Council archive · source document
DUPLICATE PM Submission Object - Peregian Beach Community Association - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: [email protected]
Sent: 26 Apr 2017 12:45:43 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: PBCAI Submission in opposition to Scanlon Group MCU16/0153
Attachments: Objection 24 April.docx
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 40 pages
Page 2
Peregian Beach Community Association Inc
Submission
re Scanlon Group Application to Develop
the site in the photograph below at
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 3
2
Peregian Beach Community Assoc Inc
PO Box 312, Peregian Beach 4573
22 April 2017
Draft
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Att. Mr Patrick Murphy,
Submission re Scanlon Group Development Application
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
I write on behalf of the Peregian Beach Community Association Inc (PBCAI)
objecting to the approval of the above development application (DA).
Our grounds include the following:
- The site is zoned Open Space Recreation and there are no current
consistent uses other than as a caravan park and associated visitor
accommodation.1 The Open Space Recreation zoning limits the
developer’s options to those available in the Noosa Plan.
- It is essential that the open space recreation zoning of the site under
the Noosa Plan is adhered to and that only limited short term VISITOR
accommodation be permitted.
Nonetheless, as the DA seeks to pursue development as though the previous
approval had not lapsed, PBCAI has considered the DA and raises the following
additional objections:
- Construction issues: the extensive earthworks will necessitate mass
importation of fill material with major adverse traffic and environmental
impacts.
- Traffic impacts: the additional traffic and the restricted access and
egress to the development will significantly aggravate existing traffic
congestion and safety issues and negatively impact the amenity of
Peregian village.
- The development will result in changes to the natural drainage and
disturbance of the wetland system contrary to the Noosa Plan.
- Services, ecology, water and noise issues.
- Significant Non-compliance with Council requirements: density, site
cover, gross floor area and building heights are all excessive.
- 1 The approval of 12 February 2010 lapsed on 28 September 2016 and on
16 March 2017 Noosa Council refused an application to extend it.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 4
3
The DA acknowledges the significant areas where the proposal is in
conflict with the Noosa Plan 2006.
Any departure from the planning scheme must be justified by the applicant
demonstrating to Council that there are sufficient grounds for that
departure.
The Sustainable Planning Act (SPA) requires that Council’s decision on an
impact assessable application must not “conflict with [the planning
scheme], unless … there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision,
despite the conflict.”2 “Grounds” are defined as “matters of public interest”
but do not include “the personal circumstances of an applicant, owner or
interested party.”3
The DA does not provide sufficient grounds in the public interest to
warrant overturning the Noosa Plan. Council should refuse the
application.
For all of the above reasons, PBCAI urges Council to uphold the Noosa
Plan and refuse this DA and the application to reconfigure the 1 lot into 29
lots.
Yours sincerely
Barry Cotterell
Acting President, PBCAI
2 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), s326 (1) (b).
3 SPA Schedule 3, Dictionary.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 5
4
Peregian Beach Community Assoc Inc
PO Box 312 Peregian Beach 4573
Submission re Scanlon Group Development Application
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
Contents
Para Topic Page
No. No.
Overview 5
1 History 7
2 Zoning 9
3 Application for Development Permit to Reconfigure 13
1 Lot into 29 lots
4 The Current Development Application for Material 14
Change of Use
5 DA’s Lack of compliance with the Noosa Plan 18
6 Changes to the natural drainage and disturbance of 22
wetland
7 Economic Needs Analysis 27
8 Staging 28
9 Engineer’s report 29
10 Traffic 31
11 Noise, Ecology, Water, Vistas, Pathways 32
12 Architectural and Associated Design Issues 34
13 Land dedicated as a reserve 38
14 Relevant period of approval 39
15 Conclusion 39
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 6
5
OVERVIEW
The proposed development significantly conflicts with the Noosa Plan, for the
following reasons:
The DA proposes building on Open Space Recreational zoned land a
development which is totally inconsistent in a multitude of ways with
the Noosa Plan;
The DA raises significant environmental concerns especially with
regard to the watercourse and wetlands;
the proposed development does not offer visitors the expected range of
experiences and accommodation types expected for the land and the
development is not consistent with Part 3 - Desired Environmental
Outcome (j) Tourism;
with respect to the Eastern Beaches Locality Code:
o the proposed development does not protect and retain low
cost accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity of
accommodation types for visitors to the locality and therefore is
not consistent with overall outcome (h);
o the proposed development does not provide for Visitor
Accommodation Type 4 Conventional to be located in close
proximity to the Peregian Neighbourhood Centre and therefore
is not consistent with overall outcome (t)(ii);
o the proposed development being located within the Open Space
Recreation Zone does not contribute to the desired lifestyle of
residents because it does not offer a variety of passive and
active recreational experiences that are conducive to
community interaction and wellbeing and therefore is not
consistent with overall outcome (bb);
o the proposed development seeks to provide a small lot
housing development and in particular, Multiple Housing
Type 4 – Conventional, which is not a consistent use in the
Open Space Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O73;
o the proposed development seeks to provide Visitor
Accommodation Type 4, but not in association with Visitor
Accommodation Type 2, and therefore is not consistent with the
Open Space Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O74;
o The proposed development does not protect the Peregian
Beach caravan park site for low cost visitor accommodation
and therefore is not consistent with performance outcome O75;
o Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is being proposed on the land,
but is not integrated as part of a caravan park use or other
form of budget accommodation and therefore is not
consistent with performance outcome O76;
o Will interfere with the creeks that run through the property and
therefore is in conflict with Eastern Beaches Locality Division 15,
Table 7.10
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 7
6
o The proposed development will result in significant traffic
generation that will affect nearby uses and is not consistent
with performance outcome O77;
o The proposed buildings and structures are not designed
and sited to be attractive, comfortable and accessible to the
public or provide suitable landscape treatments and
amenities, conducive to community interaction and
convenience and public safety and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O78;
The proposed development is not consistent with the reasonable
expectations of residents in the locality, given the Peregian Beach
Caravan site is to primarily provide for budget visitor
accommodation, which is in the public interest;
There are no grounds provided that are sufficient to overcome the
level of conflict identified with the Noosa Plan.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 8
7
1. History
1.1 Peregian Beach Caravan Park
The site on which this development is proposed was part of a caravan park
which existed in Peregian Beach from 1964. The current developer excluded
permanent caravan residents from the site and then claimed that the caravan
park was not commercially viable.
1.2 The 2007 Development Application
An application was lodged in 2007 for a Material Change of Use for visitor
accommodation, restaurant, shops and office and was originally refused by
Council on 21 August 2009, but subsequently settled on 12 February 2010
through the appeal process. The approval was over 4 lots, 3 with frontage to
the David Low Way and a larger lot to the rear of these lots, all accessed from
the then Unnamed Road, which is now Sandpiper Court.
The Planning and Environment Court sanctioned the approval of 12 February
2010 of the now lapsed DA referred to above. At item 3 it stated:
The units shall operate in accordance with the defined use of ‘Visitor
accommodation – Type 4 Conventional’ in the Noosa Plan, which
provides for short term visitor accommodation. The units shall not be
used for the purpose of permanent residential accommodation, with the
exception of two manager/caretaker’s units. The Community
Management Statement for any or all Bodies Corporate having control
of the development, or any part thereof, shall incorporate this
requirement.”
However, the developer was not satisfied with what he had agreed to and in
2011 went back to the Planning and Environment Court to vary his agreed
plans. Apparently the developer was unable to sell any of the “beach shacks”
off the plan and the proposed mini-supermarket, approved as part of that
approval, was non-viable. With no pre-commitment the developer did not
proceed.
1.3 The 2013 Development Application
Subsequently, in 2013 the developer submitted a new development
application (for the area where the commercial building was approved) for a
supermarket and four specialty shops, this time, after discussion with the
Peregian Beach community. This proposal, was supported by PBCAI and the
Peregian Beach community and was approved by Noosa Council on 29 May
2014.
