Proposed Noosa Springs Hotel DevelopmentProposed Noosa Springs Hotel Development Image Description: A large, modern hotel with a pool and lush grounds nestled among natural surroundings. Article Body: GH Properties, the owner of Noosa Springs Golf and Spa Resort, recently hosted a forum to present their proposal for a $50 million, five-star, 106-room hotel at the resort. The forum was attended by approximately 200 residents of the resort. Resident Concerns: * Increased noise pollution from pool activities, events, and delivery vehicles * Odors * Traffic congestion * Bushfire evacuation concerns * Biodiversity loss * Disruption to tennis court usage during construction Developer Response: * The hotel project would bring financial benefits to Noosa Springs and enhance its status as a premier golf resort. * The project is not uncommon in that the hotel site was originally planned for a different location but was moved to an area zoned for open space/recreation. * Acoustic studies have shown that noise levels will increase only marginally. * A bushfire management plan is in development, prioritizing the safety of residents, guests, and staff. * Compensation will be offered to create more biodiversity by replacing koala trees elsewhere on the golf course land. * The developer intends to work with another club to provide alternative training facilities for tennis players during construction. Council Approval Process: * The development application was initially submitted to Noosa Council in 2022. * In July 2023, the council voted to reject the application due to inconsistencies with the Noosa Plan 2020 and other planning concerns. * The developer halted the approval process before a final decision could be made. * The application returned to the council in recent months, but the developer again halted the approval process before a final decision. * The application is expected to be back before the council in the coming weeks or months.
An impression of the proposed hotel in Noosa Springs. (supplied) 
Margie Maccoll
Confidence and support for the construction of a $50 million, five-star, 106-room hotel was what GH Properties, owner of Noosa Springs Golf and Spa Resort, asked for from about 200 residents of the resort who attended a forum on site last week.
The forum, hosted by GH Properties, the Australian arm of Hong Kong property and development company Golden Horse Group, gave attendees an overview of the proposed development and the progress of the application with council approval, as well as an opportunity for questions.
There was support from one man who stood up and said: “This would be great for the whole of Noosa and I hope you understand”, and he received some applause, but most residents were concerned about the impact of the development in terms of increased noise, odours, traffic, bushfire evacuations, biodiversity and the continued use of tennis courts during construction.
Ellen Guan, Managing Director of GH Australia, told the forum that since purchasing the resort in 2013, GH Properties has reinvested the majority of its profits into maintenance and upgrades
There were limitations to their investment based on the current business structure, but the hotel project offered an opportunity to set a higher standard.
“I see a tremendous opportunity for this site to become Australia’s premier golf resort, wellness centre and golf destination with the hotel project,” she said.
“Are you willing to be open to change? Are you willing to trust us to create a better place, a happier, more vibrant environment? Are you willing to work with us? I would appreciate your support for this development. I can see that this is something you will be proud of in the future.”
Project manager Phil Starkey, whose family previously owned the resort, said the original masterplan for the site included the existing 544 homes, the sports and recreation area including a golf course and tennis courts, and a 200-room hotel.
“An important part is a hotel,” he said.
One of those present told him that the original plan for the hotel was at the Parkridge site, but that they had sold that site and now wanted to build a hotel on an area that was zoned for open space/recreation.
Mr Starkey said there was “some truth in that”, but told the forum the hotel would bring many benefits, including financial benefits to Noosa Springs and opportunities for higher service standards, and that it was “not uncommon for these projects to be moved from one zone to another”.
“The hotel and its guests are important to supporting the long-term financial stability of Noosa Springs,” he said.
“The more income Springs has, the less focus there is on membership fees. Financial viability is a very important thing. I’m not saying Noosa Springs is struggling, it’s not, over time these types of facilities close. I’m not saying that will happen, but the overall benefit we will enjoy.”
Mr Starkey said the complex hotel project had taken the efforts of the GH team and a number of consultants to reach its current stage, and had gone through a development application process before an application was submitted to Noosa Council, who hired their own consultants, assessed plans, sent them to state government agencies and made them public. Amendments were made based on the submissions received and the application went to council last year.
“Councillors are doing an assessment. They have recommended to councillors that the application should be approved. That remains their recommendation. We are still waiting for council approval for the development,” he said.
In response to questions about a bushfire management plan, the forum was told that a bushfire report had made a number of recommendations, but that at this stage a bushfire management plan had not been developed but that one needed to be developed. Residents were told that a key step in the plan in the event of a bushfire was that it was envisaged that residents, guests and staff would not be evacuated via the only access route in and out of the resort, but initially to the clubhouse and then to the golf course.
Several residents were concerned about the increased noise pollution from the proposed hotel, such as pool activities, events and hotel delivery vehicles. Some indicated that they were already experiencing noise pollution from events, gym classes and dumping of waste.
They were told that the acoustics had been measured over a seven-day period using receptors in Palms, Oasis and Parkridge and that through modelling they had determined that the sound would increase by “not much more than a whisper”.
In response to the hotel being built on a biodiversity overlay, the forum heard that the land is indeed on a biodiversity overlay, but that a report had found no evidence of “activity on this piece of land” and that compensation was being offered to create more biodiversity by replacing koala trees on the golf course land.
An attendee involved in the tennis community said that 150 young tennis players used the resort’s facilities to train each week. Many players participated in competitive tournaments, as did about 200 community members. He wondered how, if the project were approved, players would be able to continue their training programs during construction.
The answer was that there had been discussions and that the intention was to organize something together with another club, but that nothing had been arranged.
One man said he was concerned: “There seems to be an insinuation that if we don’t support the hotel, the golf course will deteriorate.” “I feel like we’re being held hostage to that,” he said.
“There is no threat to support this,” he was told. “When you add multiple revenue streams and diversify as a company, you protect it,” was the response.
Ms Guan said their commitment to the site went beyond the hotel project.
In July 2023, Noosa councillors voted no to the development application in a motion unanimously supported by the council’s AGM. The developer subsequently halted the approval process before a final decision on the application could be made at the AGM.
Inconsistencies with the Noosa Plan 2020, including its location outside the development boundary and inconsistent use of land earmarked for recreation and open space, the clearing of vegetation in a known habitat for koalas and glossy black cockatoos, concerns about noise and odour, and conflicts with state planning policy due to its proximity to a sewage treatment plant, were among the reasons given for the rejection.
Councillors also considered a significant number of “valid planning grounds” put forward by submitters, which indicated “an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the surrounding area”, as well as a valid submission from Unitywater identifying potential risks and costs to flow associated with the proposed development in close proximity to the STP.
Council officials recommended that the development application be approved subject to conditions for the site, which is partly intended for tourist accommodation and partly for recreation and public space.
The development application was back before the council last month, but the developer again halted the approval process before a final decision was made on the application. The application is expected to return to the council this month or next month.
