MCU13_0092_-_Resident_objection_Armistead · MCU13/0092

Page 2

2|Page

      Noise Impact
     In terms of the Councils requirement of the developer in its letter on the 18th June, 2013 with regards to
      noise,

      “The car parking areas increased traffic in the local street, loading bay service area
      and operation of commercial plant and equipment (after hours deliveries, air
      conditioning and refrigeration units, waste collection and vehicle noise), has the
      potential to denigrate the amenity of the adjacent properties to the north west and
      east of the site. A noise impact assessment is required addressing the potential
      noise impacts that may be generated by the use. Where potential impacts are
      identified, which can be viably controlled, the assessment should provide
      recommendations for noise amelioration. This assessment is to be prepared by a
      suitably qualified person and in accordance with the, Environmental Protection
      (Noise) Policy 2008, and relevant Australian Standards, e.g. AS1055 series.”

     I believe that my property will be negatively impacted by noise as a direct impact of the proposed
      development and as such should have had a noise impact assessment conducted specifically on 243
      David Low Way. The proposed development extends to the back corner boundary of my property. The
      Noise Impact Assessment, in my opinion, did not evaluate noise in this area of the development. See the
      photo below….taken from the Noise Impact Assessment document, I have overlayed my property
      location on the photo and the available site plan




                                                                         243 David Low Way.




  

Page 3

3|Page

     Note in the Noise Impact Assessment, “The proposed shopping centre would have the following noise
      impacts on residential areas located to the northwest, north and east – car park noise, noise from
      delivery and services trucks, ….” Note that the noise loggers 1 & 2 used in the noise assessment where
      not placed on the south-eastern side of the proposed development, which should have been the case in
      my opinion for a fair and reasonable assessment of the impact. My property and adjoining residences
      have a clear line of sight to both loading area’s (Speciality shop loading area and Shopping Centre
      Loading area) and the car park as far as I can ascertain from the plans, not benefiting from the apparent
      shielding of the building as may be expected once of the building is complete as from the position of
      Noise Loggers, 1 & 2. Therefore, the effectiveness of the sound barrier along the rear of the car park,
      will not be able to be assessed in terms of its ability to manage noise in this area compared to the
      existing noise levels. The report goes on to itemise numerous events which will result in exceedences,
      and subsequent controls in terms of delivery windows for vehicles and specific reversing beeper
      requirements for vehicles.
     In relation to the comment in the noise assessment, “The possible noise control treatment is provision
      of acoustic upgrades to existing residential buildings, but it is understood that this option is not
      feasible”. What assessment has been made on the feasibility of this option?
     In my view the assessment needs to consider the properties to the south east (i.e. 243 David Low Way),
      and the solution to meet the regulations needs to be significantly more robust than procedural delivery
      window times and vehicle equipment requirements, which will be difficult to enforce (if at all in the case
      of vehicle beepers) once the proposed development is complete.
     Note amendment to plans to incorporate an acoustic wall in the south east corner of the carpark,
      however there is no current “as is” assessment on noise in this area of the site and it’s impact on
      neighbouring properties, and no indication that this would manage noise within regulations. In my
      opinion, there is no evidence to indicate that this would be an effective noise control measure.

      Light Impact
     We (Barcoo Body Corporate) are also concerned in regard to the excessive trading hours and the car
      park lighting which will be needed to cater for the increased trading of the complex and for security of
      the facility. This lighting will also significantly increase the luminaton in bedrooms of the unit, reducing
      the quality of living in our units as a direct result of the development. See photo’s of rear of property
      above.

      Privacy Impact
     We have significant concern as to privacy of the property, as the rear of the units will have a clear view
      from bedroom, bathroom and kitchen to the proposed development on both levels of the property.
      Privacy will also be reduced due to the documented increase in traffic, cars, trucks and pedestrian along
      David Low Way, in both units on the property.

      Traffic Impact
     We have concern regarding increase in pedestrian traffic along David Low Way and the existing Peregian
      Village, as our drive way accesses David Low Way on the western side of the road. We are concerned
      that the increase in pedestrian traffic will reduce our ability for safe access to our property.

      Demolition and Construction Impact
     During demolition the site will impact my property through noise, dust and possible asbestos related
      issues, (if this is found to be in the old existing buildings) on the site during its removal. Construction
      phase of the proposed development will also pose a significant impost on my property through noise,
      dust, increased heavy traffic in the area, and lack of privacy.

Page 4

             4|Page

             7.8.2 j) Vegetated views from the beach and the David Low Way are protected from the potential impacts of
             development;

                       I believe the proposed development will obscure the view from David Low Way to the west to the
                        National park, substantially increasing the developed view from the road, compared to current state.
                        Blocking off the view from the national park to the west from this section of David Low Way. Note the
                        current view from David Low way (image below on left), and the architectural drawing from the
                        application MCU12/0092 Part 4 of 10, page 19 (image below on right).