This constituted a major concession, allowing the developer to build a
Supermarket complex on the Open Space Recreation zoned property.
1.4 The 2016 Development Application
On 16 September 2016, the developer filed a development application to
change the development approval and extend the relevant period for visitor
accommodation, office, shops and restaurants at 215a David Low Way,
Peregian Beach. The developer sought a 2 year extension to the relevant
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 9
8
period being 28 September 2016 and a 2 year extension to the sunset
provision of the development approval being that all works associated with the
development had to be completed by 4 February 2018.
On 16 March 2017, Noosa Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning & Environment Committee and decided to refuse the request to
extend the relevant period and of relevance here stated:
“The proposed development is inconsistent with The Noosa Plan and
given the time lapsed it is relevant to examine whether there are still
grounds in the community’s interest to justify the conflict with the
planning scheme
…
The approved development in its current form cannot proceed as a
shopping complex has been constructed on a significant portion of the
site and has superseded the development approval.
In assessing the 16 September 2016 application, the Council Planning staff
submitted the following to the Planning & Environment Committee:
“The Planning Scheme’s requirements for the site remain generally the
same as when the application was originally lodged and as such the
development remains inconsistent with the Planning Scheme’s
development intent for the site. The site is predominantly zoned
Open Space Recreation, with a portion of the site fronting David Low
Way zoned Semi-Attached Housing. For the area of the site zoned
Open Space Recreation, the planning scheme seeks to maintain
the use of the site for the former caravan park and supports
visitor accommodation units only where associated with the
caravan park use… (Highlighting added)
The application was originally refused on numerous grounds including
but not limited to the development being excessive for the site in terms
of density, height, bulk and scale. The development was also
considered contrary to the Specific and Overall Outcomes of the
Eastern Beaches Locality Code which sought to protect and retain the
caravan park for low cost visitor accommodation needs. The applicant
also relied on inadequate or irrelevant planning grounds to justify the
departure from the Planning Scheme.
Through the appeal process the development’s density, height, bulk
and scale were reduced and the development’s general presentation to
the street significantly improved. It was also accepted that the
proposed visitor accommodation was a reasonable replacement
for the caravan park as it included low to mid-range cost visitor
accommodation facilities….(highlighting added)
…
An IGA supermarket and speciality shops have been constructed over
approximately a third of the site to the David Low Way frontage,
removing the approved commercial uses and low cost visitor
accommodation components. (highlighting added) The development
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 10
9
of this shopping complex means the proposed development has been
superseded and cannot proceed without substantial changes to the
approval.
4. CONCLUSION
The proposal remains inconsistent with the current Planning
Scheme. …
Furthermore, a new unrelated development is now constructed on a
portion of the site (IGA and associated shops) and as such this
development cannot proceed as approved.
The request to extend the relevant period and sunset provision is
therefore recommended for refusal.”
1.5 Summary
This means that the site is zoned Open Space Recreation and there are no
consistent uses other than as a caravan park.
Therefore, many of the comments and documents in the DA which relate to
the now lapsed approval are irrelevant except as evidence of what the
developer was prepared to accept under the mediated agreement.
It is PBCAI’s strong view that this DA must be refused and the developer must
now start afresh to apply for approval to build on open space recreation in
compliance with the Noosa Plan.
2. Zoning
On 16 March 2017, Noosa Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning & Environment Committee and decided to refuse the request to
extend time and informed the developer that that “development is inconsistent
with The Noosa Plan”. Despite that formal advice the developer wants to
proceed with this DA, which is in significantly greater conflict with the Noosa
Plan than the previous development plan, as demonstrated below.
2.1 Inconsistent Uses
Figure 3 below illustrates that the proposed development is in the Open
Space Recreation zone. It should be noted here that the Semi-Attached
Housing Zone component shown in Figure 3 is now covered by the IGA
carpark and, despite the applicant’s assertions to the contrary, there is no
longer any part of the site to which this zoning applies.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 11
10
The Noosa Plan at Division 23 provides Specific Outcomes and Probable
Solutions for the Open Space Recreation Zone in Table 7.19 in terms of
consistent and inconsistent uses as follows:
Division 23—Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions for the Open
Space Recreation Zone
Table 7.19
Column 1 column 2
Specific Outcomes Probable solutions
7.38 Consistent Uses
O73 The following defined uses No solution provided
and use classes are consistent
uses and are located in the Open
Space Recreation Zone—
a) Entertainment and dining
business Type 1 where in
conjunction with an Open space
use;
b) Entertainment and dining
business Type 2;
c) Emergency service Type 2;
d) Open space;
e) Wellbeing Type 2;
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 12
11
f) Ancillary dwelling unit;
g) Visitor accommodation Type 2;
and
h) Visitor accommodation Type
4 where located in conjunction
with Visitor accommodation
Type 2 on Lots 8,9 & 10 on
P9315 and Lot 76 on MCH2969,
215-219 David Low Way,
Peregian Beach.
7.39 Inconsistent Uses 4
O74 The following defined uses
and use classes are inconsistent No solution provided
uses and are not located in the
Open Space Recreation Zone—
a) All Agricultural Uses;
b) Commercial business;
c) Entertainment and dining
business Type 1 where not in
conjunction with an Open space
use;
d) Entertainment and dining
business Type 3;
e) Home-based business;
f) Industrial business;
g) Retail business;
h) Education;
i) Emergency service Type 1 or 3;
j) Wellbeing Types 1,3 or 4;
k) All Infrastructure Uses;
l) Detached house;
m) Multiple housing;
n) Community residence;
o) Visitor accommodation
Types 1 or 3; or
p) Visitor accommodation Type
4 where not located in conjunction
with Visitor accommodation
Type 2 on Lots 8,9 & 10 on
P9315 and Lot 76 on MCH2969,
215-219 David Low Way,
4 inconsistent use means the use is strongly inappropriate in the relevant zones
because it is incompatible with other uses generally expected in that zone. (See
Noosa Plan page 2.24
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 13
12
Peregian Beach.
Column 1 column 2
Specific Outcomes Probable solutions
7.40 Effects of use
Caravan and camping facilities
at Peregian Beach
O75 The caravan park at S75.1 Lots 8,9 & 10 on P9315 and Lot 76
Peregian Beach is protected and on MCH2969, 215-219 David Low Way,
retained to provide for low cost Peregian Beach is retained as a caravan
Visitor accommodation needs; park, with 50% of the site used as Visitor
accommodation Type 2.
AND
O76 Visitor accommodation Type S76.1 No solution provided
4 is provided only where it is
integrated as part of the existing
caravan park use.
Amenity
O77 Active recreation facilities do No solution provided
not result in significant levels of
traffic generation or significant
levels of noise or light emission
affecting nearby
Residential Uses.
7.41 Built form
O78 Buildings and structures No solution provided
are designed and sited to—
a) encourage the co-locating
of a range of open space
uses;
b) be attractive, comfortable
and accessible to the public;
and
c) provide suitable
landscape treatment,
seating, lighting and other
amenities conducive to
community interaction and
convenience and public
safety.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 14
13
The Noosa Plan contains definitions and at page 2.14 “Open Space” is
defined as:
Open space means any use of private or public land left predominantly
undeveloped by buildings or structures. The term includes the following types:
Type 1 Sport & recreation and Type 2 Camp ground.
Inconsistent use is also defined in the Plan and “means the use is strongly
inappropriate in the relevant zones because it is incompatible with other uses
generally expected in that zone.”5
This site is zoned Open Space Recreation. However, under the provisions of
the Eastern Beaches Locality Code the developer may build a “visitor hostel”
on the site. This was also available under the now lapsed approval.
2.2 Summary
The proposal is materially and substantially inconsistent with the requirements
of the Noosa Plan.
