Properly made submission (object) Peregian Beach Business Association MCU13/0092

Page 2

     Submission to MCU 13/0092                                                            August 15, 2013




3.    The Overall Outcomes of the Neighbourhood Centre zone (which forms the existing commercial centre
      of Peregian Beach) state that the centre is to be the focal point for the community.       The Outcomes
      state:


          Neighbourhood Centre Zone         -




          i. the Peregian Beach and Sunrise Beach neighbourhood centres form focal
          points for the communities providing local shops, offices, restaurants and limited higher order
          functions to support the day to day needs of residents and visitors; and


          ii Business Uses are of a scale and character consistent with the locality and the commercial and
          retail hierarchy of Noosa.


      The proposal clearly is in direct conflict with the Outcomes of the Neighbourhood Centre zone as it will
      distend and diffuse the focal point that is the existing Neighbourhood Centre. The Neighbourhood
      Centre is to contain local shops and the proposed shopping complex outside this zone will detrimentally
      impact on the centre’s function and will replicate the existing centre.


4.    The Overall Outcomes reinforce the maintenance of the Open Space Recreation zone stating:


          Open Space Recreation Zone-

          areas of open space contribute to the desired lifestyle of residents by offering a variety of passive

          and active recreational experiences that are conducive to community interaction and wellbeing;


      The use of the site for commercial development is in direct conflict with the intent of the Noosa
      Plan and the Open Space Recreation zone and the applicant has not demonstrated significant
      community benefit for an additional shopping complex on the site.

      The Sunshine Coast Council adopted the Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation Plan at its
      Special Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2011. This Strategy clearly identifies that the Sunshine Coast has
      a shortage of land for sport and recreation of over 100 hectares. Further, the Strategy identifies as a

      short term priority, the investigation of the use of the Bowls Club site for indoor and outdoor recreation
      activities. The Strategy also details a number of existing clubs in the area that are seeking additional
      land for sporting facilities.


      The loss of existing open space zoned land in this locality therefore has a negative impact on the
      overall Open Space Strategy as adopted by Council as well as reducing open space land that has been
      identified as being needed by the overall community.


5.    The proposed shopping centre is an inconsistent use in the Open Space Recreation Zone in which the
      site is contained. The proposal does not meet the outcomes of the Zone which relate to open space
      and community uses.


6.    The applicant’s consultants comments that the site is not conducive to recreation as evidenced by its
      width and that the site has not been used as a recreational use is again uninformed and misleading.
      There is no evidence to suggest that the owner of the site has even attempted to utilise the site for
      alternate recreation purposes. Further, it should be noted that Peregian Beach Volleyball (The Sand pit)
      utilised this site successfully and provided great benefit to the local Peregian community. It is
      considered short sighted to argue that the existing recreation zoned land should be developed for
      commercial activities just because one use has ceased. The Sunshine Coast Sport and Active
      Recreation Plan further reinforces the shortage of land for sport and recreation and therefore any
      further loss would be detrimental to the community.


7.    The site is located within      a   precinct that is used for Open Space, Recreational and Community
      purposes including the Peregian Veggie Village, Peregian Tennis Club, Peregian Community Centre,
      Peregian Kindy and the Oi Hurst Oval. All these facilities are well established and well utilised by the
      community and the introduction of a pure commercial use will have a negative impact on this area in
      terms of community cohesion, traffic, safety, carparking, noise and growth of community activities.




                                                   Page 2 of 5

Page 3

     Submission to MCU 13/0092                                                            August 15, 2013



8.    The Needs Assessment        prepared for the proposed shopping centre notes that Peregian Beach
      provides the local shopping functions for Peregian Beach, Marcus Beach and Castaways Beach. The
      trade area is also indicated as extending north to Castaways Beach. Based on local knowledge, it is
      known that the trade area does not extend as far as Castaways Beach, as most of these residents
      head north to utilise the existing wider range of commercial facilities at Noosa Junction which includes
      both Coles and IGA supermarkets.


9.    The Needs Assessment report states that there are        no   suitably zoned parcels of sufficient size to
      accommodate a supermarket. The report fails to recognise the existing approval at 215 David Low Way
      (132007.1259.04)which has approval for 387m2 of retail and 306m2 of restaurant plus 70m2 outdoor
      dining which could easily accommodate a local supermarket to assist in meeting the needs of the
      Peregian Beach locality. It is proposed that this development is scheduled to come online within the
      next 12-18 months and further, the existing convenience store located in the Village is likely to remain
      in operation into the foreseeable future.