Current Outlook from David Low Way – to hinterland             Copy of image from the application MCU13/0092 Part 4 of 10



             7.8.2 p For Peregian Beach iii a wide range of local Retail, Commercial and Entertainment and Dining Uses
             within the neighbourhood centre

                       As outlined in the letter from the Sunshine Coast Council on 18th April, in relation to Second
                        Neighbourhood Centre. I believe that the proposed development will not support the intent of keeping
                        the Peregian Square as the focal point of the community. I believe based on the mix of specialty shops
                        outlined in the letter on 1st August, 2013 from DFS Group, in section E.S 4, that the development will
                        result in the focal point of the community moving from the existing Peregian Square to the proposed
                        new development, especially if key services such as the Post Office, Pharmacy, Newsagency either
                        relocate or are duplicated.
                       I note that the council has previously written to the applicant on 18th June 2013, and I am in agreement
                        with the sentiments expressed by the council, in particular with its finding that the area is under
                        provided in terms of recreation parks and for open space recreation / community uses.
                       I disagree with the response of the applicant on 1st August 2013, on a number of basis;
                         In the letter sections E.S 6, they state “It would be reasonable to conclude that the Eastern Beaches
                             Locality Plan and Code are no longer applicable.....” they go on to cite examples of local
                             developments as justification for their exclusion from local planning laws. Previous development
                             applications in the immediate area should not invalidate existing Plans and Codes, and that each
                             application must be assessed on its own merits. Approving this application for change to the zone
                             would be a significant negative impact to the local community due to its detrimental effect on local
                             area character.
                         Note in ES.7 the applicant asserts that the “local convenience shopping facilities are limited”. In my
                             opinion, the local area is well serviced for the population with facilities, with Coolum and Peregian
                             Springs facilities close by supplement existing facilities, also noting that in “The Noosa Plan”
                             including amends to 8 August 2011, it states with reference to the servicing the area “Improved
                             access to Noosaville and Tewantin is intended with the extension of the Eenie Creek Road across
                             Weyba Creek to David Low Way”. This development (MCU13/0092) will materially change in my

Page 5

5|Page

            opinion the nature of Peregian Beach from a “village” atmosphere to an over developed commercial
            / entertainment area. Existing facilities are complementary to the area, and this development will
            have a detrimental impact on the local area amenity and charm. We do not need more shops.
           In terms of the applicants response regarding the use of Di Hurst Oval “Much of the area appears as
            grassed areas with no formal designation for public recreation use”. And subsequently “By
            contemporary standards the Di Hurst Oval is under-developed and under utilised” This is not a
            basis to judge the value of the oval to local residents, and no basis to change the zoning. Open
            space recreation is just that. Residents should not need to have a formal designation or developed
            to “contemporary standards” to enjoy the space available in Di Hurst Oval. The area around the
            existing shops and surf club is well developed, however there needs to be a balance of developed
            and relatively “undeveloped” open area’s for local residents enjoyment in Peregian Beach. The
            change in zoning in this application in my opinion will not only reduce the current open recreation
            space, but also reduce the amenability of the Di Hurst oval due to its proximity to the proposed
            shopping complex.
           Note the comment in same letter as to 5. “Parks and Recreation Spaces west of David Low Way and
            other major coastal roads are often relatively underutilised by residents…….” This should be
            irrelevant in terms of the application. Utilisation of public areas should be at the resident’s
            discretion for year round enjoyment. That includes areas not associated with the beach or
            commercial / shopping areas. The presence of this development may well reduce the appeal of the
            Di Hurst Oval for residents and visitors use, effectively further reducing the open space enjoyment
            of the area, in addition to the proposed change in zoning.
           Note Item 6 in same letter “Peregian Beach has a limited and aging population with restricted
            opportunity for increased population, such as future demand for additional public open space
            opportunities is limited.”
                 o This could very well apply to potential future demand for this development’s commercial
                     use if that were found to be the case.
                 o If there is “restricted opportunity for increased population” as described by the applicant,
                     how viable is the increased shopping facilities outlined in this development based on this
                     assertion?
                 o Has there been any research specifically to assess the needs of Open Recreation Space
                     zoning to local residents, as applicable to this site? There appears in my opinion, to be
                     demand for open recreation space from the community.
                 o I note that the community survey conducted indicated that the majority (63%) of those
                     surveyed in the Community Study tabled as a part of this application where opposed to the
                     development.
           Item 9 in same letter, regarding the site being “not conducive to a range of public
            recreation/community uses, especially given its relatively narrow width”. The size of the property
            does not appear to be an issue for this development, so how can this comment be relevant in terms
            of the size of the property for recreation / community uses? In my opinion, this is no reason to
            justify the change in zoning on the property.

The proposed rezoning of this property to allow the development of the facility will have a detrimental effect on
my property. It will have a significant detrimental effect not only on reducing the available open space in the
community, which is sorely needed, and part of the local Peregian Beach character, and also reducing the
quality of the remaining open space in the immediate area. It will effectively create a second commercial area,
which is not needed or wanted, and will be at the detriment to the Peregian Beach Village and therefore the
town character.

Page 6

6|Page

We would very much like to see the existing site be re-furbished / re-developed, as it’s current state of disrepair
is unsatisfactory, however this should be consistent with current Open Space Recreation zone requirements,
and comply with the Noosa Plan, i.e. through an equivalent sporting facility, converting it to a community park /
garden, or convert it to the natural state of the environment prior to development of the bowls club.

We strongly object to the change in zoning and proposed use of the site. There are very limited open areas to
enjoy for residents, and open spaces for recreation of residents and visitors are valuable to the community. The
proposed development will be at the detriment to the local community, and once the development is in place,
the community will be impacted forever.




Amanda Armistead                                         21st Aug, 2013