3. Application for Development Permit to Reconfigure 1 Lot
into 29 lots
This application was filed at the same time as the DA. What is proposed6 is 26
lots relating to the 26 “Houses” in the housing estate, the 27th is the Hotel and
28th the IGA supermarket. 29th lot is the road and common areas.
3.1 Outcomes of Reconfiguration
If the reconfiguration is approved, the following will be the result:
Figure 1
Lot No Lot Size M2 Site Cover M2 %
1 160 116 72
2 160 112 72
3 160 112 70
4 180 116 64
5 186 116 62
6 160 112 72
7 160 116 72
8 160 112 72
9 176 112 64
10 160 133 83
11 160 116 72
12 160 133 83
13 160 133 83
14 160 133 83
15 160 112 72
16 160 133 83
17 248 106 43
18 229 106 46
19 229 106 46
5 See Noosa Plan page 2-24
6 See Sprout Architects Drawing no. 16003 on SD26
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 15
14
20 229 106 46
21 229 106 46
22 226 106 46
23 228 106 46
24 228 106 46
25 228 106 46
26 228 106 46
Hotel 1830 1586 86
PBCAI agrees with Sprout Architects reference to the allowable site
coverage as 40 percent under the Noosa Plan and, therefore, none of
these lots would comply.
If the application to reconfigure the 1 Lot into 29 lots of the sizes referred to in
Figure 1 above were granted the site cover for all of the lots would be
excessive for both Multiple Housing Type 4 and Visitor accommodation Type
4 under the Noosa Plan. Further, Multiple Housing Type 4 on sites less than
800M2 is an inconsistent use under the Noosa Plan (7.16 O30 n)) and the DA
would have to be refused as an inconsistent use even under the Semi-
Attached Housing Zone, which this is not.
3.2 Summary
If the reconfiguration is granted, Lots 1 to 26 will all be between 160 and
248m2 which PBCAI submits is too small for this development, resulting in
excessive density and scale. The reconfiguration request, therefore, should
be rejected. After the Minimum Boundary Setbacks under the Noosa Plan are
applied to these extremely small lots, the whole housing estate DA should be
rejected.
Any DA for Multiple Housing or Detached Housing is an inconsistent
use on this Open Space Recreation zoned site and should be rejected.
4. The Current Development Application for Material Change
of Use
This DA was filed after the previous approval had expired on 29 September
2016 but before Noosa Council had considered and rejected the developer’s
application for an extension of time, which occurred on 16 March 2017.
4.1 Lapsed Approval
Many of the documents and submissions filed by or for the developer refer to
the now lapsed approval. Therefore, the DA as submitted does not proceed
from the existing position that this is land zoned Open Space Recreation and
there are no current approvals for any use other than as a caravan park.
The balance of the caravan park site, after the IGA supermarket was
developed, is what the developer is currently seeking approval to develop.
4.2 Current DA
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 16
15
It is important to reiterate the written advice to the pre-lodgement meeting
held on 14 December 2016 (between Council and the developer):
The Open Space Recreation zone in Peregian Beach specifically seeks
to protect and retain the site for low cost visitor accommodation needs
reflective of the site’s previous use as a caravan park, but also
acknowledges that a range of visitor accommodation may be provided
where integrated with budget accommodation. There is no support
given to permanent residents on the site.
It is noted that the current approval included only visitor
accommodation, with no permanent resident accommodation
proposed. This approved development was supported by Council
through an appeal process as it was acknowledged that it included low
to mid cost visitor accommodation being a reasonable alternative to the
Planning Scheme’s intent to retain the caravan park.
It is considered the current proposal does not meet the Planning
Scheme’s intent for the site as there is a lack of and a limited range of
visitor accommodation proposed…….
The DA is in significant conflict with this advice.
The DA proposal is for:
Multiple Housing of 3 types – 88 Beds (or 176 Persons)
They are all proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
The Kamala & Marram Houses (in the centre of the ring road) There
are 11 of these with 3 bedrooms each capable of being occupied by 2
persons. (66 persons). Carparking is 9x2. Estimated price $825K
The Wallum Units (along Rufous Lane). There are 5 of these with 3
bedrooms each capable of being occupied by 2 persons. (30 persons).
Carparking is 5x3 and 2x2. Estimated price $725-800K
Reed Beach Houses (behind the Hotel) – There are 10 of these with 4
bedrooms upstairs each capable of being occupied by 2 persons and
living down. (80 persons). Carparking is 10x3. These units will be
approximately 6m below the Hotel level. Estimated price $850K.
The prices outlined are those advised to the PBCA at a meeting with
the developer on 6 April 2017.
Essence Hotel & Conference Centre – 40 beds (or 80 Persons)
The developer proposes to develop and run the hotel with 20 visitor
accommodation rooms and 12 apartments (4 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2
bedroom) which are described as “multiple and visitor”. (80 persons).
The 12 apartments are proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
The Hotel will apparently employ 15 people (full-time and part-time)
including conference facilitators. The Conference room is small and
apparently will seat 40. There are 40 car parks proposed with all except
3 (Visitor parking?) under the Hotel and behind a security gate.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 17
16
4.3 Multiple Housing
Multiple housing7 is defined in the Noosa Plan and means “the use of
premises for two or more dwelling units or accommodation units as the case
may be, occupied by permanent or semi-permanent residents, where the
occupants may share common facilities on the site. The term includes Duplex,
Type 3 Retirement and special needs, Type 4 Conventional, and Type 5
Relocatable.
Under 7.39 O74 of the Noosa Plan, Multiple Housing is specifically listed
as an inconsistent use as is a Detached House. It is an Inconsistent use
“because the use is strongly inappropriate in the relevant zones because it is
incompatible with other uses generally expected in that zone.”
By definition Multiple housing can be occupied “by permanent or semi-
permanent residents” which conflicts with the Specific Outcomes and
Probable Solutions for the Open Space Recreation Zone.
The built form of Multiple Housing is not designed and sited to—
a) encourage the co-locating of a range of open space uses;
b) be attractive, comfortable and accessible to the public; and
c) provide suitable landscape treatment, seating, lighting and other
amenities conducive to community interaction and convenience and
public safety.
This is another Inconsistent Use.8
Adams and Sparkes, Town Planning & Development Consultancy, who
submitted the DA on behalf of the developer, at page 17 para 34 states:
The intent of this is for all detached Multiple Housing Units to operate
as Detached Houses, with each unit to be included on standard format
lots within a community title scheme.
Table 7.16 refers to Inconsistent Uses and states:
“The following defined uses and use classes are inconsistent uses and
are not located in the Semi-Attached Housing Zone-
n) Multiple Housing Type 4 on sites less than 800m2”
Building another ‘permanent housing estate’ on this land will not provide for
the growing need of the local community. Peregian Beach is already being
surrounded by new small lot housing developments that lack public amenity
and open space.
The proposed private road of tightly spaced concrete driveways and garage
door frontages would produce a most uncomfortable pedestrian thoroughfare
between the IGA supermarket & Rufous Street. The appearance would not be
7 See Noosa Plan page 2.17
8 See Noosa Plan 7.39
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 18
17
enhanced by the rubbish bins parked on the circular road in front of the
houses.
4.4 Visitor Accommodation
Visitor accommodation is also defined in the Noosa Plan and “means
accommodation that is designed and used for visitors to the Shire and where
social, recreational and dining services may be provided for visitors by owners
or staff. Resident guests stay for a temporary period of time (typically not
exceeding 3 consecutive months). The term includes Type 4 Conventional
which means:
Two or more dwelling units or accommodation units, for the purpose of
providing short-term visitor accommodation. The use may include
common recreation or dining facilities and includes an ancillary
dwelling unit for onsite manager. The use includes a guesthouse,
visitor hostel, motel, resort and serviced rooms, ... (Highlighting
added)
Visitor accommodation Type 4 is defined as an inconsistent use where
not located in conjunction with Visitor accommodation Type 2 on Lots 8,9 &
10 on P9315 and Lot 76 on MCH2969, 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian
Beach. It is an Inconsistent use “because the use is strongly inappropriate in
the relevant zones because it is incompatible with other uses generally
expected in that zone.”
Under the Noosa Plan the Caravan park9 at Peregian Beach is protected and
retained to provide for low cost Visitor accommodation needs. According to
the Noosa Plan a possible solution10 is for the lots to be retained as a caravan
park, with 50% of the site used as Visitor accommodation Type 2.
The first plans submitted with this DA referred to a “Motel” but for some
reason unknown to PBCAI subsequent plans refer to an “Hotel”.
Motel is also defined in the Noosa Plan11 and “means the use of premises for
providing overnight, short-stay or holiday accommodation for travellers in
accommodation units, as well as parking spaces for their motor vehicles and
on-site reception/bookings office facilities. The term includes ancillary
administration, restaurant, and conference facilities, and manager or
caretaker's residence.
A Motel provides short-term accommodation and not permanent
accommodation. The developer plans to allow for permanent
accommodation in the Hotel proposed.
9 See O75
10 See S75.1
11 See Noosa Plan page 2.25
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 19
18
An “Hotel” is an Entertainment and dining business Type 3 is an inconsistent
use in the Open Space Recreation Zone12.
The developer is not seeking to build a “visitor hostel” but a Hotel. A “visitor
hostel” is defined under the Noosa Plan and does not include a Hotel. When
the DA for the IGA Supermarket was approved, the 68 backpacker beds were
no longer part of the development. This current DA seeks approval of only 20
short-term visitor beds in the Hotel, which is a significant reduction of the
short-term visitor accommodation which the Noosa Council wanted to
maintain for the site when the caravan park was closed.
4.5 Summary
It appears to PBCAI that the developer is not seeking a Material Change
of Use in the Open Space Recreation zone but to have the land rezoned.
The developer wants to build:
very little short-term visitor accommodation;
no low cost accommodation;
a small lot housing estate for permanent residents;
leave very little Open Space Recreation land; and
provide very limited access to the land dedicated as a Council
Reserve
PBCAI submits that all of the accommodation units in both the Hotel and
the Houses should operate in accordance with the defined use of
‘Visitor accommodation – Type 4 Conventional’ in the Noosa Plan, which
provides for short term visitor accommodation. A Visitor Hostel would not
conflict with the Noosa Plan.
PBCAI submits that these Multiple Housing Units should be assessed as
Detached Houses especially if the lot reconfiguration is approved. Under
either multiple housing or detached houses they are an inconsistent use in the
Open Space Recreation zone.
The proposal of a small lot housing estate as shown in this DA would only put
more pressure onto the existing village public amenities and provide
absolutely no contribution to the character of the Commercial Centre.
PBCAI strongly objects to the inclusion of both an Hotel and the
housing estate in this proposal. It is essential to retain and protect the
Open Space Recreation zoning given by the Noosa Plan for this site and
the access to short-term visitor accommodation.
5. DA’s Lack of compliance with the Noosa Plan
PBCAI’s Objection to the DA is firstly based on its lack of compliance with the
Noosa Plan Open Space Recreation zone requirements.
12 See O74
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 20
19
5.1 Community, Local and State Government
PBCAI specifically seeks to protect and retain the site for low cost visitor
accommodation reflective of the site’s previous use as a caravan park.
Peregian Beach is a family oriented village and affordable visitor
accommodation attracts the type of visitor - families and retirees - that the
village welcome.
The Noosa Plan resulted from a community consultation process and was
subsequently approved by the State Government. It should not lightly be
ignored by a developer being granted an approval which significantly conflicts
with the Plan.
5.2 Developer’s Track Record
The proposed development does not benefit of the Peregian Beach
community. Such a dense development is out of character with the nature of
accommodation in PB. It is inconsistent with many of the overall objectives of
the Eastern Beaches Local Plan and specifically (as outlined in Division 14,
7.7.2) that:
h) Emphasis is placed on the protection and retention of low cost
accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity of
accommodation types for visitors to the locality;
g) (v) low rise Multiple housing development that is limited to the areas
within the vicinity of the Sunshine Beach neighbourhood centre;
This DA proposes only 20 visitor beds in the Hotel. It does propose a further
12 apartments designated as “multiple and visitor” which the developer
proposes to make available for permanent residents although whether this on
a lease or sale basis is unknown. All of the 88 beds in the “Multiple Housing”
are proposed to be for permanent residents contrary to the Noosa Plan and
the previous, now lapsed, approval.
PBCAI agrees with the comment in the Information Request at page 12 of 13
“the limited range of visitor accommodation proposed in conjunction with the
primary use of the site for permanent residential living remains a significant
concern.”
This concern is increased by the fact that the commercial building, which the
developer replaced with the IGA supermarket, provided 68 beds for visitor
accommodation. Now this DA provides for less visitor accommodation on the
entire site than was originally sanctioned by the Planning and Environment
Court approval of 12 February 2010.
5.3 Developer’s Acknowledgement of Non-compliance
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 21
20
The developer does not dispute the DA’s lack of compliance with the
Noosa Plan.
In the DA prepared by Adams & Sparkes the following comments appear:
Adams + Sparkes page 38 para 136
5.5.1 Eastern Beached Locality Code 5.5.1.1 Inconsistent Land
Use – Specific Outcome O73 136. The proposed development does
not comply with Specific Outcome O74 of the code, with the
proposed Visitor Accommodation (Type 4) and Multiple Housing
(Type 4) not being a consistent land uses within the Open Space
Recreational Zone. (Highlighting added)
Adams + Sparkes page 41 para 145 states:
5.5.1.2 Building Height – Probable Solution S4.1
“145. The proposed development generally complies with the preferred
maximum building height of 8 metres specified within with code, with all
detached units containing a maximum building height not exceeding 7
metres in height, when considered from the finished ground level.
When considered from the Natural Ground Level, there are a number
of roof forms associated with the detached Multiple Housing Units
that exceed the 8 metre height limit, …(Highlighting added)
Adams + Sparkes page 42 para 151 states:
5.5.1.3 Setbacks – Probable Solution S5.1
151. The proposed development does not comply with Specific
Outcome S5.1 of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code, as the
proposed development does not comply with Council’s preferred
setbacks for development within the Open Space Recreation
Zone, where adjoining land within a residential zone. (Highlighting
added)
Adams + Sparkes page 43 para 155 states:
5.5.1.4 Site Cover, Gross Floor Area and Plot Ratio – Specific Outcome
O6, O7 and O9
155. It is noted that there is no site cover, gross floor area or plot ratio
limitations for development within the Open Space Recreational Zone.
Despite this, the proposed development does not result in an
overdevelopment of the site, with the proposed development resulting
in a total site cover of 5,463m2 (39%), total GFA of 9,232m2 and
2,663m2 (24%) of the site as planting area. It is noted that these
calculations have been made based on the overall site area once the
required land dedication included in the Court Order approval (Appeal
2587 of 2008) and the Shopping Centre approval (MCU13/0251) has
being excluded.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 22
21
There are some omissions in the site cover calculations in the DA.
Items missing are:
- Outbuildings including the pool pavilion and covered viewing platform
(see definition below13 - "includes roofed outbuildings")
- Stair and entry for the Reed Beach Houses
The Developer needs to resubmit the calculations incorporating omitted items
because the overall site cover is listed as 39% in the DA but with them
included it probably goes over the 40% level.
PBCAI notes that these “these calculations have been made based on the
overall site area” and ignore the application for reconfiguration which results in
26 small house lots which range in size from 160 to 248M2. On that basis site
cover, gross floor area or plot ratio are excessive and non-compliant.
