PM Submission Object - Kerry Simmonds - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

Page 2

                 Subsequently, in 2013 the developer submitted a new development application (for the
                 area where the commercial building was approved) for a supermarket and four specialty
                 shops, this time, after discussion with the Peregian Beach community. This proposal, was
                 supported by PBCAI and the Peregian Beach community and was approved by Noosa
                 Council on 29 May 2014. It was a significant improvement on what the developer had
                 previously had approved.

                 The IGA Supermarket and the four specialty shops (the IGA supermarket development)
                 which was subsequently built is a positive benefit to Peregian Beach.


                 2. The Current Development Application
                 The balance of the caravan park site, after the IGA supermarket development, is what the
                 developer is currently seeking approval to develop.

                 Here it is important to reiterate the written advice to the pre-lodgement meeting held on
                 14 December 2016 (between Council and the developer):
                      The Open Space Recreation zone in Peregian Beach specifically seeks to protect and
                      retain the site for low cost visitor accommodation needs reflective of the site’s previous
                      use as a caravan park, but also acknowledges that a range of visitor accommodation
                      may be provided where integrated with budget accommodation. There is no support
                      given to permanent residents on the site.
                      It is noted that the current approval included only visitor accommodation, with no
                      permanent resident accommodation proposed. This approved development was
                      supported by Council through an appeal process as it was acknowledged that it included
                      low to mid cost visitor accommodation being a reasonable alternative to the Planning
                      Scheme’s intent to retain the caravan park.
                      It is considered the current proposal does not meet the Planning Scheme’s intent for the
                      site as there is a lack of and a limited range of visitor accommodation proposed…….
                 The DA does not reflect this advice.

                 The other thing to mention here is the Planning and Environment Court sanctioned
                 approval of 12 February 2010 of the now lapsed DA referred to above. At item 3 it stated:
                      The units shall operate in accordance with the defined use of ‘Visitor accommodation –
                      Type 4 Conventional’ in the Noosa Plan, which provides for short term visitor
                      accommodation. The units shall not be used for the purpose of permanent residential
                      accommodation, with the exception of two manager/caretaker’s units. The Community
                      Management Statement for any or all Bodies Corporate having control of the
                      development, or any part thereof, shall incorporate this requirement.”
                 The DA is totally in conflict with this approval as can be seen below:

                 The proposal:
                 Multiple Housing of 3 types – 88 Beds (or Persons)
                 They are all proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
                     The Kamala & Marram Houses (in the centre of the ring road) There are 9 of these
                     with 3 bedrooms. (27 persons). Carparking is 9x2. Estimated price $825K



Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 3

                        The Wallum Units (along Rufous Lane). There are 7 of these with 3 bedrooms. (21
                        persons). Carparking is 5x3 and 2x2. Estimated price $725-800K
                        Reed Beach Houses (behind the Hotel) – There are 10 of these with 4 bedrooms
                        upstairs and living down. (40 persons). Carparking is 10x3. These units will be
                        approximately 6m below the Hotel level. Estimated price $850K.

                 Essence Hotel/(Motel) & Conference Centre – 40 beds
                       The developer proposes to develop and run the hotel with 20 visitor accommodation
                       rooms and 12 apartments (4 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom) which are described as
                       “multiple and visitor”. (40 persons). The 12 apartments are proposed for
                       PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
                       The Hotel will apparently employ 15 people (full-time and part-time) including
                       conference facilitators. The Conference room is small and apparently will seat 40. 40
                       Car parks are proposed with all bar 3 (Visitor parking?) under the Hotel and behind a
                       security gate.
                 3. Lack of compliance with the Noosa Plan
                 PBCAI’s Objection to the DA is firstly based on its lack of compliance with the Noosa Plan
                 Open Space Recreation zone requirements. PBCAI specifically seeks to protect and retain
                 the site for low cost visitor accommodation reflective of the site’s previous use as a caravan
                 park.

                 The Noosa Plan resulted from a community consultation process and was subsequently
                 approved by the State Government. It should not lightly be ignored by a developer being
                 granted an approval which significantly conflicts with the Plan.

                 In addition here, in order to obtain the Council’s previous approval, although it should be
                 stated that no attempt was made to get community approval, this same developer agreed
                 with conditions which kept the then proposed development in compliance with the Town
                 Plan (See above). Now that developer, six years later and having done nothing with the
                 approval, proposes another development in conflict with the Noosa Plan. Once again the
                 developer wants to change the rules for its financial benefit and not for the benefit of the
                 Peregian Beach community.

                 This DA proposes only 20 visitor beds in the Hotel/Motel. It does propose a further 12
                 apartments designated as “multiple and visitor” which the developer proposes to make
                 available for permanent residents although whether this on a lease or sale basis is
                 unknown. All of the 88 beds in the Multiple Housing are proposed to be for permanent
                 residents contrary to the Noosa Plan and the previous, now lapsed, approval.