10. The Needs Assessment report indicates that the applicant sees a need for a supermarket to service the
      Peregian Beach area. The report however does not demonstrate any need for additional shops nor
      does it recognise that there is existing floor area available in the centre which could be utilised for a
      supermarket.

11. The     Needs Assessment indicates that the proposed shopping centre size is that of "small
      neighbourhood centre" and is different to the existing neighbourhood centre due to a ’specialised
      tenancy mix’.      The report therefore clearly indicates that the proposal provides for a new
      neighbourhood centre additional to the existing centre. Comments about a ’specialised mix’ of retail
      uses differentiating the new centre from the existing centre are deceitful and misleading as the actual

      tenancy mix has not been finalised and will not be confirmed until the centre is approved and under
      construction. It is noted that all of the proposed retail uses indicated in the Needs Assessment are
      already well established within the Peregian Village. The Peregian Beach Business Association Inc
      understands that the existing operators of these retail uses have no intention of relocating from their
      current location to the proposed site. Therefore, the duplication of the proposed retail uses would
      severely impact the economic viability of the current traders within the Peregian Village.

12. The    proposed shopping centre is indicated as being a ’convenient central meeting place for office
      workers and shoppers’. This indicates that the proposal will further undermine the intent of the existing
      neighbourhood centre which specifically seeks to create a public place and sense of community.

13. The Needs Assessment          acknowledges that existing shops in the Neighbourhood Centre will be
      negatively affected by the development and are likely to close down. The 70 fulltime/part time/casual
      jobs are not all new jobs to the area as the report notes that the shopping centre will employ those
      people from the existing shops that will close as a result of the proposal. Comments such as this are
      again misleading as the consultant cannot predict that a new centre will employ those business owners
      or staff of shops that may close down.



14. The
,
           proposal will negatively impact on the residential amenity of residents in Woodland Drive and
      Rufous Street   by noise generated by the proposed centre. This is evidenced by the applicant’s
      consultant’s noise report which states:


          ’... generally   our   assessment shows that some    loading activities can potentially   exceed the
          nominated noise limits.


          ’Traffic noise from David Low Way is expected to increase by approximately 1dBA and for
          Woodland Drive and Rufous Street by 5dBA to 7dBA above current levels after the construction of
          the shopping centre. The increase of noise levels due to the increase in traffic volumes will likely be
          noticeable at the residences along Woodland Drive and Rufous Street.


          The possible noise control treatment is provision of acoustic upgrades to existing residential
          buildings, but it is understood that this option is not feasible. A reduction of noise impacts is
          expected if an alternate access the shopping centre via the David Low is provided.’

      It is noted that this noise impact is not able to be overcome by conditions of approval.




                                                Page 3 of 5

Page 4

  Submission to MCU 13/0092                                                                       August 15,2013



15. The applicant’s noise   report states that all loading and service activities on site are to be limited to
   between the hours of 7am to 6pm. This will result in service vehicles and semi trailers being forced to
   share Rufous Street with the existing low key end users of the Di Hurst Oval, Peregian Veggie Village,
   Peregian Tennis club and Peregian Community Kindergarten. These community and sporting groups
   will be detrimentally affected by the additional heavy vehicles and overflow carparking that will occur as
   a result of the shopping complex



16. The applicant’s traffic consultants have not indicated the extent of works required to Rufous Street nor
    provided any detailed designs on the stated required upgrading of the Woodland Drive and David Low
   Way intersection. Therefore the extent of roadworks and impacts on the road system is unknown.

17. The applicant’s traffic consultant’s report notes that properties on the northern side of Woodland Drive
   will be negatively affected by the additional traffic generated by the proposed Shopping Centre. The
    owners of these  sites would not have anticipated the potential delays or conflicts and therefore the
    proposal has a significant impact on their amenity.

18. The traffic impacts on the area will be significant for residents in Woodland Drive and those near the
    David Low Way intersection. Impacts will include increased heavy vehicles manouevring and braking
    which will not be able to be controlled by conditions.