Plot ratio14 means the gross floor area divided by the area of the site. PBCAI
submits that in calculating the Site Cover, Gross Floor Area and Plot Ratio
each of these 26 housing lots need to individually examined and the results
calculated.
Adams + Sparkes page 43 para 157 states:
5.5.1.5 Effects of Use – Probable Solution S75.1 and Specific Outcome
O76
157. The proposed development does not comply with Probable
Solution S75.1 of the code, as the proposed development is not
for a Caravan Park. (Highlighting added)
158. Despite this, the proposed development complies with Specific
Outcome O75 of the code, as the development provides for low cost
accommodation needs.
PBCAI queries where it is proposed to provide this low cost accommodation in
the development when the developer intends to sell the Houses in the
housing estate for more than the documented median house price of
$695,000 in the Peregian Beach area.15
13 Excerpt from Noosa Plan: "site cover means the proportion of a site covered
by all buildings and structures shown as a percentage. For enclosed spaces
this includes the area within the outside wall and for unenclosed spaces this
includes the area measured along a line 600mm in from the perimeter of the
roof. Site cover includes garages and other roofed outbuildings, but does not
include landscape structures such as in-ground pools and decks."
14 See Noosa Plan page 2.27
15 See Adams + Sparkes page 44 para 160. “Further, it is identified that there
is a significant gap in the residential market within Peregian Beach, which has
resulted in a high median house price of $695,000. It is noted that this is 50%
higher than the median house price for the Local Government Area (LGA) of
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 23
22
5.4 Summary
Despite the DA acknowledging all of these areas where the DA does not
comply with the Noosa Plan, it does not provide sufficient grounds in
the public interest to warrant the Noosa Plan being overridden and,
therefore, the DA should be refused.
PBCAI is concerned that Council staff have suggested that the proposed
development should be “compatible to …..Eastern Beaches Locality Semi-
Attached Housing Zone…..” (Issue 34 of the Information Request) given that
the site is Open Space Recreation.
PBCAI has serious concerns about the density, site cover, gross floor area,
planting area and plot ratio having regard to the limitations in the Specific
Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality (Semi-Attached Housing Zone).
These calculations should be based on a site area which excludes the land
dedication included in the Court Order approval (Appeal 25847 of 2008) but
which does not exclude the land associated with the Shopping Centre
approval.
6. Changes to the natural drainage and disturbance of the
wetland system
6.1 Established Creeks
The site is affected by two established creeks. The first creek commences at
a spring between Veggie Village and Rufous Street at Peregian Beach and
flows to the north western corner of this site. The second commences in the
wetlands and flows along the western boundary of the Di Hirst Oval, down the
southern boundary and joins the first creek at the north western corner of this
site16. The creeks then flow across the site from North to South and continue
through the Noosa National Park Peregian Section until they eventually flow
into Stummers Creek at Coolum.
6.2 Lack of proper consideration in the DA
The DA not only ignores the creek and proposes to build over it but it also
removes trees for a path at the Rufous Lane boundary as shown on the
following diagram:
the Sunshine Coast, 37% greater than the Gold Coast and 22% greater than
the median for the Brisbane LGA”
16 This creek is shown on the Vegetation Management Supporting Map
published by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines
2017. The creek from Rufous Street is shorter and is not shown.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 24
23
At least two if not three of the Houses to the left on the above diagram (Nos.
10-12) are on the bank of or in the bed of the creek which surprisingly, and
conveniently, is not shown on the diagram.
The Covey Associates Pty Ltd Engineering Services Report of March 2017
states:
“The interface with the western boundary to the Council reserve will
require approximately 2.0m of fill to be placed. It is proposed that a
rock filled gabion wall is constructed along this boundary to retain the
fill material. The proposed retaining structure would be subject to
Geotechnical
investigation and advice to determine an appropriate design. The
photograph below (Figure 6), illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the
lower area of the site in the vicinity of the proposed gabion wall.
Along the southern boundary with the Noosa National Park, a ‘fill’ wall
of approximately 2.0m will be required. These walls will most likely be
of a concrete sleeper, or similar, construction. This would continue the
existing wall in-situ.
Along the northern boundary, ‘fill’ walls of approximately 1.5m height
will be required. These walls will most likely be of a concrete sleeper,
or similar, construction.”
The following photo shows the significance of the creek/watercourse which
runs through the site behind the IGA supermarket.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 25
24
The building on the left is the IGA Supermarket and the fence is where the proposed
access road will enter the site. The slope behind the IGA is where the Hotel is
proposed to be built, with the access road passing in front on the right.
Much of the ground in the foreground is very “springy” from being waterlogged and
covered in mulch.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 26
25
The above photo of the relevant part of the Vegetation Management
Supporting Map published by the Queensland Department of Natural
Resources and Mines 2017 shows the second creek flows through the site.
The one from Rufous Street is shorter and is not shown.
The superficial nature of the Covey Associates Pty Ltd Engineering Services
Report does not identify the existence of the creek, which clearly flows
through the site from North to South, and will have an engineering related
impact on any proposed development.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 27
26
The above Google Earth aerial photo clearly shows the creek/watercourse
running through the site behind the IGA supermarket where the developer
plans to build the Hotel. The access road to the housing development is
proposed to go farther to the west where the creek/watercourse runs.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 28
27
While the Engineering Services Report speaks of the ‘Swampy’ nature of the
area it does not refer to the creek or watercourse. Likewise, it does not refer
to the fact that the gabion wall and the road will be on the bank of or in the
bed of the creek requiring footings to suit.
Division 14 – Overall outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality at 7.10
states:-
“Environment and cultural heritage values
O10 There are no significant adverse effects on biodiversity, natural
vegetation etc…including those related to-
a) changes to natural drainage;
b) …
c) disturbance of the …wetland system;
d) …
6.3 Summary
The development, if approved, would result in changes to the natural drainage
of the site and disturbance of the wetland system contrary to the Noosa Plan.
PBCAI submits that Noosa Council should refuse approval to develop under
these circumstances.
7. Economic Needs Analysis
Urban Economics, on behalf of the developer, has provided an Economic
Needs Analysis Report dated December 2016, which purports to address the
“need” for short-term visitor accommodation in Peregian Beach.
7.1 Visitor Accommodation vs. High Density Permanent Housing
However, the DA only proposes 20 visitor accommodation beds in the Hotel
meaning a maximum of 40 persons. In addition, it proposes 4 x1 bedroom
apartments and 8 x 2 bedroom apartments meaning a maximum of 40
persons. The developer proposes that these “apartments” could be occupied
by permanent residents and for this reason proposes to strata title them.
On the other hand, Urban Economics tries to justify the high density housing
estate by referring to downsizing. All of these 26 houses are either 3 or 4
bedrooms which hardly suggests "downsizing".
These 26 houses could provide accommodation for a maximum of 176
persons. If you add to this (176) the 40 permanent residents in the Hotel, the
DA proposes accommodating a maximum of 216 permanent residents.
This represents 16% short-term visitor accommodation and 83%
permanent accommodation. (i.e. 40/256)
Even if it is assumed that all 80 beds in the Hotel are for short-term visitor
accommodation when compared to the 176 permanent residential beds in the
housing estate this results in 31% short-term visitor accommodation and
69% permanent accommodation.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 29
28
Urban Economics does not identify this outcome or discuss it. It makes no
serious attempt to justify this level of permanent residential accommodation.
7.2 Short Term Visitor Accommodation Only
The DA proposes a significantly different outcome from the Planning and
Environment Court sanctioned approval of 12 February 2010 of the mediated
agreement. It provided for short-term visitor accommodation for this site,
which is in accordance with the Noosa Plan. It specifically stated, "the units
shall not be used for the purpose of permanent residential accommodation".
Urban Economics mainly concentrates on the supposed need for short-term
accommodation that "caters to the short-break and small travel groups" which
clearly does not justify permanent residential houses.
In the DA prepared by Adams & Sparkes the following comments appear:
Adams + Sparkes page 44 para 159 states:
159. … quoting Urban Economics (Appendix 3), ‘there is a gap in the
provision of short‐term accommodation facilities, other than family
holiday facilities, in the centres of Noosa and Peregian Beach’.
PBCAI submits that this does not justify permanent accommodation.
The previous approval referred to low cost visitor accommodation. Urban
Economics does not raise the proposed selling prices for the permanent
residential let alone try and justify them as "low cost".
7.3 Summary
This DA is predominantly for permanent housing, not visitor accommodation.
The Economic Report does not demonstrate the need for the style nor
purpose of dwellings proposed in the DA. Nor does it demonstrate that there
are any public interest grounds that would warrant approval of this DA.
8. Staging
The Sprout Architects Staging Plan shows that the developer proposes:-
Stage 1 = Multiple Housing of 3 types
Stage 2 = Hotel
Given the location of Stage 1 in a swampy area on the edge of a creek
overlooking wetlands, at least 6 metres below and behind the Peregian Beach
Hotel to the east and the IGA supermarket to the south, the developer’s
suggested marketing of these houses at $725,000 to $850,000 must raise real
doubts as to whether or not any of these houses will be built. This is
especially the case if the developer requires a 60 percent pre-commitment
before commencing construction. Council, of course, could not consider the
proposed pricing of these houses as low cost or budget accommodation.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 30
29
While this is the developer’s risk, it has a bearing on the risk of non-
completion of the proposed Stage 2 with the visitor accommodation. The
completion of Stage 2, which contains the developer’s limited commitment to
visitor accommodation, must be seriously doubted.
8.1 Summary
PBCAI asks that Council consider the sincerity and likelihood of the developer
providing visitor accommodation when it is left to Stage 2 and the developer’s
record to date of having built no visitor accommodation since 2009.
PBCAI urges Council to reject the application. However, in the unlikely
event it was to be approved, we urge that the stages be reversed to
ensure the provision of some short-term visitor accommodation.
9. Engineer’s report
9.1 Covey Engineers Report - Overview
PBCAI considers this to be a superficial document. The level of investigation,
analysis and recommendations are inadequate for a development of this size
and scale. For example:
- Flooding: The report states that there is no flood study and relies on
water levels at Lake Weyba, over 2.5 kilometres way. Drainage paths
though the surrounding area could cause substantial back up of
rainwater during extreme events. The report does however state that
substantial imported fill material would be required to raise the ground
level of the site. A full, professional flood study would be essential if the
development was allowed to proceed.
- Stormwater: the report refers to a separate SMP (Stormwater
Management Plan), which PBCAI has not viewed, and to "treatment
areas", which are not described. However, the report states
"stormwater discharge will not cause an actionable nuisance". This is
highly questionable. The stormwater discharge into the reserve and
National Park are likely to be problematic during construction and after
completion. During construction, contaminants in the imported fill
material could leach into the natural water courses with impacts on
flora and fauna. Post construction, the high proportion of hard,
impermeable surfaces resulting from the density of the development,
will result in large volumes of stormwater run-off compared to the
current situation, where stormwater is absorbed into the natural areas
within the site. The result of this would be higher flows in natural
drainage channels and potentially increased erosion and flooding in the
National Park.
9.2 Engineering Services Report – Page 5 in response to 2B
The report states:
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 31
30
“There will be earthworks required to facilitate construction of stormwater
treatment facilities, sanitary drainage and allow for an aesthetically pleasing
and functional built form. There is little opportunity for fill material to be won on
site therefore most of the fill material will need to be imported”.
While the total amount of fill required does not seem to have been identified in
the DA Figure 6 “illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the lower area of the site in
the vicinity of the proposed gabion wall” and states that “a fill wall of
approximately 2.0m will be required”.
PBCAI agrees with the comment at page 10 of 13 in the Information Request
“that the extent of filling of the site may need to be reduced.”
The volume of loose (uncompacted) imported fill material required could be in
the order of 25,000 cubic metres, constituting a major earthworks exercise.
This could require a total of between 5,000 and 10,000 trips by 3 axle trucks.
Assuming an earthworks construction duration of 3 months, this could give
rise to up to 150 heavy vehicle trips per day (one heavy vehicle every 3 or 4
minutes during the working day) along the David Low Way, via Sandpiper
Lane and on the access road to the IGA and the other shops. The impacts of
this would include:
- Significant noise and disruption to homes along David Low Way and
adjoining streets, the Peregian Beach Hotel, the hardware store and
the premises in the vicinity of the roundabout
- Substantial traffic congestion, noise pollution and safety issues at the
Peregian village roundabout
- Potential damage to the road pavement along David Low Way due to
the high concentration of heavy vehicle axle loads.
The importation of fill will result in the creek, which seems to have been
ignored in the DA, being diverted to run through the Council Reserve.
Importation of such high volumes of fill material is likely to create significant
problems of contamination in the adjacent reserve and wetlands.
9.3 Engineering Services Report – Page 7
PBCAI queries why water reticulation is proposed down the pedestrian access
lane to the Peregian Beach Sports Ground (Lot 75 on MCH839108) and a
Unity Water meter is proposed at the Peregian Beach Sports Ground
boundary rather than on the developers property
PBCAI also queries why Electricity supply will be provided by “installing
underground infrastructure down the Peregian Sports Reserve access strip”
rather than through the developers property.
PBCAI queries the contribution the developer will be required to make, if any,
to the rectification of this pedestrian access and the extent of any delay in the
lighting and development of this pedestrian access (Rufous Lane), which is
supposedly underway at present.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 32
31
9.4 Summary
PBCAI considers the Engineering Report to be inadequate in respect to
multiple issues including construction impacts, stormwater, flooding and
location of services.
10. Traffic
10.1 Increased Congestion
The DA proposes Carparking & Visitor Carparking of 115 spaces in total
67 with the Houses & 37 with the Hotel
4 in the west of the centre of the ring road
4 on the southside of the ring road behind the IGA
3 outside the security gate of the Hotel.
This will result in an increase of 115 vehicles by the number of vehicular
movements per day over Sandpiper Lane, increasing the use of the Peregian
Beach roundabout for vehicles going both north and south. This will add to the
number of vehicular movements per day over Sandpiper Drive arising from
the IGA Supermarket development without any enhancement of the ability of
Sandpiper Lane to cope with the number of vehicular movements per day.
The David Low traffic at Sandpiper Lane and the Peregian Beach roundabout
is already very heavy and PBCAI questions the ability of this section of David
Low Way to carry such an increase of traffic without creating serious problems
to traffic flow and safety. Since completion of the IGA development, traffic
congestion has materially increased at the roundabout, along the adjacent
sections of David Low, in Heron Street and in the village in general. At peak
times standing traffic queues form at all accesses to the roundabout with
negative impacts on the amenity of the village. For example, at 1pm on
Thursday 16 April 2017, the traffic was backed up for several hundred metres
along the southern approach of the David Low Way, and down Heron Street
into the village.
The addition of further traffic from the proposed development risks creating an
accident black spot and a source of serious congestion that would be hard to
mitigate in future.
PBCAI cannot understand why the Traffic Report does not address access
out of the property, which includes the first stage of development, the IGA
Supermarket carpark access on the site. The intersection inside the IGA
Supermarket is already difficult and congested before it even gets out onto
Sandpiper Lane or David Low Way.
10.2 Traffic modelling / forecasting
This has proven historically to be very imprecise and inaccurate, particularly in
recent years.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 33
32
We note that the traffic report fails to take into account a fundamental cause
of congestion: foot traffic using the pedestrian crossing across the David Low
Way connecting the IGA and proposed development to the village. With the
IGA open, these pedestrian movements have increased several fold and can
cause congestion on both sides of David Low Way and grid lock at the
roundabout. The impact on pedestrian movements if the proposed
development were allowed to proceed would be dramatic. At peak periods the
flow of pedestrians could be almost continuous, creating major safety issues
and traffic mayhem.
