Council Planning Report MCU16/0153

MCU16/0153 Material Change of Use of Premises Multiple housing Type 4 Conventional (38 units) Visitor Accom Type 4 Conventional (12 units) & REC16/0041 Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots) 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach Qld 4573

Document information

Author	Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment & Sustainable Development

Index	ECM/Application/MCU16/0153 and REC16/0041

Attachments	1.	Proposal Plans

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	Thomco No 2087 Pty Ltd
Proposal	Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Multiple housing Type 4 Conventional (38 units) Visitor accommodation Type 4 Conventional (12 units) and Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots)
Properly Made Date	22/12/2016
Information Request Date	27 January 2017
Information Response Date	28 March 2017
Decision Due Date	25 October 2017
Number of Submissions	415

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	215 David Low Way PEREGIAN BEACH  QLD  4573
RP Description	Lot 77 SP 231615
Land Area	2.312 hectares
Existing Use of Land	Supermarket/speciality shops and vacant land

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Eastern Beaches
Zone	Open Space Recreation Zone Semi-Attached Housing
Overlays	Natural Hazards Overlay – Bushfire hazard Natural Hazards Overlay – High and Low Potential Acid Sulfate Soils
Assessment Type	Impact
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2017 and refuse Applications MCU16/0153 for a Development Permit for Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Multiple Housing Type 4 Conventional (38 units) Visitor accommodation Type 4 Conventional (12 units) and REC16/0041 for the Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots), situated at 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach for the following reasons:
The proposed works are contrary to the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the Noosa Plan as the development does not provide for low cost visitor accommodation on the site;
The proposed works are contrary to the Eastern Beaches Locality Code as the development is not compatible with the strategic intent for the site and the character of the surrounding area;
The proposed works are contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code as the risk from bushfire has not adequately been addressed and the layout may compromise the safety of people and property in the event of a bushfire;
The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development will not adversely impact on the specialised habitat for threatened species through discharge of stormwater through the wetland areas of the National Park;
The application for the proposed works has not demonstrated compliance with State Planning Policy July 2017 Part E Biodiversity as impacts on matters of state significance have not been adequately addressed;
The application has not demonstrated overwhelming community need to justify overriding the planning scheme; and
A number of properly made submissions have been received raising valid grounds of objection.

REPORT
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks approval for a Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots and Access Easement) and Material Change of Use to establish Multiple Housing (26 x Type 4 Conventional Units), Visitor Accommodation (20 x Type 4 Conventional Units) and shared Multiple Housing & Visitor Accommodation (12 x Type 4 Conventional Units) at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach.
The development is proposed to be constructed over two (2) stages, with Stage 1 involving the construction of all detached Multiple Housing Units, as well as all necessary infrastructure, landscaping and communal facilities (communal swimming pool, landscaping areas. etc) to service the development. Stage 2 would comprise the attached Visitor Accommodation and Multiple Housing building (hotel and conference building).
The application also seeks to reconfigure the subject site into 29 Lots and an Access Easement, with all 26 Multiple Housing dwelling units in Stage 1 proposed to be located on individual standard format lots within a community title scheme. The proposed hotel and conference building and road reserve are proposed to be located on a separate lot, within a community title format. Additionally, Peregian Village Market is to be subdivided off on a separate title as part of this application.
The following images detail the locality plan:

Subject site
Subject site
Figures 3: Zoning map
Stage 1 of the proposal comprises four different dwelling unit types. Stage 2 comprises a separate hotel and conference centre building which contains 32 dwelling units, it is proposed that 20 of the dwelling units are used for Visitor Accommodation and that the remaining 12 are used for either Visitor Accommodation or Multiple Housing.
The four dwelling unit ‘types’ within Stage 1 are referred to as Wallum, Kamala, Marram and Reed Beach House.
The dwelling units provide for the following:
Dwelling Unit Type	Bedrooms	Car spaces
Wallum (x5)	3 (+46m2  commercial space)	3 per unit, covered (15 total)
Kamala (x5)	3 (+ study)	2 per unit, covered (10 total)
Marram (x6)	3 (+ study)	2 per unit, covered (12 total)
Reed Beach House (x10)	4 bedroom	1 per unit, covered + 1 per unit, uncovered (20 total)
Total: 26	88 bedrooms	57 (47 covered and 10 uncovered)
Additional car parking and bedrooms associated with the hotel and conference centre building are as detailed below:
Bedrooms	Car spaces
24 x 1 bedroom 6 x 2 bedrooms 2 x 3 bedrooms (12 of the 32 dwelling units have kitchens)	40 covered spaces
The reconfiguration component of the application seeks to create 29 lots and an access easement from the current lot. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine lots relate to the proposed multiple dwelling units, lot twenty-seven relates to the hotel and conference centre building associated with stage 2, lot twenty-eight relates to the existing commercial development with the common property forming the twenty-ninth lot. The applicant advises that the area of land attributed to the multiple dwelling units, hotel and conference centre and associated common property equates to 1.157 hectares.
The proposed lot sizes for the multiple dwelling units within Stage 1 range from 160m2 to 246m2.
The following images detail the site layout, floor plans and elevations of the proposal.

Figure 4: Site plan

Figure 5: Proposed dwelling types

Figure 6: Wallum house type floor plans

Figure 7: Wallum House type elevations

Figure 8: Kamala house type floor plan

Figure 9: Kamala house type elevations

Figure 10: Marram house type floor plans

Figure 11: Marram House type elevations

Figure 12: Reed Beach House type floor plans

Figure 13: Reed Beach House type elevations

Figure 14: Hotel and Conference Centre elevations

The reconfiguration plan is detailed below:

Figure 15: Lot reconfiguration plan
Proposal plans are detailed within Attachment 1
site details
Background
Material Change of Use
An application (132007.1259) for a Material Change of Use for visitor accommodation, restaurant, shops and office was originally refused by Council on 21 August 2009 but subsequently settled on 12 February 2010 through the appeal process. The application attracted 2 properly made and 4 not properly made submissions. The approval was over 4 lots, 3 with frontage to the David Low Way and a larger lot to the rear of these lots, all accessed from the then Unnamed Road, which is now Sandpiper Court.
The approved development comprised a commercial building fronting the David Low Way, which included 306m² of restaurant, 387m² of retail uses on the ground/podium level and a low cost 58 bed visitor accommodation use to the first floor with parking underneath this building. To the rear of the site and behind the Peregian Beach Hotel, 2 three storey accommodation buildings consisting of 32 x 3 bedroom units, pool/BBQ area and 30 individual 2, 3 and 4 bedroom “beach shacks” were approved.  The most western portion of the site was conditioned to be dedicated to Council as parkland for environmental purposes.
On 24 January 2012 a permissible change was issued by the Planning and Environment Court (Appeal No. 4783 of 2011*). The primary changes included:
Staging the development into 3 stages, being:
Stage 1 – commercial building fronting David Low Way and rehabilitation and dedication of the parkland to Council.
Stage 2 – The 2 larger visitor accommodation buildings (32 x 3 bedroom units) to the rear of the site.
Stage 3 – 30 Beach Shacks (2, 3 and 4 bedroom individual buildings); and
An updated Stormwater Management Plan to reflect the staging and the current best practice water management objectives.
As part of this application to change the development approval, the court did not allow the addition of juliette balconies and additional outdoor dining facilities to the commercial and visitor accommodation building fronting David Low Way. The court did not agree the juliette balconies and the outdoor dining areas constituted a permissible change pursuant to Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
As such a new impact assessable application for a development permit to include juliette balconies and additional outdoor dining (MCU12/0023) was lodged and subsequently approved on 26 July 2012.  The application attracted 198 properly made and 12 not properly made submissions. Of the 198 properly made submissions, 81 objected and 117 supported the proposal. The submitters were primarily concerned with noise generated from the outdoor dining activities.
On 15 November 2013, Council agreed to extend the relevant period to 28 September 2016 and extend the sunset provision to 4 February 2018 (Appeal No. 4139 of 2013).
On 16 March 2016 Council refused to further extend the relevant period and advised that a request to extend the sunset clause must be made to the Planning and Environment Court. The application was refused as primarily events had overtaken the approval with the supermarket and speciality shops having been built over a significant portion of the site. The applicant has appealed this decision and the matter is currently before the Planning and Environment Court.
The following image details the site layout of this approval (132007.1259).

Figures 16: Layout plan for DA 132007.1259
Reconfiguring of a Lot
A Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (152010.627) was approved by Council on 29 October 2010. This approval created the western lot required by the material change of use approval to be dedicated as parkland for environmental purposes and 2 other lots, being one lot for the commercial and visitor accommodation use fronting David Low Way and the other lot for the majority of the visitor accommodation use located to the rear of the site.
This subdivision approval was subsequently changed in order for the IGA supermarket and associated shops (MCU13/0251) to be wholly sited within one lot as the development was straddling the original approved boundaries. The lots have been sealed by Council but to date the parkland and commercial lot have not been registered at the titles office. It is arguable that as the ‘Council reserve’ has not been registered with the titles office that the proposal will in fact result in the creation of 30 lots.
Material Change of Use (IGA)
A Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Retail Business Type 2 - Shop, Entertainment & dining business - Type 1 Food & beverages, Commercial business Type 1- Office was issued on 29 May 2014. The approval related to the south-eastern portion of the land and allowed for the development of a shopping complex approximately 1600m2, the overall development occupying approximately 5,800m2 of the overall site.
Site Description
The site is situated on the western side of David Low Way and the current title on which the development is proposed is approximately 2.312 hectares in area.
A commercial development is sited within the south-eastern corner of the site which currently accommodates an IGA supermarket and a number of smaller retail outlets.
An easement for stormwater purposes runs in a north-south direction in that part of the site which accommodates the existing commercial development.
The site has frontage to both David Low Way and Sandpiper Court.
Earthworks occurred to the front of the site to facilitate the existing commercial development, with the car park and floor level of the existing commercial building significantly lower than the level of the abutting David Low Way.
To the west of the site, is approximately 5,300m2 of land which has been identified for the purpose of Council reserve. This land is not suitable for development purposes as it is subject to flooding and contains remnant native vegetation.
Surrounding Land Uses
North	Peregian Beach Hotel, Rufous Street kindergarten, Rufous Street and reserve
South	Noosa National Park and Sandpiper Court
East	Peregian Beach Hotel, IGA (within same allotment) and David Low Way
West	Noosa National Park
Pre-lodgement meeting
A formal pre-lodgement meeting was held with the property owner and their key consultants on 14 December 2016.  The discussions focussed on the primary planning issues to be assessed including need, use conflicts, layout/design, bushfire, traffic and stormwater.
The proposed use of the land was identified as a critical issue given the zoning of the land and the previous approval on the land which was supported by Council through an appeal process and included low to mid cost visitor accommodation.
The notes from the pre-lodgement meeting included the following advice:
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.
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 (20 units visitor only and 14 units for both visitor/permanent).
Given the proposal conflicts with the planning scheme, a needs analysis should be submitted as part of any application package, which should demonstrate sufficient community and economic need for the proposal.  The needs analysis should review the need for further visitor accommodation, examining the type of accommodation and the amounts.  This will assist in determining the appropriate mix of permanent (if any) and visitor accommodation.

assessment
Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policies;
the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
State Planning Regulatory Provisions;
any Structure Plan or Master Plan in place for declared areas;
any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land;
the Planning Scheme for the local government area; and
any Temporary Local Planning Instrument in place for the local government area.
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the sections that follow.
State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policies
The following State Planning Policies are applicable to this application:
Flood Hazard Area
Bushfire Hazard Area
The above State Planning Policies have been deemed by the Minister for Local Government and Planning as appropriately reflected in the Planning Scheme and therefore do not warrant a separate assessment.
State Planning Policy July 2017
A new State Planning Policy was introduced in July 2017 which requires assessment of development with due regard to Matters of State Environment Significance (MSES). As the application was lodged prior to the implementation of the policy Council may only have regard to it.
A review of the MSES shows the western portion of the site contains regulated vegetation for essential habitat, high ecological significance wetlands and wildlife habitat.
The location of the development footprint is generally clear of these values, however the submitted documentation regarding the impacts of the development and water quality on these values either requires further information or has not been adequately addressed.
The State Planning Policy requires adverse impacts on matters of state environment significance to be reasonably avoided and, where not possible, minimised. Any residual impacts require an offset in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
The proposed development has the potential to have adverse impacts on MSES and further information on the magnitude of these impacts is required to satisfy the State Planning Policy. It is anticipated this could be conditioned to be complied with, however this may result in a revised development layout.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan 2017
The site is located within the Urban Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan.
The Regional Plan identifies that the Urban Footprint includes established urban areas and land with the potential for new urban development.
The area incorporates the full range of urban uses including housing, industry, business, infrastructure, community facilities……
The priority for developing land in the Urban Footprint is to accommodate urban growth. However, the Urban Footprint is not an urban zone and does not imply that all land can be developed for urban purposes.
The proposal is considered to be an urban development which accords with the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan. However, it is noted that the Urban Footprint principles includes that the Urban Footprint is a tool for managing, rather than simply accommodating, regional growth.
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The following State Planning Regulatory Provisions apply to the application:
SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions
South East Queensland Koala Conservation SPRP.
The proposal is for an urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions.
The subject site is located within the Koala Assessable Development Area and the proposed development is required to be assessed against Division 7 of the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions.
The construction phase will result in clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees and will require offsetting in accordance with assessment criteria contained in Division 7.
The report submitted with the application advises that the development provides safe koala movement opportunities due to the site containing a 5,276m2 environmental reserve along the complete width of the lot adjacent to the Noosa National Park.
Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
Locality Provisions
The subject site is located in the Eastern Beaches Locality and is zoned both Open Space Recreation and Semi-Attached Housing.  The section of the site which abuts David Low Way is zoned Semi-Attached Housing, however, this area has already been developed for the purpose of a commercial development. The proposed uses are identified as inconsistent uses within the Open Space Recreation Zone and are required to follow an impact assessable application process. Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional is a consistent use where located in conjunction with a Visitor Accommodation Type 2 Caravan Park. In this instance there is no caravan park proposed.
A number of provisions within the planning scheme are relevant to the assessment of this application.
Desired Environmental Outcomes
k) 	TOURISM
A tourism industry is developed and sustained by—
iii.	focussing on the coastal localities of Noosa Heads, Noosaville, Sunshine Beach and 	Peregian Beach,
offering visitors a range of experiences and accommodation types;
xi.	retaining a range of visitor accommodation choices including camping grounds, 	caravan parks, backpacker hostels, hotels, motels, resorts, B&Bs, guesthouses and 	serviced apartments;
xii.	avoiding mixing long-term accommodation for residents with short-term 	accommodation for visitors, to avoid potential conflicts and the erosion of visitor 	accommodation;
Overall Outcomes
The following Overall Outcomes of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code are relevant to the assessment of this application:
The Eastern Beaches Locality retains its primary role as a residential area, though continues to provide some visitor accommodation and a range of local retail and commercial functions at Sunshine Beach, Sunrise Beach and Peregian Beach;
The scale and form of buildings and other structures are—
designed to be responsive to the informal beachside character of the locality, being low rise buildings, with pitched or curved roofs and building materials that blend with the dune and coastal landscape;
in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape qualities;
integrated into the topography and native vegetation of the dune system which dominates the locality; and
consistent with the amenity and safety expectations of the community;
Residential development is characterised by—
low impact buildings of a domestic scale within densely landscaped settings;
building designs that are well articulated and that use design elements, materials that respect the coastal landscape character;
building designs that avoid hard lines and boxy shapes characteristic of Mediterranean/Tuscan influenced design;
Detached housing and Duplexes as the dominant development form; and
low rise Multiple housing development that is limited to the areas within the vicinity of the Sunshine Beach neighbourhood centre;
Emphasis is placed on the protection and retention of low cost accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity of accommodation types for visitors to the locality;
For Peregian Beach—
Multiple housing Type 2 Duplex and Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional are located in close proximity to the Peregian Beach neighbourhood centre shown in the Neighbourhood Centre Zone;
For the 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 proposed development presents obvious conflicts with The Noosa Plan provisions as the use of Open Space Recreation zoned land for the purpose of Multiple Housing Type 4 is an inconsistent use. According to the definition within the planning scheme inconsistent use “means the use is strongly inappropriate in the relevant zones because it is incompatible with the other uses generally expected in the zone”.
The use of Open Space Recreation zoned land for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is a consistent use where in conjunction with Visitor Accommodation Type 2 Caravan Park. In this instance no caravan park is proposed.
The planning scheme is clear and specific in that visitor accommodation is wanted on the site; accommodation for permanent residents is not.
A starting point for the planning scheme is the desired environmental outcomes and the proposed development clearly conflicts with the relevant tourism outcomes. The proposal does not seek to retain the low cost visitor accommodation despite a long history of the site being used for such purposes as specifically sought and supported by the planning scheme. The intent has been that this site be a location for the accommodation of visitors. The zoning of the land has complemented a vision to exclude permanent residents from the site.
If the development were to proceed, the availability of low cost visitor accommodation for visitors to this key location will end completely, whilst the residential housing component is likely to only be available to a few.
The location of the site within close proximity of the commercial hub of Peregian Beach makes it an ideal site for visitor accommodation clientele. Visitors will contribute to the local economy and are likely to spend more each day than permanent residents.
Furthermore, the proposed development mixes visitor accommodation with permanent accommodation and thereby creates potential for conflict between users.
In addition to being inconsistent with the strategic objectives of the Noosa Plan, the proposal is also inconsistent with the specific provisions for the Eastern Beaches Locality Code. The development is inconsistent with the locality code as it provides for development which is not consistent with the character of residential development within Peregian Beach. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to develop multiple housing within Peregian Beach, whereas the preferred location for multiple housing is within the vicinity of the Sunshine Beach neighbourhood centre.
The locality code places emphasis on the protection and retention of low cost accommodation and even provides a specific density for the purpose of a visitor hostel. The planning scheme’s intent for the preferred use of the site is again quite clear however the proposal does not seek to either protect or retain the historical use of the site for the purpose of low cost accommodation.
It is acknowledged that a development approval for a small scale supermarket has been issued and acted upon for a portion of the site. While this commercial development is not necessarily envisaged by the planning scheme there was a strong need identified for a supermarket for visitors and residents in Peregian. The site was also well located opposite the existing village with no real alternative suitably located site and was proposed over an area of the site that included commercial development in the earlier approval.
The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 provides that Council may only approve the application if there are sufficient grounds despite the conflict, and the grounds must be matters of public interest. The following discussion topics set out whether there are sufficient grounds for Council to approve the application.
Built Form
The locality code includes built form requirements for new development including density, building height, site cover and gross floor area. Due to the nature of the use proposed it is considered suitable to assess the proposed development against the provisions of both the Semi-Attached Housing Zone and the Open Space Conservation Zone. This assessment is detailed in the following table.
Criteria	Planning Scheme	Proposal	Complies?
	Open Space Conservation	Semi-Attached Housing		
Site Area	-	-	1.157ha (this excludes the land which is to be dedicated as public use land in accordance with MCU13/0251 and the area associated with commercial development)	N/A
Population density	-	100 persons per hectare or 320 persons per hectare for the purpose of visitor hostel	Density of 141.6 proposed which equates to 122.4 persons per hectare	X
Gross floor area	N/A	4628m2	Approx. 5797 m2	X
Site cover Plot ratio	N/A N/A	40%	5463m2 - 39%	N/A
Building height storeys metres	2 storeys max 8 metres 11 metres for indoor sporting complex	2 storeys max 8 metres	3 storeys 12 metres for hotel and function centre The dwelling units within Stage 1 are 2 storey	X X
Carparking	Stage 1 26 x 3+ beds = 52 covered + 7 visitor Stage 2: Hotel and Conference Centre Building Multiple dwelling units 2 x 3 bed  = 4 covered + 1 = 5 6 x 2 bed = 6 covered 4 x 1 bed = 4 covered + 3 visitor Visitor Accom. 20 units = 20 covered + 2 visitor (22) Total = 35 + 5 visitor Stage 1 & 2 Total 99	Stage 1 26 x 3+ beds = 52 covered +7 visitor Stage 2: Hotel and Conference Centre Building Multiple dwelling units 2 x 3 bed  = 4 covered + 1 = 5 6 x 2 bed = 6 covered 4 x 1 bed = 4 covered + 3 visitor Visitor Accom. 20 units = 20 covered + 2 visitor (22) Total = 35 + 5 visitor Stage 1 & 2 Total 99	47 covered in garages and car ports, 10 external + 8 visitor 40 covered Stage 1 & 2 Total 87 covered + 10 uncovered 8 external visitor	
The above table identifies that the proposed built form of the development is inconsistent with the requirements of the Semi-Attached Housing Zone. In this regard it is relevant to consider the built form of the previous approval for visitor accommodation on the subject site (132007.1259). The previous approval did allow for three-storey development and resulted in significant site cover and gross floor area. However, it is important to note that the proposal is inconsistent with the existing built form within the nearby Semi-Attached Housing zone within Peregian Beach which does not contain residential development of similar density or built form.
Of particular concern is the effect which fill on the site will have on the interface with Rufous Street. Despite being requested, an elevation plan of the development as viewed from Rufous Street has not been provided. However, it is evident from the floor plans that both the ground and first floors of the ‘Wallum’ dwellings will be setback only 1.0 metre from this boundary. Cross section diagrams demonstrate that there will be approximately 1.5 metres of fill in this section of the site. The resultant fencing to retaining walls at the Rufous Street boundary and the elevated height of dwellings setback 1.0 metre from this boundary is not an acceptable design outcome as they will result in excessive bulk adjacent to Rufous Street.
It is also noted that the Reed Beach Houses do not provide for two covered car spaces, only one covered space is provided. Whilst an additional uncovered car parking space is situated adjacent to the front boundary it is arguable the design of these dwelling units includes a second dwelling unit. This is attributed to the fourth bedroom which includes an attached living area, ensuite and kitchen. It is the applicant’s position that this is not a second dwelling unit as a door connects the area with the remainder of the dwelling unit. However, the area has separate access via an independent set of stairs and access landing. The ability for this part of the house to be separately occupied is likely to generate additional car parking demands which are not adequately provided. Furthermore, this is considered to be an additional dwelling unit which contributes to population density. This would result in a population density of 137 persons per hectare which exceeds the 100 persons requirement.
Land Use & Works Provisions
The following codes which regulate land use and design are most applicable to this application:
Residential Uses Code
Visitor Accommodation Code
Reconfiguring a Lot Code
Natural Hazards Overlay Code
Biodiversity Overlay
Generally speaking, the development complies or can comply with most provisions of these codes; however, some significant issues arise. The primary assessment issues for the development are discussed later in this report.
Primary Planning Scheme Assessment Issues
Need
Since the proposal raises fundamental conflicts with the planning intent for the site, need is crucial to this assessment.  Need may present community benefit grounds sufficient to support the application. Need in the development sense is commonly recognised as relating to community wellbeing. A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing - such as by access to new services or facilities, or a range of other ways.
The application included an assessment of the level of need which includes an analysis of existing and projected demand for short term accommodation and the residential property market in Peregian Beach. Importantly the report proposes that there is a lack of short term demand for lower cost tourist accommodation and that the market currently requires boutique visitor accommodation that it is not currently provided within Peregian Beach.
The applicant’s needs analysis includes the following comments:
It is Urban Economics’s opinion that there is strong need for the proposed development including both short-term accommodation at the right mix and scale to ensure viability and residential dwellings; and that the subject site represents a logical and strategic location for the proposed development. Need includes a variety of iterations including community need, economic need and planning need…

Peregian has demonstrated declining occupancy rates for commercial short term accommodation facilities as a result of both demand and supply factors, suggesting that existing facilities are not necessarily meeting the needs of current and emerging visitor markets and that there is a need for new and additional facilities at the right type and scale in order to remain viable and in order for Peregian to retain its relevance and competitiveness in the Coast’s tourist and visitor markets. Emerging visitor markets for the Sunshine Coast are not necessarily well represented or catered for in Noosa Shire and Peregian Beach…

It is Urban Economics’s opinion that there is need and demand for the proposed short term and permanent residential development in Peregian Beach and that the proposed development would have a net economic and community benefit for the Peregian Beach community, complimenting and consolidating the existing role of Peregian whilst not having a significant adverse impact on existing facilities in Peregian nor on the role of Noosa as the premier tourist destination for the Shire.

The addition of 20 short term motel rooms and 12 accommodation units to the commercial accommodation market in Peregian Beach would increase the overall commercial short term accommodation stock by 26%. However, the proposed rooms would be positioned differently to the existing commercial stock, target different visitor market sectors, and represent only a small number of additional rooms particularly when including the overall stock of holiday homes in the area, and would therefore not have a significant impact on the existing commercial visitor accommodation market.
The report proposes that the proposed development is justified based on economic, community and planning need and that it will provide for economic and community benefits. The basis for these conclusions identified within the report includes:
Increasing short-term accommodation occupancy rates on the Sunshine Coast and in key centres such as Noosa and Mooloolaba, are not being matched by other locations which lack the diversity of facilities. The proposed development would introduce a modern, alternative, short term accommodation facility to the Noosa Shire/Peregian Beach, contributing diversity to the market and to the mix of visitors attracted to the Region.
... that there is insufficient need and demand to support a major large scale short term accommodation facility in Peregian in light of major new developments emerging in nearby locations, as well as the scale of holiday home options available and the overall number of visitors to Peregian Beach, but that there is a niche market and need for boutique style short term accommodation to cater for emerging and unmet needs for short term accommodation in Peregian and Noosa Shire.
The proposed development would positively contribute to visitation and growth within Peregian Beach, which would have flow on effects for local businesses and potentially the range of services that can viably be provided for visitors and the local community alike.
... the proposed permanent residential and short term visitor accommodation facilities will house potentially some 100 persons who would generate demand for convenience retail, takeaway food, dining facilities, entertainment etc. The proposed development is adjacent to and within walking distance of the core retail and lifestyle facilities of the Peregian Village precinct.
The proposed development would also complement the mooted Digital Hub and community centre redevelopment at Peregian, providing additional conference and meeting spaces as well as short-term accommodation for business visitors to the Hub.
Residential development opportunities across the Noosa Shire are dwindling and land supply is very limited. Thus, housing affordability in the Region and more particularly Peregian Beach, has decreased as land prices have increased. The proposed development would provide some 26 residential dwellings within Peregian Beach contributing to supply and choice within the Peregian area.
The Peregian Beach residential market is demonstrating significant growth in median house and unit prices, reducing the relative affordability for residents seeking a Peregian Beach lifestyle.
The proposed short term accommodation facilities would cater for a limited sector of the overnight visitor market.
The proposed permanent residential component of the development will increase access to choice in living and lifestyles for residents seeking a Peregian Beach living environment with access to the Peregian Beach Village precinct.
The residential component also presents the opportunity for downsizing households to enjoy the convenience of the Peregian lifestyle, whilst remaining within the Noosa and Peregian Beach locality.
There is a clear gap in the provision of modern accommodation including hotel/motel type facilities within the Noosa Shire. The subject site is conveniently and strategically located to cater for visitors, businesses, workers and residents within Peregian Beach and would contribute to the economic vitality of the locality.
Residential dwellings provided as part of the development would help to meet the Planning Scheme goal of providing residential development which includes a variety of housing types and higher densities in proximity to neighbourhood centres.
With regards to the applicant’s suggestion that residential development opportunities across the Noosa Shire are dwindling and land supply is very limited, it is important to note Council’s submission to the State Government in response to the Draft Regional Plan. As part of this submission Council addressed the capacity of land within the Urban Footprint to accommodate projected population growth. Noosa Council’s draft submission to ShapingSEQ notes:
Council has concluded not to support any changes to the Urban Footprint under the new ShapingSEQ for reason that there is no need demonstrated currently for additional urban land to be allocated to Cooroy, or any other part of Noosa Shire. Council has previously outlined in this submission that it considers sufficient capacity exists in the current Noosa Plan to accommodate the projected demand for dwellings until 2041.
The position of the applicant’s economic consultant conflicts with Council’s strategic review of land capacity. Council’s review was based on land within the Urban Footprint however it did not include land zoned Open Space Recreation when assessing the capacity to accommodate the projected need for permanent residences.
Council also undertook a Housing Needs Assessment in March 2017 (Briggs & Mortar Pty Ltd) to inform the preparation of a new Noosa Planning Scheme (the ‘New Noosa Plan’). Findings of the assessment included a need for additional smaller residential dwellings. Smaller dwelling types being one and two bedroom dwellings. Need was not established for large dwelling types (3+ bedrooms).
Stage 1 of the applicant’s proposal seeks to develop 26 dwellings, all of which contain three or more bedrooms. The 2nd stage of the proposed development seeks to develop 32 units which comprise one and two bedroom units. Of the 32 units only 12 contain kitchens and are considered to be capable of providing permanent accommodation. Therefore, of the 58 dwellings/units proposed by the applicant only 12 meet the type of housing identified as a smaller dwelling type.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal does not demonstrate overwhelming need for the type of housing identified within the Housing Needs Assessment.
Furthermore, should there be an extended period between the construction of stage 1 and the completion of stage 2, or if stage 2 were not to be commenced, an approval for this proposal could result in a development which has no alignment whatsoever with the strategic intent for the site or the identified need for smaller dwelling types.
The Housing Needs Assessment also included a review of visitor accommodation. The review identified that there will be continued growth with regards to visitor accommodation. At page 15 the review notes:
However, in the event of continued ongoing growth in total visitor nights in line with that over the last decade, there was found still likely to be a further projected need for additional tourist accommodation and visitor dwellings by 2036 which is unlikely to be able to be met by dedicated tourism development. Tourism demand may therefore ‘spill over’ into resident accommodation.
Recommendations from the Needs Assessment regarding Tourist Accommodation include:
Should growth in the tourist market continue as it has been on average over the last decade, there would be ongoing demand for visitor and tourist accommodation of all types. Some of this demand may be filled by increasing existing occupancy rates, some may be filled by secondary dwellings, especially in the hinterland, some is likely to be filled by retrieving resort units lost to permanent residents and some may be filled by further use of the residential stock.
The submitted Economic Needs assessment was reviewed by Council’s external consultant. Review of the economic needs assessment by Council’s consultant identifies that the development will provide a product both in terms of traditional residential dwellings and short stay accommodation that is not at the bottom of the current price points but is also not at the higher end. The review identifies that due to the limited provision of the proposed type of visitor accommodation, that a boutique accommodation facility will possibly have benefits for the immediate region. Importantly the review also notes that the applicant has not demonstrated that the type of low cost accommodation, outlined in the planning scheme as being preferable for the site, is overwhelmingly deemed surplus to requirements.
Council’s consultant identifies that whilst the proposal is inconsistent with the zoning of the site that there is assessed to be reasonable demand and limited comparable supply for what is proposed.
However, the longer term implications for the site and the ability to provide low cost short stay accommodation in the region are still a possible future concern in terms of a planning argument. The loss of low cost, short stay accommodation zoned land is not adequately justified.
Importantly the report concludes that overwhelming demand has not been conclusively provided for the types of facilities proposed on this site. Whilst it is accepted that there is some demonstrated need and demand, from an economic perspective, the arguments and ability to provide overwhelming need and demand is limited.
Traffic
The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Pekol Traffic and transport includes the following:
the proposed development is not predicted to significantly increase peak hour traffic generation over the approved use;
the traffic movements associated with the development are not expected to have a significant impact on the operation of the local road network and no additional upgrade works would be required to mitigate the impact of the development.
The submitted report and traffic impact associated with the proposed development was reviewed by Council’s external consultant. The consultant’s comments include:
From an overall traffic impact perspective, the proposed development is consistent with previous allowances for traffic generated by the accommodation component of the site
The applicant has appropriately demonstrated that a 12.5m HRV (which is an appropriate design vehicle) is able to satisfactory manoeuvre within and through the site.  The proposal would thus appropriately accommodate delivery vehicles and refuse collection vehicles.
A number of issues have been raised with regards to the internal layout of the proposed development. These issues include width of visitor parking bays, length of external car spaces, pedestrian access to the hotel and conference centre and proposed siting for wheelie bins associated with three dwelling units. It is considered that these matters could be addressed by conditions.
Stormwater Quality & Quantity
The issue of Stormwater is divided into two parts, quality and quantity. The acceptable outcome is a “non-worsening” in regard to the quality and quantity of stormwater released from the site due to the development of the site. Council engaged a hydrology consultant to undertake a peer review of the Covey Engineering Services Report.  In regard to stormwater quality and treatment, the consultant advised:
The water quality items have all been addressed and I am satisfied that the water quality modelling and proposed treatment systems area appropriate.
The issue of water quantity has not been resolved specifically with regards to maintaining pre-development peak flow rates. The applicant has been advised that on-site detention is required, however they have submitted the on-site detention is not necessary and provided commentary from an ecologist in support of this argument. It is noted that the IGA development was required to provide on-site detention and that the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual suggests that detention should be provided for sites with an ecological value in the lower third and central portions of the catchment
The required detention methods could be addressed via the inclusion of reasonable conditions and resolved by amended detailed designs submitted at Operational Works stage. However, this is not preferable as it would be likely to result in layout changes.
Reverse amenity: Acoustic impacts from hotel and commercial development
An acoustic report was requested in order to assess the potential reverse amenity impacts associated with the siting of proposed dwellings adjacent to the Peregian Hotel and the IGA development. These reports were reviewed by Council’s external consultant who provided draft conditions which address external façade treatments.
Bushfire
Assessment of the proposal’s ability to respond to and manage the threat from bushfire is an important aspect to the assessment of this application.
There are a number of elements within the Noosa Plan which address the risk from a natural hazard to a proposed use or development.
These elements are detailed below:
Strategic Framework:
1.7.12 Natural Environment Protection
Development in areas at risk from natural hazards is to be compatible with the nature of the hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk.
Development is avoided in areas subject to natural hazards or where natural hazards cannot be avoided, mitigation or adaptation measures are adopted taking into account predicted frequency and severity of the natural hazard.
Development supports and does not unduly burden disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities.
Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beached Locality:
7.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Eastern Beaches locality are the following –
New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
maintain the safety of people and works;
Natural Hazards Overlay Code:
13.30.2 The overall outcomes sought from the Natural Hazards Overlays Code are—
development in areas at risk from natural hazards is compatible with the nature of the natural hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk;
development is resilient to natural hazard events by ensuring siting and design accounts for and minimises potential risks of natural hazards to people and property;
development supports, and does not unduly burden disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities;
for bushfire hazard areas—bushfire risk mitigation treatments are accommodated in a manner that avoids or minimises impacts on the natural environment and ecological processes
Specific Outcome 4 New Uses states:
The proposed use does not compromise the safety of people or property from bushfire.
There is a clear intent within the planning scheme that land use and development appropriately manages the safety of occupiers/users of new development.
The proposal must ensure that persons accommodated within the development, associated staff and visitors are not subject to an unreasonable level of risk associated with a natural hazard.
The applicant has provided a Bushfire Assessment against the Noosa Plan’s Natural Hazards Overlay Code provisions for bushfire, which concludes that the relevant requirements can be met.
However, the fire modelling provided by the applicant has demonstrated the site is subject to Very High Potential Intensity with access to be provided through the 15m wide asset protection area.
The asset protection area includes a 3m wide strip to be located in the proposed environmental park area, to be dedicated to the crown. It is considered unreasonable to locate an asset protection zone within a third party’s property as it unduly burdens the future land manager with bushfire control for the development, including associated liabilities.
The applicant’s modelling of the potential fire-line intensity of Very High and flame length of 10m means the buildings at the bushland interface will have to be built to the highest bushfire classifications. The location of the water quality devices in the asset protection area further compromise properties adjacent to the asset protection area due to the flammability of the vegetation within these devices.
The location of the single access/egress area within the asset protection zone further comprises the safety of people accessing the site in an emergency situation.
The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the bushfire hazards associated with the development of the site can be adequately addressed with the current configuration.
Biodiversity Overlay Code:
The development site is not mapped as containing a Biodiversity Overlay area however the adjacent land to the west, Noosa National Park, contains Environmental Protection Area as mapped by the Biodiversity Overlay. The development has the potential to impact on the values associated with the National Park.
The Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing has requested the development accommodate appropriate fire mitigation measures including appropriate buffer and access for urban fire appliances.
The western portion of the site contains a remnant Melaleuca wetland and abuts the sedge land/heathland in the National Park. These features contain suitable habitat for threatened species with distinct and particular habitat requirements. This area was to be allocated as Council reserve in previous approvals.
Conditions could be applied to a development approval requiring the environmentally significant portion of the land be conserved in perpetuity, via land dedication, similar to previous approvals.
Development impacts on biodiversity values have not been adequately quantified by the applicant. There is concern the stormwater quality discharged into the wetlands will have the potential to alter the biophysical properties of the receiving environment and thus alter the unique habitat requirement of the threatened species.
The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated the development will not adversely impact on the specialised habitat for threatened species through discharge of stormwater through the wetland areas and National Park.
cONSULTATION
IDAS Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following IDAS Referral Agencies:
Concurrence
SARA – Concurrence Agency
The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) is a concurrence agency in accordance with:
Schedule 7, Table 2, Item 22—Land contaminated because of unexploded ordnance
Schedule 7, Table 3, Item 11—Land contaminated because of unexploded ordnance
DILGP’s response was received on 14 February 2017 did not object to the proposal and contained no requirements.
On 9 June 2017 a letter was received from the applicant including the following advice:
A Decision Notice was issued by the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government & Planning (DILGP) on 14 February 2017 and we wish to formally make representations in relation to their response.
On behalf of the applicant and in accordance with s320(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), we formally stop Council’s Decision Making Period to provide more time to make further written representations with DILGP.
On 28 August a further letter was received from the applicant seeking to recommence the decision making period.
Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
Strategic Planning
Engineering
Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The applicant provided a Notice of Compliance on 27 April 2017, certifying the advertising was correctly undertaken. 415 submissions, comprising 406 properly made submissions, 8 not properly made submissions and 1 invalid submission, were received by Council. 202 properly made submissions objected to the proposal and 204 properly made submissions supported the proposal.
46 properly made submissions objecting to the proposal were made by persons with an address outside of Peregian Beach, 19 of these were from people from Peregian Springs and 10 were from Marcus Beach.
142 properly made submissions supporting the application were made by people with an address outside of Peregian Beach, 27 of these were from Coolum Beach, 10 were from Peregian Springs and 10 from Sunshine Beach.
Submissions were received from a number of community groups and other bodies objecting to the development, including the Peregian Beach Community Association, Peregian Beach Community Kindergarten, Veggie Village Community and Peregian Beach Community House.
The Peregian Beach Business Association provided support for the application.
The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Objections
Issues	Comment
Natural Environment Will have detrimental effect on pocket rainforest and freshwater creek Excessive fill No mention of creek or watercourse that runs through the site Gabion wall will be on the bank of the watercourse Development will result in changes to the natural drainage of the site and disturbance of the wetland system Diminished views across the National Park to Mt Cooroy Site abuts a National Park No mention of the impact for the vulnerable Wallum Froglet, Wallum Rocketfrog, Wallum Sedgefrog nor the impact on wetland heathland and sedgeplain which is habitat for vulnerable Ground Parrot recorded less than 500m from the site IDAS form 7 not properly completed as it did not acknowledge that there is a watercourse on site	It is considered that the development footprint of the site does not contain significant environmental values however it is noted that the site abuts a National Park. Consideration of discharge of storm water from the site into the National Park has been considered in the assessment of the application
Character Urban sprawl land set aside for significant community purpose Private road with tightly spaced garages will be uncomfortable thoroughfare between supermarket and Rufous Street Visitor accommodation not suited to casual coastal character Will feel like another suburb and endanger unique character Proposal turns its back on Rufous Street and the laneway and is not consistent with the Rufous Street master plan Village character of Peregian Village will be ruined Demand on infrastructure due to the density of the proposal Not in keeping with village atmosphere Not in keeping with Rufous Street character Will result in light pollution	It is acknowledged that the character of the proposed development is not consistent with the surrounding area and other multiple dwelling unit development within Peregian Beach. This includes concerns with the interface of the development with Rufous Street.
Traffic and Car Parking Should be no adverse impact on traffic Pedestrian crossings will impact on traffic Pedestrian crossing should be moved to the north and develop construct pedestrian overpass Impact car parking in Rufous Street Traffic conflict with Stage 1 supermarket Importation of fill will create traffic issues associated with trucks Insufficient car parking provided Access road is too narrow to cope with turning vehicles and becomes grid locked There will be increased noise associated with traffic on David Low Way Increased traffic in Sandpiper Lane without any upgrades Truck movement During construction will be dangerous to nearby land users Insufficient visitor car parking Substantial variation on what has previously been approved	The impact of the proposed development on the surrounding road network is consistent with previous allowances for traffic generated by the accommodation component of the site within the previous approval. A number of issues have been raised with regards to the internal layout. These matters could be addressed by conditions.
Land Use Object to housing estate Lack of visitor accommodation Would be better to have aged care facility with open space parkland Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is not consistent with Open Space Recreation Does not protect site for low cost visitor accommodation Unlikely that Stage 2 will be acted upon Does not meet DEO Outcome J Does not comply with the Eastern Beaches Locality Code There is need for low cost holiday accommodation and not permanent housing No recreational opportunities for community Conflict with the Noosa Plan	Agreed – the proposed land use is not supported and is included in the reasons for refusal
Built Form Density, site cover, gross floor area and building heights are excessive Inappropriate setbacks Unimaginative architecture Insufficient landscaping area Provision of services external to the site (water meter, underground infrastructure for electricity) -  should be provided on site) Insufficient solar access to linear houses Secondary dwelling can be cut off from main dwelling and requires an additional car space GFA should be calculated relative to each proposed new lot Insufficient setback to Rufous Street – 2 metre setback with 7 metres of building height on top of fill House will overlook kindergarten Where is the obligatory green space/park facilities	Agreed – there are a number of aspects of the proposed built form which are not supported and included in the reasons for refusal
Amenity Noise from IGA roof plant will be detrimental to residents of the hotel/motel Noise from the hotel roof will be detrimental to residents of the linear dwellings	This has been reviewed by Council’s external acoustic consultant who has identified that construction methodologies can overcome these concerns.
Other Staging of development is not appropriate Staging should be reversed Approval period should be short and not extended Not commercially viable	It is noted that Stage 1 of the proposal only provides for permanent residences and that if Stage 2 is not acted upon that an approval would result in only a multiple housing development.
Support
Issues	Comment
Creates employment Improves accommodation options for Peregian Maintains Peregian culture Cosmetic improvement of land Improves accommodation/housing choice Compliments works undertaken by Council on westerns side of David Low Way Will bring more visitors to Peregian Beach Helps local businesses and local economy Cosmetic improvement of the land Development is attractive There is a need for this design and land use Will not impact visual amenity Adequate parking and no impact on traffic Addition of conference facilities Suitability of the site Connectivity to surrounding land uses Proximity to public transport Enables people to work from home	It is not agreed that this is a suitable site for the proposed development or that the application has adequately demonstrated an economic need for the proposal. It is acknowledged that positive economic benefits would occur during the construction phase of the development. Ongoing economic benefit to local businesses would be a result of visitor accommodation and permanent residents The central location of the site with regards to facilities and services is noted however this is not considered to justify overriding the planning scheme.
conclusion
The application for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Multiple Housing Type 4 Conventional (38 units) Visitor accommodation Type 4 Conventional (12 units) and Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 29 Lots) for 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach is recommended for refusal. The application has not demonstrated overwhelming community need to justify overriding the planning scheme. The development is not consistent with the Desired Environmental Outcomes and the Eastern Beaches Locality Code as the development does not retain low cost visitor accommodation on the site. Furthermore, the application includes additional dwelling units which have not formed part of the application and the application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that measures to manage the risk from bushfire can be adequately be addressed with the current configuration.

