instead of being able to view the distant mountain panorama while driving along Main Western Road, tourists and residents will be looking at a "housing development".

  3. Anne and Tony Shorter commented

    We strongly object to this commercial development and the material change of use for this area. Council requirements for this application highlight numerous significant aspects that need to be addressed for it to proceed.
    What period of public notification is to be given?

  4. Norelle Jean Lino commented

    I agree with the comments made by Anne & Tony Shorter we do not need such a material change of use for this end of the mountain.

  5. Trish Harrison commented

    I agree with Simone , Anne and Tony Shorter. We do not need such a material change of use for the southern end of the Mountain, The Scenic Rim Council states that it does not comply with The Planning Scheme, there will be further stress on our natural water system and it will change the aesthetics of main Western Road. I object to this development.

  6. Phil Harrison commented

    I object to this application - to describe this as nature based tourism is a gross misinterpretation of that term given that this same facility could be provided in a tourism hotspot such as the Gold Coast. This is simply hot tubs and villas, that is hardly nature based tourism and this appears to be at best a creative attempt to gain approval for a tourist park within a rural residential zone. I strenuously object

  7. Margaret Campbell commented

    There have been 2 former residents at this site and 2 former residents at the site abutting this lot. All have been refused any development further to their particular residences. The reason for this is that it is declared to be an area known to have the potential to slip. Given that it is only a couple of hundred metres from the 'Goat Track' (where slips regularly occur) and shares the same geological features as land above that section of the shelf, it would be a disastrous decision and one without conscience to allow further concentration of dwellings to occur. What was disallowed historically for very sound reasons for several previous applicants must not be allowed for the persuasive wishes of the present applicant.
    There are indications that this application is 'fait accomplis'. I find this very very concerning.

  8. Amanda Hay (Secretary, Tamborine Mountain Progress Assn Inc) commented

    The property is identified within the Koala Priority, Core Koala Habitat and the Koala Habitat Restoration Areas. Whilst no vegetation clearing is "proposed", inevitably there is some "creep", and there is no guarantee that the development will be limited to two stages. There is no demonstrated "need" for this type of commercial activity on this site or in this area of the Mountain. Regardless of whether the accommodation units are "cabins" or "villas", there is already an over-supply of cabin-style accommodation on the Mountain, along with an unknown number of Air B&Bs. The "Res A" precinct should remain just that - residential. The proposal indicates that the current dwelling will be converted & that there is to be a Manager's residence, yet there are no plans for the property to remain a Principal Place of Residence. The proposed development is inappropriate and outside the community's expectations IAW the provisions of the Planning Scheme. I make these comments on behalf of the Tamborine Mountain Progress Assn Inc in my capacity as Secretary.

  9. Jeanette Lockey commented

    This project does not accord with the Planning Scheme.The Planning Scheme deliberately separates tourism areas from the residential zones for obvious reasons. Opening the door to demolish the amenity of residents here will lead to the jumble of anything anywhere of e.g. the Gold Coast & will destroy the valuable world famous character of Tamborine Mountain renowned for its semi-rural environmental character.
    The villas proposed are simply that - accommodation with views and due to the very steep slope no environmental ventures would be possible. Further, as this is in Core Koala Habitat clearing for the extra buildings will diminish this resource.
    There is no established need for this application.as the mountain is awash with cabins, Air B&B's and similar tourism outlets.
    This is a Residential A zone and a "tourism park" should not be approved here..
    Jeanette Lockey

  10. Roland Lindenmayer commented

    This is zoned Rural Residential. Commercialising this site is against the planning scheme and should not be approved by council. Putting tourist accommodation on this site will inevitably mean destruction of koala habitat trees. There are state rules in place to prevent this happening which should be adhered to by council. There is already a plethora of cabins, B & B's, air beds and such accommodation on Tamborine Mountain, more is simply not needed and would adversely affect those in business now. This is also a slippage area and would require extensive, deep foundations, the developing of which could affect the stability of neighbours' residences. The whole proposal is nothing but a "get rich quick" scheme and must not be tolerated. No responsible council could or should approve this or similar proposals.

  11. Ashleigh line commented

    I strongly object to this development for all of the many true and valid reasons mentioned above. The impact on our wildlife will be significant, not to mention that this is a zoned residential area not equip to handle this type of commercial operation.

  12. Gisela Meehl commented

    I strongly object to the development of this site as it zoned evidential and is a wildlife habitat. We do not need more traffic, noise and debasement of our environment. If the Goat track is anything to go by the slippage problem should be enough to put a to pick to any development plans.

  13. Natasha Organ commented

    I object to this application. The council fails its residents with truth and consultation. This application is fair from being nature based and is a commercial plot all to fill their back pockets. There is no justification for this project other than to financially benefit the council. That in itself demonstrates the councils greed and secretcy to these and other matters. They do not follow the 'rule' book they impose on their community residents. This will destroy our wildlife, impact other accommodation businesses, residents hugely all in a negative way. It does not benefit the community and its residents.

  14. Simon Painter commented

    Having read this DA thoroughly, I have to disagree with all the TM(anti)PA NIMBY comments and think this proposal has fantastic merit, and this location is absolutely ideal. It would have little to no impact on the existing flora, fauna and nearby residents. If the immediate neighbours have no objections, or their concerns can be addressed, I believe that this unique and exciting new venture would bring only positive outcomes for the community and visitors.

  15. Henry Rich commented

    I oppose this development on the following grounds:

    It is too large for this site as defined by Tourist Use Code PO5. It has an intensity and scale that will destroy the natural character and amenity of this site and the surrounding area. This is especially the case on the vulnerable western escarpment of the mountain. The site would be negatively impacted by staff and visitor car parking, area for deliveries, rubbish collection, water deliveries and maintenance.

    The development does not complement the environmental or landscape setting of the site and surrounding area as per PO5(1). Trees and other vegetation would be removed, for example to make views for the cabins. This destruction of the amenity of the site would be very obvious from the road and would not be possible to rectify in a reasonable timescale. The light and noise from the development would have a negative impact on the environment and its wildlife.

    PO5(3) requires that the development is screened from public areas to reduce the visual impact of the bulk and density of the buildings. However, with the layout of the land and slope, this is impossible to achieve in a reasonable timeframe. Already, a building being built now (thought to be the reception lodge) is clearly visible from the public areas. The cabins will have to be built at such a height to allow them to have a view over the vegetation which the applicant has said will not be touched. Any vegetation barrier will take far too long to achieve its stated aim.

    PO5(4) requires that the development does not adversely impact on the privacy and amenity of the surrounding area. However, a development comprising a manager's cottage, a lodge/reception area, one building containing eight onsens plus an observation deck, five cabins and two car parks is a demonstrable over-development for this restricted site and will have an adverse impact on this part of the western escarpment.

    I am also concerned as to the scope of this development. From the Planning Report it would appear to be five cabins, with two people per cabin, who may utilise the onsens. However, in the Sewerage Management Report, on page 1, it states:

    Site Occupancy
    Onsen and Bar: Private bookings for a maximum of 80 guests per day. The onsen and bar will operate Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
    Cottage: Two guests in each villa (ten guests total) per day seven days a week
    2 Bedroom Villa: Up to three guests per day seven days a week.

    I submit that this is a commercial venture not the tourist venture proposed.

    I ask that you reject this application.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts