Original source · versioned page text
PM Submission Object 2 of 2- Richard Kirkpatrick MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: Suellen Kirkpatrick
Sent: 24 Apr 2017 07:25:20 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: Fwd: ProposalObjection Concerned (Rick)
Attachments: Notice of Submission.doc
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard KirkPatrick <[email protected]>
Date: 22 April 2017 at 7:54:35 PM AEST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: ProposalObjection Concerned (Rick)
This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and you are
not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/received in error.
Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this email is strictly
prohibited. The information contained in this email, including any attachment sent with it,
may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this email in error, you are
asked to immediately notify the sender. You should also delete this email, and any copies,
from your computer system network and destroy any hard copies produced.
If not an intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute or take any action(s)
that relies on it; any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this
email is also prohibited.
Although the Queensland Ambulance Service takes all reasonable steps to ensure this
email does not contain malicious software, the Queensland Ambulance Service does not
accept responsibility for the consequences if any person's computer inadvertently suffers
any disruption to services, loss of information, harm or is infected with a virus, other
malicious computer programme or code that may occur as a consequence of receiving this
email.
Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the
views of the Queensland Government.
********************************************************************************
The content presented in this publication is distributed by the Queensland Government as
an information source only. The State of Queensland makes no statements, representations
Document Set ID: 20306845
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 10 pages
Page 2
or warranties about the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any information contained in
this publication. The State of Queensland disclaims all responsibility and all liability
(including without limitation for liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages and
costs you might incur as a result of the information being inaccurate or incomplete in any
way, and for any reason reliance was placed on such information.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 3
Notice of Submission under the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2. be in writing
3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6. be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Sustainable Planning Act, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council’s website and
therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not they are properly
made.
1. Application details
File No MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
Postal address of Land (as advertised) 215 DAVID LOW WAY, PEREGIAN BEACH
Nature of Proposed Development MULTIPLE HOUSING –TYPE 4 CONVECTIONAL, VISITOR ACCOMODATION
2. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter Richard Bowden Kirkpatrick
Email Address [email protected]
Postal address 28 Currawong Cresent
Suburb Peregian Beach State Qld Postcode 4573
Signature(s)
N.B. This form has been designed for the convenience of the public, and any persons wishing to lodge a submission are not obliged to use this form.
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Submission in opposition to the Development Application
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
I write to oppose the approval of the above development application (DA). The grounds for my opposition are
listed below.
Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council’s privacy policy.
www.noosa.qld.gov.au [email protected] T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 1 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 4
1. History
The site, on which this development is proposed, was part of a caravan park which existed in Peregian Beach
from 1964. The current developer excluded permanent caravan residents from the site and then claimed that
the caravan park was not commercially viable. For this reason, in 2009, the developer sought approval to build
a commercial building on the David Low Way part of the site and two unit blocks each of 16 apartments and 30
of “beach shacks” behind the commercial building and the Peregian Beach Hotel. This was agreed to by the
developer and the Council at a mediation.
However, the developer was not satisfied with what he had agreed to and in 2011 went back to the Planning
and Environment Court to vary his agreed plans.
The development which the developer had had approved by the Planning and Environment Court on 24
January 2012 was not economically viable. Apparently the developer was unable to sell any of the “beach
shacks” off the plan and the proposed mini-supermarket, approved as part of that approval, was physically
non-viable. With no pre-commitment the developer did not proceed.
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 2 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 5
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
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 3 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 6
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 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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 4 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 7
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.”
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 5 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 8
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.
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 6 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 9
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 7 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 10
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.
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.
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 8 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 11
(if necessary, use separate sheet of paper and attach)
Document Set ID: 20306845
Page 9 of 9
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017