Properly Made submission (object) Sandra Sleeman - MCU13/0092

23.    The reference to specific applications as precedence for non-compliance with the
planning scheme and undermining of the neighbourhood centre is irrelevant to the point of
misleading as the projects specifically mentioned have been assessed on their own merits.
Specifically, in regards to:

i. 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. This does not undermine the planning scheme.


ii. Closure of Peregian Bowls Club. Comment      -
                                                     Closure has nothing to do with Planning Scheme
or Council. There is no   impact on Planning Scheme.

iii. Peregian Beach Hotel   -
                                Comment   This site was previously a hotel and continues to be a
                                          -




hotel. There is no impact on the validity of the Planning Scheme.


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

v. Closure of    supermarket in square    -
                                              Comment   -
                                                            The    supermarket is still in operation,
with no fixed date for closure. Cessation of operation of that supermarket has nothing to do
with the Planning Scheme nor Council. There is no impact on the Planning Scheme.


24.     The proposed shopping centre does not fit the Peregian Beach character which states
that development will"be in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape qualities".
The construction of a building which 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.     Very limited landscaping is provided across the site which will result in an urban form
which 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.



Accordingly, I request that Development Application              MCU 13/0092 be refused for the
above   reasons summarised thus:



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 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.      T~plicant"fas nordemonstrated that an approval should be granted especially as