Departments/Sections Consulted:
	Chief Executive Officer		Community Services		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO		Community Facilities		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Development		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property & Facilities
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Office	x	Planning & Infrastructure		
	Community Engagement		Building & Plumbing Services		
	Customer Service		Civil Operations		
	Economic Development		Infrastructure Planning & Design		
	Governance	x	Planning & Environment		
	Human Resources	x	Strategic Land Use Planning		
	Sustainability				

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 31 of 31

[word/footer2.xml]
Page 34 of 33

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	10 OCTOBER 2017

[word/header3.xml]
3

[word/header4.xml]
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	DD MONTH YYYY

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
Subject site

 

Figure 1: Subject site


[Attachment: image10.png (image text)]
tog F540

femadwindo

venta
caiare

Fit. 9

a
alae ae

 

3 ELEVATION 4 ELEVATION
ise ame 700 Ct Sesto came 700

raking FL 5.400

 

lion 5.400. _I

 

Famed

‘op cement est

2400)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

act

\ertealigntesgnt ctcking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fist L000

 

551 alan

femadwindowe

rendered ie
(Cement ahestig

  

4 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION
Tae See TOD


[Attachment: image11.png (image text)]
—
T
BED 4
BED 2
BED 3
—
= |
|
FLOOR,

[Attachment: image12.png (image text)]
sts fat above garage

8 SFooe

Jarre Foce
frm

  

‘uy gazed operate sing
also lancscape cota

C > wort ELEVATION
al

\ertling sieht

   
 

barney,

feature toe ick
te adpinngeacence

Daoory © sudo fat
‘ver bokingsteetooms

619 dna Hace

surnam Famed larg

 

 


[Attachment: image13.png (image text)]
 

    
 
     

ac SC
| gra. 7.500 fondeore

oe

 

atomated ety oe

 

erat RL 7.500
fy

 

 

|

| rendered mascory
| Ground RL 4.200
{v

   
  

franedgtang
NORTH ELEVATION ‘SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION er (SSeS eo
exovenatral gous
Saba s sae etl ot sing
fe ag '

FA. 13.100

 

 


[Attachment: image14.png (image text)]
 

 

 

seane

 

 

 

room? ||] 160m

 

 

 

 

 

       


[Attachment: image15.png (image text)]
 

 

 

STAGE 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hem an nag h ee PSE
att}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sO bap VT TS
f ; i
ff :
: ; I ruth
ff Ht
Me
Br i
I 1 t
E a
i A an ta , |
ws all [i
3 =.
we Ua d oH
3. : it
a Pei ye
A sos = — q
oe
aes q
ESTES ee
—O oO & 1
I
Os 9
9 Be ee
He,
ag 7 ff aw
é la
. oe N
- ©
(aoe -
AP a <
0 Ee
n
<=
=
n

STAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 


[Attachment: image2.png (image text)]
Peregian Beach
village centre

Subject site

 

Figures 3: Zoning map


[Attachment: image3.png (image text)]
       
    

Boremnton tain
er orgs cst

 

 

 

 

‘SPECIALTY
‘SHOPS

  

CARPARK . (7

i
feats PEREGIAN VILLAGE MARKETS fy

i

i

iy

\

iD


[Attachment: image4.png (image text)]
 

 

   

HOUSE TYPE LEGEND

WALLUM
KAMALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[Attachment: image5.png (image text)]
 

   
 

Dining

 

(GROUND FLOOR PLAN
ROOTES gmat Sake THOT


[Attachment: image6.png (image text)]
vested Ighweight cada

tog ht 5.400

atrium
femadwindo

Helgi
2400)
kr

‘cement a

Ft 9

28 Bui
ence ei

eas cyto

  

3 ELEVATION (4 ELEVATION
Crs BaN rar a Sr

uranium
Seared

   

ertealghtlght tacking

   

ected kghtwaht

‘assng
roalng AL 5.4 all PL 5.400
top cement nest arin

‘nih covets

rendered be A5 ee

‘cement sheeting
Fist 000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION
Tae Sa TOD


[Attachment: image7.png (image text)]
ZB,
wT Qc
RA SOP SONS

  
  
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a Dining ns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cl

 

 

 

 

 

~ T
: )

mfr = I
Lan !
|Courtyard I

Es — vom |

 

  

 

TIS TTT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEVEL
TORE TE See THOT

 


[Attachment: image8.png (image text)]
texte wren

   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
  
 
 
 

featue window

aur tamed
‘ganna

-
i

unieum tamed

6200 Bl
exosud

3 ELEVATION 4 ELEVATION
ise ame 700 tS esto cae 700

tumnium tama
ceang

  

texture

 
  

queen 5900)

   
  
  
   
 
  

3] vateatcatang

sercered fore
Cement ee

 

Height
site

Ct {yset ft. 3000

6900 Bul
coo atin

teats erty

tera gf ieeyece

back of house

 

 

{word Ao!

4 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION
Tae See TOD


[Attachment: image9.png (image text)]
&
on
Dining
®
1000.
room 2|
room
®
®
PLAN