                 I agree with the comment in the Information Request at page 12 of 13 “the limited range of
                 visitor accommodation proposed in conjunction with the primary use of the site for
                 permanent residential living remains a significant concern.”

                 This concern is increased by the fact that the commercial building, which the developer
                 replaced with the IGA supermarket, provided for visitor accommodation. Now this DA




Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 4

                 provides for less visitor accommodation on the entire site than was originally sanctioned
                 by the Planning and Environment Court approval of 12 February 2010.

                 I have serious concerns about the density, site cover, gross floor area, planting area
                 and plot ratio having regard to the limitations in the Specific Outcomes for the
                 Eastern Beaches Locality (Semi-Attached Housing Zone). These calculations should
                 be based on a site area which excludes the land dedication included in the Court
                 Order approval (Appeal 25847 of 2008) but which does not exclude the land
                 associated with the Shopping Centre approval.
                 4. Staging
                 The Sprout Architects Staging Plan shows that the developer proposes:-
                 Stage 1 = Multiple Housing of 3 types
                 Stage 2 = Hotel/Motel

                 Given, the location of Stage 1 in a swampy area overlooking wetlands, at least 6 metres
                 below and behind the Peregian Beach Hotel to the east and the IGA supermarket to the
                 south, the developer’s suggested marketing of these houses at $725,000 to $800,000 must
                 raise real doubts as to whether or not any of these houses will be built. This is especially
                 the case if the developer requires a 60 percent pre-commitment before commencing
                 construction. Council, of course, could not consider the proposed pricing of these houses as
                 low cost or budget accommodation. While this is the developer’s risk, it has a bearing on
                 the completion of the proposed Stage 2 with the visitor accommodation.

                 Therefore, the completion of Stage 2, which contains the developer’s limited commitment
                 to visitor accommodation must be seriously doubted.

                 I ask that Council consider the sincerity of the developer in providing visitor
                 accommodation when it is left to Stage 2 and the developer’s record to date of having built
                 no visitor accommodation since 2009.

                 5. Disruption to Peregian Village and surrounding areas during construction if this
                 DA is approved
                 5.1 Engineering Services Report – Page 5 in Response 2B states:-
                 “There will be earthworks required to facilitate construction of stormwater treatment
                 facilities, sanitary drainage and allow for an aesthetically pleasing and functional built
                 form. There is little opportunity for fill material to be won on site therefore most of the fill
                 material will need to be imported”.

                 While the total amount of fill required does not seem to have been identified Figure 6
                 “illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the lower area of the site in the vicinity of the proposed
                 gabion wall” and states that “a fill wall of approximately 2.0m will be required”.

                 I agree with the comment at page 10 of 13 in the Information Request “that the extent of
                 filling of the site may need to be reduced.”




Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 5

                 COMMENT: The imported fill will all have to come in via Sandpiper Lane and on the access
                 road to the IGA and the other shops. It will therefore, directly and significantly affect them
                 and the Hardware store. This will involve considerable noise and disruption from the
                 source of the fill to the development and return. It will also cause considerable disruption
                 to the roundabout at the village and to the Peregian Beach Hotel and other premises in that
                 area.

                 COMMENT: The importation of fill will result in the creek, which seems to have been
                 ignored in the DA, being diverted to run through the Council Reserve.

                 5.2 Engineering Services Report – Page 7 in Response 2B
                 I querys why water reticulation is proposed down the pedestrian access lane to the
                 Peregian Beach Sports Ground (Lot 75 on MCH839108) and a
                 Unity Water meter is proposed at the Peregian Beach Sports Ground boundary rather than
                 on the developers property

                 I also querywhy Electricity supply will be provided by “installing underground
                 infrastructure down the Peregian Sports Reserve access strip” rather than through the
                 developers property.

                 I query the contribution the developer will be required to make, if any, to the rectification
                 of this pedestrian access and the extent of any delay in the lighting and development of this
                 pedestrian access, which is supposedly underway at present.

                 6. Traffic
                 The DA proposes Carparking & Visitor Carparking of 115 space in total
                      67 with the Houses & 37 with the Hotel/Motel
                      4 in the west of the centre of the ring road
                      4 on the southside of the ring road behind the IGA
                      3 outside the security gate of the Motel.

                 This will result in an increase of 115 vehicles by the number of vehicular movements per
                 day over Sandpiper Lane with a considerable number of these increasing the use of the
                 Peregian Beach roundabout for vehicles going both north and south. This will add to the
                 number of vehicular movements per day over Sandpiper Drive arising from the IGA
                 Supermarket development without any enhancement of the ability of Sandpiper Lane to
                 cope with the number of vehicular movements per day.

                 The David Low traffic at Sandpiper Lane and the Peregian Beach roundabout is already
                 very heavy and PBCAI questions the ability of this section of David Low Way to carry such
                 an increase of traffic without creating difficulties.

                 7. Noise
                 The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the IGA are mounted on the roof of the IGA
                 store will be a source of noise for the residents of the Hotel/Motel. There will also be noise
                 from the IGA loading dock.



Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 6

                 The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the Peregian Beach Hotel are mounted on
                 the rear of the Hotel. This will be will be a source of noise for the residents of the Reed
                 Houses who will be 6 metres below the ground level of the Peregian Beach Hotel.

                 I consider that the developer should be required to submit a noise mitigation plan agreed
                 between the Peregian Beach Hotel and the developer with a formal commitment by each
                 party to implement the plan, prior to any proposed development being considered by
                 Council. The implementation of the plan is to be certified by a suitably qualified and
                 independent acoustic consultant. It will be too late if Council approves the DA and the
                 Peregian Beach Hotel and the developer cannot reach agreement.
                 8. The Vista from David Low Way
                 It appears that the Hotel/Motel will not obscure the vista of the western mountains from
                 David Low Way. This vista needs to be protected. The accommodation units will be behind
                 and below the Peregian Beach Hotel by about 6m and, therefore, will not be visible from
                 David Low Way but it is important that they do not exceed the height allowed under the
                 Noosa Plan especially along Rufous Lane.
                 9. Sprout Architects Site Sections shows a 12m height above natural ground level
                 especially for Lot 12 which would appear to be grossly excessive.

                 10. Pathway through the development
                 It is proposed to provide a public pathway linking Rufous Lane with the IGA and the Motel
                 and through the Supermarket site to both Sandpiper Lane and David Low Way (via the
                 lift). This pathway is desirable if the DA is approved.

                 11. Sprout Architects Ground Floor Hotel – MPR? Meal Preparation Room?
                 I do not understand why the change from “Motel” to “Hotel” or whether or not this has any
                 significance.

                 12. Sprout Architects Reed House Section Analysis
                 I consider that the amount of solar access and ventilation is limited and inappropriate
                 according to this analysis. The number of hours of solar access that these windows and
                 open spaces will receive is not clear. The apparent inadequacy is caused by the developer’s
                 attempt to maximize the density and ground coverage of the site.

                 13. The Reed Beach Houses - secondary dwelling units
                 While I realize that the developer has provided a physical linkage from each secondary
                 dwelling to the main dwelling unit, the fact still remains that the secondary dwelling can be
                 locked off and separately occupied. If this occurs the secondary dwelling will require a
                 separate carpark which will not be available if the present DA is approved.

                 I submit that the secondary dwelling should either be removed in its entirety or, at very
                 least, the associated kitchen and living area should not be approved.

                 The current DA proposes that these Reed Beach Houses will be for permanent residents
                 and with 2 persons sharing each of four bedrooms that could result in 80 permanent
                 residents in the Reed Beach House alone.



Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 7

                 As stated in the Information Request at page 9 of 13
                      “The proposed land use is a substantial variation from that which has previously been
                      approved on the site or is supported under the Open Space Recreation Zone. As the
                      proposed style of development is more consistent with that expected to be found within
                      the nearby Semi-Attached Housing Zone it is considered that the development should be
                      compatible to both the Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions for the Eastern
                      Beaches Locality related to the Semi-Attached Housing Zone and the existing built form
                      and established character within Peregian Beach.
                 COMMENT: in the my opinion, the design for the Reed Beach Houses is upside down. The
                 bedrooms should be on the ground floor and the living areas on the first floor. This would
                 enable the living areas to have greater solar access and, if the secondary dwelling units are
                 removed, give them the possibility of some outlook, which is not available with the current
                 design.

                 14. Building Heights
                 As a result of the proposed filling of the site both the Multiple Housing dwellings and
                 Visitor Accommodation/Shared Housing building exceed the preferred maximum building
                 height. Of particular concern is the height of the Hotel/Motel building and how this may
                 affect vistas from David Low Way towards the National Park and Cooroy Mountain. If the
                 DA is approved, Council will need to specify the height of this building to ensure that the
                 vista is maintained.

                 15. Relevant period of approval
                 The first development application by this developer for this site was lodged in 2009. The
                 developer received the first approval for developing accommodation in 2010. Now in 2017,
                 the developer is seeking another approval to build, not budget visitor accommodation but,
                 in the main, permanent resident accommodation. In the intervening years, despite having
                 approval the developer has not constructed any accommodation units on the site. The
                 developer, therefore, since 2009, has deprived visitors to Peregian Beach of the low cost
                 visitor accommodation that the caravan park provided.

                 If Council were to approve this DA in any form, I request that the period of approval be
                 reasonable but short and that the staging be reversed to provide for the Hotel to be
                 exclusively for visitor accommodation with the possible exception of one or two
                 manager/caretaker’s units. I also request that the developer be informed that the period of
                 approval will not be extended.

                 For all of the above reasons I request that Council refuse this DA.

                 KERRY SIMMONDS
                 1/12 PLOVER STREET PERIGEAN BEACH QLD. 4573
                 PHONE: 0439 754 753




Document Set ID: 20308174
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017