Original source · versioned page text
Submission - Pamela Murphy - MCU190066
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Commercial Business - Type 1 Office
ft ' I , 9
Application No: MCU19/0066 EcEIVeq^
Street Addrerss: 2197 David Low Way Peregian Beach Old. 4573
Real Property Description: Lot 625 P93121
3 "■%
HooS;> Co
Planning Scheme: The Noosa Plan (8 June 2018)
Please accept this notice, a formal objection to the above MCU application. The following forms
the basis of my objection:
Peregian Beach already as a gazetted commercial hub on Northern end of Peregian Beach on
David Low Way with significant parking allowance for these premises, along with various
commercial opportunities within the village square itself. There are currently available leases in
these environments and there has been over the past 12 months, at the time when the applicant
opened, without appropriate Planning approval. Therefore I do not want to see a commercial
element brought into this area of Peregian Beach and strongly oppose this MCU and list below
some but not all important reasons to oppose; t
.
Traffic hazard/Parking: David Low Way is a single lane road and has become a very busy
access into Pereian Beach. The nature of nose in parking in this proposed site and the need to
reverse out directly onto this busy single laned road is dangerous at any time. To add to this risk, •t
will pose serious risk to traffic flow and cyclists.
**
The applicant makes many false claims in her letter explaining to Council her intensions for the site
namely; \
Applicant states:
“Car parking is no issue as we have 3 staff car parking spaces in the back and most of the
time I walk to my workplace. Client car parking is no concern as there is ample of dedicated
car parking at the front”.
Local neighbours have not witnessed her walking to work, so this is clearly not the case and the
applicants car is parked out on the street at the proposed premises on a daily basis. So this
statement is clearly untrue. The applicant is implying, she no need for a car in the real estate
business nor do people have a need to visit the applicants office either on foot or in a vehicle, (see
applicants statement below). f
It should be noted, the applicant, I understand has moved away from the area, deeming it *
impossible for the applicant ‘to walk to work’. The applicant once again, has been misleading and
not truthful in their submission to Council.
The staff car parking is never used by the personnel, with their vehicle always parked off site out
on the street. This has been the case since opening its ilimi ——HI
V*
The site is made up of 3 Lots. The Applicant is only occupying 1 of 3 namely Lot 625. There is
only 10 car spaces which meanr the Applicants has rightful access to 3.3 car spaces. One would
agree that to further add pressure to this precarious parking area by adding Commercial premises
It
along with a Cafe will pose serious parking issues, yet the Applicant has made an assumption that
all 10 spaces provide for ‘ample’ parking.
JT'
17 J
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 1 page
Page 2
it should also be noted the nature of the parking arrangement ie: nose in results in visitors required
walk around the rear of their vehicle to access the entry which again poses a major safety concern
for pedestrians entering the premises.
t
The applicant states.... »
“Client car parking is no concern as there is ample of dedicated car parking at the front”
The applicant claims the commercial aspect of this application, namely a Real Estate Agent, will
not add any further visitation, implying that her signage will not result in anyone or vehicles making
enquiries to her Real Estate. This statement is clearly untrue and misleading. A*
Applicant states.... if
“By converting part of the existing business into my Real-estate office there is no additional
foot traffic as these days most people do not visit an office anymore, it just merely provides
me with a beautiful workspace within the gardens.”
The applicants large signage states Homewares, yet the applicants letter states - Gift Shop selling
pots and potted plants. This sigr age needs to be changed to what the Applicant states is all that it
is, namely “Gift Shop”.
This applicant has and has shown little regard for Council By-Laws and bracenly opened its doors
as a commercial component along with a cafe. Being a Real Estate Agent, the Applicant would *j
have been well aware of the Planning Approval process required to do so.
I
I am also concerned that this Applicant forwarded a shocking text message to a local neighbour
who was recovering from cancer and perhaps in light of this, Council should assess this application
with considerable care and trepidation.
I also understand the Applicant has been operating and continues to operate an Air BnB sub-let
despite Council advising this wa , not allowed under Council By-Lavi/ and a promise from the
Hf
Application they would not continue. Whilst this has no relationship to this MCU, it is relevant
in terms of how this Applicant respects Council, its By-Laws and the applicants character.
Other comments:
S'
l
NAME: (Print)__^
fe, pAMtL.Pi
SIGNED: DATE: 3/ / U /20/^
A*
ADDRESS:
Email your response to: mail@n'.osa.old.aov.au
or