10.3 Summary
In view of the above, PBCAI submits that the traffic report is invalid and
should be rejected. A new report would be required taking into account actual
traffic post opening of the IGA, together with pedestrians.
11. Noise, Ecology, Water, Vistas, Pathways
11.1 Noise
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the IGA mounted on the roof of
the IGA store will be a source of noise for the residents of the Hotel. There will
also be noise from the IGA loading dock.
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the Peregian Beach Hotel are
mounted on the rear of the Hotel. This will be will be a source of noise for the
residents of the Reed Houses where the ground level will be 6 metres below
the ground level of the Peregian Beach Hotel.
We note that the Specific Outcomes for the Visitor Mixed Use Zone in the
Eastern Beaches Locality Plan (Division 19, Table 7.15) requires developers
to ensure that business uses do not have any adverse impact on the amenity
enjoyed by residents. Given the proximity of the residences proposed in this
DA to the businesses that abut the site this requirement should be applied to
this proposed development (as was proposed by Council and rejected by the
applicant).
Table 7.15 extract
PBCAI considers that the developer should be required to submit a noise
mitigation plan agreed between the Peregian Beach Hotel and the developer
with a formal commitment by each party to implement the plan, prior to any
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 34
33
proposed development being considered by Council. The implementation of
the plan is to be certified by a suitably qualified and independent acoustic
consultant. It will be too late if Council approves the DA and the Peregian
Beach Hotel and the developer cannot reach agreement.
PBCAI submits that Council would be aware that it will be blamed for any
excessive noise experienced by residents of the Reed Beach Houses from
the Peregian Beach Hotel, despite its prior existence when they purchased.
11.2 Ecology
The Visual Tree Report (VTA) states that Paperbark and Macaranga “ have
no significance and do not need to be retained. “
PBCAI disagrees strongly with this position, believes that these trees must be
retained and notes that these endemic species are prevalent along the west
side of the David Low Way and in the Noosa National Park – Emu Swamp
Section.
PBCAI also notes no reference in the DA to the planned disturbance of
mandatory essential wetland habitat for the vulnerable Wallum Froglet,
Wallum Rocketfrog, Wallum Sedgefrog nor the impact on wet heathland &
sedgeplain inhabited locally by the Ground Parrot.
11.3 Water
PBCAI notes Council’s request for further information.
As described under 9.1 above, PBCAI is concerned over the potential impact
of run-off from major earthworks and other construction works in close
proximity to the wetland reserve and the Noosa National Park –Emu Swamp
Section and to the impact of changes to overland flow and natural water
courses.
11.4 Vista from David Low Way
It appears that the Hotel will not obscure the vista of the western mountains
from David Low Way but will significantly diminish the vista’s foreground views
of the wetland & its intrinsic vegetation. This vista needs to be protected. The
accommodation units will be behind and below the Peregian Beach Hotel by
about 6m and, therefore, will not be visible from David Low Way, but it is
important that they do not exceed the height allowed under the Noosa Plan
especially along Rufous Lane.
11.5 Pathway through the development
It is proposed to provide a public pathway linking Rufous Lane with the IGA
and the Hotel and through the Supermarket site to both Sandpiper Lane and
David Low Way (via the lift). This pathway is desirable if the DA is approved.
However, the pathway through from Rufous Street to the Supermarket will be
a sea of hard surfaces and garage doors with little or no street frontages for
passive surveillance of the public thoroughfare. The pathway to the
supermarket is concealed from view beside Reed Beach House No. 26.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 35
34
11.6 Summary
PBCAI considers that the lack of proper consideration of the above matters
constitute a serious deficiency in the application and further grounds for it to
be rejected.
12. Architectural and Associated Design Issues
PBCAI notes a significant numbers of material issues with the architectural
design.
12.1 The Reed Beach Houses - secondary dwelling units
While PBCAI realizes that the developer has provided a physical linkage from
each secondary dwelling to the main dwelling unit, the fact still remains that
the secondary dwelling can be locked off and separately occupied. If this
occurs the secondary dwelling will require a separate carpark, which will not
be available if the present DA is approved.
Adams + Sparkes page 17 para 37 states:
House Type 3 (the Reed Beach House) contains a Primary Dwelling
and Secondary Dwelling, with the Primary Dwelling component
including a kitchen, living, dining area and outdoor area on the ground
level and 3 bedrooms (master with ensuite) and a bath room on the
first level. The Secondary Dwelling component is located on the first
level and utilises a secondary access point. The Secondary Dwelling
includes a living area, kitchen and bathroom. Each of the Secondary
Dwellings will be on the same title as the detached dwelling and will be
less than 35m2 in size.
PBCAI submits that there is clear evidence that the Reed Beach Houses were
always and still are meant to contain a Primary Dwelling and Secondary
Dwelling and that the provision of an interconnecting door between the
Primary Dwelling and Secondary Dwelling does not alter this. The Secondary
Dwelling is completely self-contained and has separate access.
PBCAI submits that these units should be required to have separate carparks
for each Secondary Dwelling.
Secondary dwelling is defined in the Noosa Plan17 and “means a dwelling
used in conjunction with, and subordinate to, a detached house on the same
lot. A secondary dwelling may be constructed under a detached house, be
attached to a detached house or be free standing. For clarity a detached
house could not include more than one secondary dwelling.”
Self-contained is defined in the Noosa Plan18 and means containing at least
a bathroom, toilet, kitchen and one habitable room. The Secondary dwellings
17 See Noosa Plan page 2.29
18 See Noosa Plan page 2.30
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 36
35
here are self-contained and also have their own separate access. Even with
an interconnecting door between the secondary dwelling and the detached
house, the developer is seeking an approval so that the Reed Beach Houses
can be occupied as two separate self-contained dwellings.
PBCAI submits that if any approval is granted the Secondary Dwelling should
either be removed in its entirety or, at very least, the associated kitchen and
living area should not be approved.
The current DA proposes that these Reed Beach Houses will be for
permanent residents and with 2 persons sharing each of four bedrooms that
could result in 80 permanent residents in the Reed Beach House alone.
As stated in the Information Request at page 9 of 13
“The proposed land use is a substantial variation from that which has
previously been approved on the site or is supported under the Open
Space Recreation Zone. As the proposed style of development is more
consistent with that expected to be found within the nearby Semi-
Attached Housing Zone it is considered that the development should
be compatible to both the Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions
for the Eastern Beaches Locality related to the Semi-Attached Housing
Zone and the existing built form and established character within
Peregian Beach.
In the opinion of PBCAI, the design for the Reed Beach Houses is upside
down. The bedrooms should be on the ground floor and the living areas on
the first floor. This would enable the living areas to have greater solar access
and, if the secondary dwelling units are removed, give them the possibility of
some outlook, which is not available with the current design.
Despite their lack of any outlook and with minimum solar access, the
developer proposes to sell these Houses for $850,000. Apparently, the noise
from the Peregian Beach Hotel and its refrigeration and air-conditioning plant
is not expected to deter buyers.
The lack of outlook from the Reed Beach Houses is clear from the following
diagram:
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 37
36
This diagram from the Sprout Architects “Site sections” set of drawings shows
the Reed Beach Houses 6m below and behind the Peregian Beach Hotel.
12.2 Building Heights and Retaining Walls
As a result of the proposed filling of the site both the Multiple Housing
dwellings and Visitor Accommodation/Shared Housing building exceed the
preferred maximum building height. Of particular concern is the height of the
Hotel building and how this may affect vistas from David Low Way towards
the National Park and Mount Cooroy. If the DA is approved, Council will need
to specify the height of this building to ensure that the vista is maintained.
