Original source · versioned page text
PM Submission Object - Max & Margaret Thomson MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: Maxwell Thomson
Sent: 22 Apr 2017 18:08:46 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: Objection to the Scanlon Group Development Propusalin Peregian
Attachments: Objection Document.docx
Importance: Normal
Please find attached our objections to the Proposed Scanlon Group Development in Peregian
Beach. M & M Thomson
Document Set ID: 20306903
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
69 Lorikeet Drive
Peregian Beach
Qld 4573
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Objection to the Scanlon Group Development Application
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
I have read Peregian Beach Community Associations Inc’s Objection to this
development application and I/we agree with its objection.
This application should be rejected for the following reasons:
The proposed development significantly conflicts with the Noosa Plan, for the
following reasons:
the proposed development is not consistent with Part 3 - Desired
Environmental Outcome (j) Tourism, in that the development does not
offer visitors the expected range of experiences and accommodation types
expected for the land;
with respect to the Eastern Beaches Locality Code:
o the proposed development is does not protect and retain low cost
accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity of
accommodation types for visitors to the locality and therefore is
not consistent with overall outcome (h);
o the proposed development does not provide for Visitor
Accommodation Type 4 Conventional to be located in close
proximity to the Peregian Neighbourhood Centre and therefore is
not consistent with overall outcome (t)(ii);
o the proposed development being located within the Open Space
Recreation Zone does not contribute to the desired lifestyle of
residents because it does not offer a variety of passive and active
recreational experiences that are conducive to community
interaction and wellbeing and therefore is not consistent with
overall outcome (bb);
o the proposed development seeks to provide a small lot housing
development and in particular, Multiple Housing Type 4 –
Conventional, which is not a consistent use in the Open Space
Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent with performance
outcome O73;
o the proposed development seeks to provide Visitor
Accommodation Type 4, but not in association with Visitor
Document Set ID: 20306903
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 3
Accommodation Type 2, and therefore is not consistent with the
Open Space Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent with
performance outcome O74;
o The proposed development does not protect the Peregian Beach
caravan park site for low cost visitor accommodation and
therefore is not consistent with performance outcome O75;
o Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is being proposed on the land, but
is not integrated as part of a caravan park use or other form of
budget accommodation and therefore is not consistent with
performance outcome O76;
o The proposed development will result in significant traffic
generation that will affect nearby uses and is not consistent with
performance outcome O77;
o The proposed buildings and structures are not designed and sited
to be attractive, comfortable and accessible to the public or
provide suitable landscape treatments and amenities, conducive to
community interaction and convenience and public safety and
therefore is not consistent with performance outcome O78;
The proposed development is not consistent with the reasonable
expectations of residents in the locality, given the Peregian Beach Caravan
site is to primarily provide for budget visitor accommodation, which is in
the public interest;
There are no grounds provided that are sufficient to overcome the level of
conflict identified with the Noosa Plan.
For all of the above reasons I/we urgesCouncil to refuse this DA.
Max & Margaret Thomson
Document Set ID: 20306903
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017