WOW! My phone and emails have run hot since the Agenda for Council’s Ordinary Meeting of August 26, 2026, was released – at the time of writing, local development applications were on the Ordinary Meeting agenda for a decision – Kidd St and MacDonnell Rd.
Opposition to both developments from local residents was overwhelming, and as the elected representative for Division 1, I believe I have represented and voted in line with residents’ wishes.
By now you are probably aware that I did not support either application for a number of reasons, particularly non-compliance with the Planning Scheme and that the developers and Council down-played the potential detrimental impacts on the local community, not least of which is the ability to provide timely medical assistance.
Thank you to Tamborine Mountain Medical Practice for the information provided which highlights the difficulties currently faced without an additional 200 households of residents of a certain age added to the mix.
‘Aging in Place’ is touted as a need, yet neither developer was willing to include facilities such as an aged care unit to enable residents to do just that.
Call me cynical, but aged care facilities are not the cash-cow that villages are, eh?
As for the statement that most of the occupants would come from the local area, no evidence was provided and nor can the developments be ‘conditioned’ to accommodate primarily existing locals. What a joke.
Kidd Street attracted 551 submissions, none of which were in support of the development in its proposed form. Ninety-two per cent of submitters were from Division 1.
MacDonnell Road – 125 submitters, all opposed to the development in its current form. Ninety-six per cent from Division 1.
To put it bluntly, mountain residents do not want to be dictated to by developers. Our residents have spoken.
Similar existing villages, such as Capo de Monte, Thyme at Canungra and Miller’s Glen at Beaudesert all recognised that the demographics of such developments dictate additional facilities, for example, dedicated parking areas for caravans, campervans, mobile homes etc.
Neither of the proposed developments were prepared to accommodate even one such parking bay but do target the grey nomad age group.
Why should the mountain accept this? Surely the needs of residents should be put before profits?
How do you feel about dwellings being converted to 100 per cent commercial use as Air B’n’Bs?
I am very much opposed to this occurring anywhere on the Mountain other than in the Minor Tourism Zone.
Let them all be on top of each other rather than impacting residential areas (in my opinion).
If you would like to see changes to our Planning Scheme to limit the location of these uses, please let me know.
Change will not happen without strong community support.
There are estimated to be around 350 Air B’n’Bs on the mountain, of which approximately 250 advertise on booking platforms.
The others rely on word of mouth ie below the radar.