PBCAI notes that Council requested elevation profiles from all boundaries but
that the Northern elevation from Rufous Lane was not provided. The Covey
Report shows that on the Rufous Lane boundary it is proposed to install a
1.5m retaining wall. One Sprout Architects “Site sections” set of drawings
does show a Wallum House next to Rufus (sic) Lane but does not show the
1.5m retaining wall at the boundary. It does show retaining walls on other
boundaries.
This proposed development is in the Open Space Recreation Zone but the
buildings are not to be used for an indoor sporting complex so under S4.1 the
maximum height of the buildings is 8m.
Sprout Architects Site Sections show a 12m height above natural ground
level, especially for Lot 12, which would appear to be grossly excessive and
non-compliant.
The building of retaining walls and houses on the bank of or bed of a creek
will require more than just standard footings. This does not seem to have
been considered in this DA, which ignores the existence of the
creek/watercourse.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 38
37
The Wallum Houses proposed to be built along the Rufous Lane boundary will
be on 1500mm of fill and will tower over the Lane and create a threatening
tunnel effect for pedestrians in the Lane.
12.3 The Proposed density of the Housing Estate
PBCAI considers that the site coverage is excessive. This can be shown by
the following diagram
This diagram from Sprout Architects “Site sections” set of drawings shows the
planned density of development on the site. These are the Reed Beach
Houses planned for 6m below and behind the Peregian Beach Hotel
12.4 Setbacks
The Wallum Units
If they are proposed as Houses, PBCAI submits that they should they have
the standard rear setback of 6m which would provide some respect for the
public thoroughfare's tree lined character.
If they are proposed as partial Business Offices then PBCAI submits that they
are only going to put more pressure on the Rufous street car parking for
clients and displace the areas zoned for commercial areas.
The Reed Beach Houses
Adams + Sparkes page 42 para 152 states:
5.5.1.3 Setbacks – Probable Solution S5.1
…
152. It is noted that the proposed development only seeks a setback
relaxation for the eastern boundary, adjoining the Peregian Beach
Hotel, with the development providing a setback of 3 metres, which
does not comply with Council’s preferred setback between the
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 39
38
Open Space Recreational Zone and the Semi‐Attached Housing
Zone of 10 metres. Despite this, it is noted that the proposed
Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units is highly urban in
nature and is reflective of development within the semi‐attached
housing zone or the attached housing zone rather than the Open
Space Recreational Zone, and the proposed setback is not out of
character for the proposed and existing land uses. (Highlighting added)
PBCAI objects to this 7 metre relaxation as it will result in a dwelling 6 meters
below and too close to the Peregian Beach Hotel, with little or no landscaping.
PBCAI notes and agrees with the developer’s Town Planning & Development
Consultancy, Adams + Sparkes admission that “Despite this, it is noted that
the proposed Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units is (sic)
highly urban in nature and is reflective of development within the
semi‐attached housing zone or the attached housing zone rather than
the Open Space Recreational Zone”.
12.5 Solar Access and Ventilation
PBCAI considers that the amount of solar access and ventilation is limited and
inappropriate according to this analysis. The number of hours of solar access
that these windows and open spaces will receive is not clear. The apparent
inadequacy is caused by the developer’s attempt to maximize the density and
ground coverage of the site
12.6 Summary
PBCAI submits that the above issues are further proof of why this DA should
not be approved for a site in the Open Space Recreational Zone.
The proposed Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units are
highly urban in nature and this development is reflective of one within
the semi‐attached housing zone or the attached housing zone rather
than the Open Space Recreational Zone and for that reason should be
rejected.
13. Land dedicated as a reserve
Adams + Sparkes page 41 para 143 states:
“The proposed development retains and protects an area of 5,276m2
for environment and conservation purposes. It is noted that this area
was required to be dedicated as a reserve associated with Court
Approval (Appeal 2587 of 2008). Despite this, the development has not
been enacted upon and this development would replace the current
Court Approval, should it be approved”
Adams + Sparkes fail to point out that this land is not suitable for building on
as it is wetland and on the other side of the creek which the developer has
ignored.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 40
39
PBCAI queries how many times the developer can dedicate land to Council in
order to be given an approval without actually assigning it to Council? PBCAI
also notes that dedicating this land to Council will to reduce the amount of
rateable land.
14. Relevant period of approval
As described in Section 1, the first development application by this developer
for this site was lodged in 2007 and it received the first approval for
developing accommodation in 2010. Now in 2017, the developer is seeking
another approval to build, not budget visitor accommodation but, in the main,
permanent resident accommodation. In the intervening years, despite having
approval the developer has not constructed any accommodation units on the
site and has removed the 68 beds approved in the visitor hostel. The
developer, therefore, since 2007, has deprived visitors to Peregian Beach of
the low cost visitor accommodation that the caravan park provided.
If Council were to approve this DA in any form, PBCAI requests that the
period of approval be reasonable but as short as possible and that the staging
be reversed to provide for the Hotel/Hostel to be exclusively for visitor
accommodation with the possible exception of one or two
manager/caretaker’s units.
PBCAI also requests that the developer be informed that the period of
approval will not be extended and that permanent accommodation will never
be permitted.
15. Conclusion
In summary the proposed development significantly conflicts with the Noosa
Plan, for the following reasons:
The DA proposes building on Open Space Recreational zoned land a
development which is totally inconsistent in a multitude of ways with
the Noosa Plan;
The DA raises significant environmental concerns especially with
regard to the watercourse and wetlands;
the proposed development does not offer visitors the expected range of
experiences and accommodation types expected for the land and the
development is not consistent with Part 3 - Desired Environmental
Outcome (j) Tourism;
with respect to the Eastern Beaches Locality Code:
o the proposed development does not protect and retain low
cost accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity of
accommodation types for visitors to the locality and therefore is
not consistent with overall outcome (h);
o the proposed development does not provide for Visitor
Accommodation Type 4 Conventional to be located in close
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Page 41
40
proximity to the Peregian Neighbourhood Centre and therefore
is not consistent with overall outcome (t)(ii);
o the proposed development being located within the Open Space
Recreation Zone does not contribute to the desired lifestyle of
residents because it does not offer a variety of passive and
active recreational experiences that are conducive to
community interaction and wellbeing and therefore is not
consistent with overall outcome (bb);
o the proposed development seeks to provide a small lot
housing development and in particular, Multiple Housing
Type 4 – Conventional, which is not a consistent use in the
Open Space Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O73;
o the proposed development seeks to provide Visitor
Accommodation Type 4, but not in association with Visitor
Accommodation Type 2, and therefore is not consistent with the
Open Space Recreation Zone and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O74;
o The proposed development does not protect the Peregian
Beach caravan park site for low cost visitor accommodation
and therefore is not consistent with performance outcome O75;
o Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is being proposed on the land,
but is not integrated as part of a caravan park use or other
form of budget accommodation and therefore is not
consistent with performance outcome O76;
o Will interfere with the creeks that run through the property and
therefore is in conflict with Eastern Beaches Locality Division 15,
Table 7.10
o The proposed development will result in significant traffic
generation that will affect nearby uses and is not consistent
with performance outcome O77;
o The proposed buildings and structures are not designed
and sited to be attractive, comfortable and accessible to the
public or provide suitable landscape treatments and
amenities, conducive to community interaction and
convenience and public safety and therefore is not consistent
with performance outcome O78;
The proposed development is not consistent with the reasonable
expectations of residents in the locality, given the Peregian Beach
Caravan site is to primarily provide for budget visitor
accommodation, which is in the public interest;
There are no grounds provided that are sufficient to overcome the
level of conflict identified with the Noosa Plan.
For all of the above reasons PBCAI urges Council to uphold the Noosa Plan
and refuse this DA and the application to reconfigure the 1 lot into 29 lots.
Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017
Used in these records
DUPLICATE PM Submission Object - Peregian Beach Community Association - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041Related documentApplication case desk ↗
DUPLICATE PM Submission Object - Peregian Beach Community Association - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 1.3 MB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.