19. Residents in the surrounding area would not have envisaged a commercial use such as a shopping
    centre as being’ permitted on Open Space zoned land.


20. The shopping centre will result in the use of the Council carpark on the David Low Way for carparking
    associated with the shopping centre as patrons from the south will find it easier to access this carpark.
    The use of this carpark will reduce the carparking available for community uses.


21. The location of the shopping centre on the very edge of the Peregian Township is not desirable as
    there is limited    vehicular access to the site and provides limited integration with the existing
    neighbourhood centre. This will therefore have significant impacts on the area as the proposed centre
    will operate in direct conflict to the existing centre.


22. The applicant’s consultant’s submission that the Eastern Beaches Locality Plan is no longer applicable
    is ludicrous and illogical. The consultant’s reference to the 1997 Strategic Plan which is no longer in
    force is irrelevant and seeks to misinform and deceive the general public. The application is to be
    assessed against the current 2006 Noosa Plan. This 2006 plan was not ’updated’ as referenced by the
    consultant but was a new scheme for the whole of the Shire. The consultants attempt to discredit the
    validity of the planning documents are not able to be substantiated or therefore able to be used as a
    sufficient ground for the conflict with the planning scheme.


23. TIle reference to specific applications as precedence for non compliance with the planning scheme and
    undermining of the neighbourhood centre is irrelevant and misleading as the projects specifically
    mentioned have been assessed on their merits noting:


                o      Peregian Beach Caravan Park closure and subsequent approval for units and shops.
                       Comment    -
                                      2006 Noosa Plan indicated that Visitor Accommodation and offices were a
                       consistent use on this site. Does not undermine planning scheme.


                o      Closure of Peregian Bowls Club. Comment             -
                                                                               Closure has nothing to do with Planning
                       Scheme or Council. No impact on Planning Scheme.


                o      Peregian Beach Hotel     -
                                                    Comment     -
                                                                    This site was previously a hotel and continues to
                       be a hotel. No impact on validity of the Planning Scheme.


                o      Office development on David Low Way Comment                  -
                                                                                        Offices are a consistent use as
                       defined by the planning scheme. No impact on validity of the Planning Scheme.


                o      Closure of supermarket in square Comment
                                                            -
                                                                         The supermarket is still in operation,
                                                                               -




                       with no fixed date for closure. If and when the supermarket ceases operation, this will
                       have   nothing to do with the Planning Scheme or Council.               No   impact on Planning
                       Scheme.




                                                    Page 4 of 5

Page 5

       Submission to MCU 13/0092                                                               August 15, 2013



    24. The proposed shopping centre does not fit the Peregian Beach character which states development is
        in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape qualities. The construction of a building that
        has a 50 metre        long wall and incorporates 2.5 to 3.5 metre high noise barriers is not a desirable
        solution and does not fit in with the natural beachside character desired for the area.


    25. Limited landscaping is provided across the site which will result in an urban form that lacks the
        Peregian character of small scale buildings within a landscaped setting.


    26. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a critical need for the location of the use on the site.




In summary, we request that          Development Application    MCU13/0092 be refused for the above         reasons

summarised as the following:


             a.     The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan.


             b.     The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a need for the use to be located in the Open
                    Space Recreation zone.

             c.     The proposal is inconsistent with the Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation Plan which
                    clearly demonstrates a shortage of open space for recreational purposes.

             d.     The   proposal will result in the duplication of the existing neighbourhood centre which will
                    undermine the character and vision for the area and severely impact the sustainability of the
                    current Village precinct.


             e.     The applicant’s economic report is flawed and does not demonstrate an overriding need for the
                    shopping complex as there is appropriately zoned and approved land in the locality that could
                    cater for an appropriately sized supermarket to meet the demands of the locality.


             f.     The applicant has not demonstrated that an approval should be granted despite the conflicts
                    with the Planning Scheme.


             g.     The proposal will detrimentally impact on the surrounding residential areas by means of noise
                    and additional traffic which cannot be adequately controlled by any conditions of approval.


             h.     Approval of the proposed use will detrimentally affect the amenity and character of the
                    intended recreational and community area and its surrounding residents.




Yours faithfully,




 o    Siljuk
Secretary
Peregian Beach Business Association Inc




                                                     Page 5 of 5