2020-04-30 Ordinary Meeting Agenda

ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA                                                                               30 APRIL 2020


5.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act 2016.
39 properly made submissions were received, each objecting to the application 34 of the 39
submissions were made via 3 different pre-formatted templates. 1 objection was made from a
property within close proximity of the site whilst 12 objections were made from an address outside
of the Noosa Shire, 6 of which were outside of Queensland. The following table provides a summary
and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.

 Matters Raised                                             Comments

 Commercial Use:                                            This site has contained commercial operations for an
                                                            extended period of time, since approximately 1969.
 Peregian Beach already has a commercial hub.
                                                            The current proposal does not propose additional
 Commercial element should not be brought into              commercial area as it is utilising an existing area
 this area of Peregian Beach.                               associated with the approved nursery.
 Corporate business such as a real estate agency
 should be located within the business
 precinct/main shopping area or offices on David
 Low Way.

 Car Parking:                                               The proposed use of 32m 2 for the purpose of a small
                                                            real estate office will not result in a significant increase
 The proposal will result in traffic/car parking issues.
                                                            in car parking demand. Notwithstanding, it is
 The lot will be operating a nursery, real estate           recommended that 2 car new parking spaces be
 business, homeware/gift shop and a café with               provided to the rear of the site.
 approximately 3 car spaces allocated.
                                                            It is noted that the existing nose in car parking to the
 The applicant does not have access to 10 car               front of the site is an historical arrangement and
 spaces – only 3 are available to this lot.                 therefore the proposed use will not result in additional
                                                            safety issues.
 Post box and public phone box located to the front
 of the site will place demand on parking spaces in
 this area.
 The proposed 3 staff car parking spaces have and
 will always be used for storage and work area.
 Nose in car parking requires patrons to reverse out
 directly into the road lane which is dangerous for
 traffic flow and cyclists.
 The proposed staff car parking area is never used.
 The applicant proposes that all car spaces in the
 road reserve will provide ample parking – applicant
 is only entitled to 1/3 of car parks in the road
 reserve.
 Applicant’s claim that office will not result in
 additional visitation to the site as most people do
 not visit an office anymore is misleading.

 Signage states that homewares are for sale yet             Whilst gift shop does not form part of this application it
 applicant’s letter states that it is a Gift Shop selling   is noted that the gift shop sells pots, potted plants and
 pots and potted plants.                                    homewares. The sale of homewares material is
                                                            generally included in the retail component of a nursery
                                                            and raises no concern so long as this component
                                                            remains a minor element.

 Application makes false claims about walking to            Submissions relating to the personal conduct of the
 work.                                                      applicant are not valid planning grounds to refuse a
                                                            development application.


                                                                                                       Page 36 of 60