Submission - Rankin Lester Harding - MCU190066

                                                                                                         A*


Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Commercial Business - Type 1 Office


Application No:               MCU19/0066
Street Addrerss:              2197 David Low Way Peregian Beach Qld. 4573
Real Property Description: Lot 625 P93121
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 hes 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;


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,
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:
                                                                                                         t
“Car parking is no issue as we have 3 staff car parking spaces in the back and most of the
                                                                                                         I
time I walk to my workpiace. 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         A*
business nor do people have a need to visit the applicants office either on foot or in a vehicle, (see
applicants statement below).
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 doors.


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 means 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
along with a Cafe will pose serious parking issues, yet the Applicant has made an assumption that
all 10 spaces provide for ‘ample’ parking.
                                                                                                         a%
                                                                                        r                i

                                                                       17
                                                                                                         •»

                                                                                           ____