Council decides - no funerals for Maleny

Maleny funeral parlour application rejected by council

An application for a funeral parlour and function centre on Mountain View Road at Maleny was rejected at last Thursday’s Sunshine Coast Council meeting.

In an unusual move, the application was put to the full council rather than being decided by council planning staff.

According to the report presented to council, this was “due to the level of public interest”, as the original application received 147 public submissions opposing the proposal.

The development included an 8.5m high 150- seat chapel and an existing dwelling converted into a 100-seat function facility, as well as a substantial driveway, considerable parking and an upgraded road entrance.

Although the application did not comply with council’s planning scheme and the land is zoned for rural purposes, council planning staff recommended it be approved. The staff reported that they could impose enough conditions to override any planning scheme conflicts and resolve any community anguish, noting that “… the proposal would not unduly impact on the amenity of the surrounding sensitive land uses”.

However, the elected community representatives thought otherwise and sided with the local community, voting six to four to refuse the application.

The motion to refuse was led by Cr Rick Baberowski, whose division the property falls within.

“For me, the matter was triggered by the large number of submissions from nearby residents along Mountain View Road who objected to the application,” Cr Baberowski said.

“My role is to represent the views of my constituents and to argue for them as best I can.

“Their concerns were about the impacts that would result from any event, funeral or otherwise, in that particular area.

“The residents were concerned that it would have a high impact on what was their quiet rural amenity,” Cr Baberowski said.

Impacts raised in the submitted objections included a significant increase in traffic along the road and the unknown impacts of other events such as parties, corporate events and weddings, which would be allowed under the application.

The development proponents – landowners Michael and Caroline Arnett – said they were extremely disappointed with the outcome of Thursday’s meeting.

They felt their application failed to accurately share their vision for a dedicated “life celebration venue” to provide a tranquil, beautiful place for bereaved families and friends to come to reflect on and farewell their loved ones.

Inspiration for their project came from their travels to North America and the ingenuity and breathtaking beauty of the Anthony Chapel in Arkansas and Butchart Gardens on Vancouver Island.

They viewed dozens of different properties around the coast, however the 13 hectare property on Mountain View Road at Maleny met all their criteria of a lake, a forest, a view and plenty of space for off-road parking.

There is no local precedent for their concept and, as it did not fall into a clear planning category, their town planner advised that while it would be primarily classed as a function centre, they were required to lodge an application as a funeral parlour as their intention was to predominantly conduct funeral ceremonies.

Caroline said that they were very distressed to read that some of the submissions opposing the business referred to it as “creepy”, “an eyesore”, and “should be built in an industrial estate”.

“We can understand their concerns if we were a traditional funeral parlour. However, we are not. We don’t have a crematorium or a burial site, nor do we store the deceased so we are not strictly a funeral parlour,” she said.

“Some residents have been understandably concerned about the increase in traffic to Mountain View Road, which our town planner advised is a feeder road classed to handle considerably more traffic than a typical suburban road.

“This information was subsequently supported by the traffic management reports that council required. Similarly, their reports confirmed there would be no negative noise impacts as a result of the proposed activities.

“Additionally, unlike the traditional funeral parlours that are designed to turn over funerals every 2-3 hours, we are proposing to host one celebration after 9.30am and/or one in the afternoon concluding before 5.30pm," Caroline said.

The couple believed they had identified every potential issue for local residents and obtained all necessary reports as per council’s request to show that the site was suitable for their proposed use.

They feel they have been misunderstood and unfairly dismissed because of their unique business model, as there is no specific category to lodge an application at present.

Consequently, the couple have said that they will lodge an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.

Community protests and objections over development applications are becoming more frequent, showing that communities are looking to council to more strongly uphold the protections that are built into the planning scheme, especially when developments are proposed in areas where the land is not designated for that use.

“The proposal is an inconsistent use with the rural zoning,” Cr Baberowski said.

“We do have to carefully consider what signal that sends if we start having inconsistent uses in rural zones that are approved by council.”