Planning Report - Revisions incoporating Attachment H - Economic Report · MCU13/0092

8.0    COMMUNITY SURVEY

8.1    A Community Survey undertaken in March 2013 found a level of
opposition to the proposed development of Lot 94 for the proposal,
however, due to the inconsistency of participant responses to various
questions it is difficult to establish if the level of opposition was to the
commercial development of lot 94 per se, or to the establishment of a
convenience Supermarket complex outside the Neighbourhood Centre or
anywhere in Peregian Beach, or both.

A copy of the Community Survey Results is at Attachment G.

8.2   In addition to the inconsistencies which arose (refer to the
CONCLUSION and EXECUTIVE SUMMARY @ Attachment G) a number of
other factors may be of relevance to the community and Council in
evaluating this application, namely:

   1. The findings of the independent Needs Assessment by Foresight
      Partners Pty Ltd (Attachment H) which found, inter alia, that there
      would be a $10.5m re-capture of escape spending from Peregian
      Beach residents in year 1 of trading, back in to the local community;
   2. The same report found that there is a “significant economic and
      community need for the proposed neighbourhood centre”;
   3. Future generations have been under-represented in the Survey with
      only 11% of the participants being younger than 35 years of age;
   4. How many of the local residents are aware that the existing Friendly
      Grocer premises has been approved for re-development with a
      restaurant and market stalls/50m2 retail food area, thereby leaving
      Peregian Beach with no supermarket?;
   5. Has the local community placed considerable weight on the
      ‘Scanlon” approval as either providing convenience goods if and
      when development occurs, or is the community still incensed that the
      proposed development was ever approved?
   6. Is the community aware that there is no suitably zoned land for a
      similar development elsewhere at Peregian Beach?
   7. Does the community understand the implications of the site being
      privately owned and yet seemingly sterilised against development
      other than that for the community at no recompense to the owner?
   8. Does 88% of the community want or need to do their larger
      weekly/monthly shops outside of Peregian Beach to the detriment to
      the Peregian Beach economy, particularly taking into account rising
      fuel costs, an ageing population and the convenience of shopping
      locally;



May 2013                   IA MCU IGA Complex at Peregian             Page 50