Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Original source · versioned page text

PM Submission Object 2 of 2- Richard Kirkpatrick MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

of 11

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

     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
Log in to download the original file

PM Submission Object 2 of 2- Richard Kirkpatrick MCU16_0153 & REC16_0041.pdf · 244 KB (small file)

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.