Council archive · source document
LUNN Council Ref 132007_2446_05 · 132007.2446.05
Attached to the e-mail PM Submission - Dylan an Danielle Lunn - 132007.2446.05.
Dylan and Danielle Lunn 100 Pacific Avenue, Sunshine Beach, 4567 [email protected] and [email protected] 6" DECEMBER 2024 Assessment Manager Noosa Shire Council 9 Pelican Street Tewantin QLD 4565 Public Notification of Development Application - Proposed Materials Change of Use - Other Change to Approval - Additional 11 Beds at 102 Pacific Avenue, Sunshine Beach, described legally as Lot 162 on SP307694 Dear Assessment Manager, We are writing to formally submit my concerns related to parking availability and increased noise and its potential impact on the local area. As a neighbouring resident, we are deeply concerned about the lack of adequate parking provisions associated with the proposed development. We believe the current parking arrangements do not sufficiently account for the additional vehicles that will result from the development. Our objections are based on the following points: 1. adequate Parking Spaces The proposed development does not appear to provide enough parking spaces to accommodate the number of visitors and staff. Given the projected number of beds in the development, the parking provisions outlined in the planning application seem insufficient, particularly in an area already facing high demand for on-street parking. This will exacerbate existing congestion and create further competition for limited parking spaces. 2. Impact on Street Parking Due to the lack of onsite parking, it is likely that, visitors and staff will need to park on the street. This will put further pressure on already limited public parking spaces and potentially lead to congestion, blocking driveways, and creating safety hazards for pedestrians and other road users. During school pick and drop off times the area is saturated with cars looking for street parking around this end of Pacific Avenue resulting in cars parking in No Stopping zones, grass verges and sometimes blocking driveways. There is frequently a car parked directly out the front of the hostel in a spot with a solid yellow line. This occurs often when other parking spots are taken within the street. 3. Increased Traffic and Safety Concerns With the proposed development lacking sufficient parking, there will likely be an increase in the number of vehicles driving around the area in search of parking spaces. This will exacerbate traffic congestion and potentially increase the risk of accidents, particularly near busy intersections or pedestrian areas. In addition, a lack of adequate parking could lead to vehicles being parked illegally.
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 1 page
Page 2
4, Local Infrastructure and Public Transport Limitations The proposed development does not consider the limited availability of alternative transport options in the area. While the development may rely on public transport and a private shuttle, the local infrastructure is already stretched, with limited bus routes and no nearby train stations. Therefore, many visitors will be reliant on private vehicles, further increasing parking demand. 5. Precedent for Future Developments Approving this development without addressing parking concerns could set a negative precedent for future developments in the area. The cumulative effect of inadequate parking in multiple developments could lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents, as well as strain the local road network. Furthermore, our concerns regarding the additional beds/visitor numbers relates to potential noise increases throughout the property and surrounds. In view of the application the 11 beds are bunk beds which is potentially an additional 22 people. In viewing the plans, the drawing displays 8 bunk beds across 3 rooms which would be 24 people. Whether it is 22 or 24, this increase in the number of visitors impacts noise and the surrounds. 1. Increased Noise Levels from High Occupancy and Activity in Communal Spaces The proposed development appears to increase the number of visitors whilst retaining the existing sized communal and kitchen spaces, which could result in a significant increase in noise levels in those areas. The noise generated by conversations, movement of people, and the general activity of a larger number of residents in these areas would impact the surrounding residential homes. This is of particular concern during late evening or early morning hours when noise disturbances are likely to have a more significant impact on residents’ well-being. Especially the kitchen area as the increased visitor numbers all trying the use the facilities at similar times would draw out the noise over a longer period. My concern is the initial size of the communal areas does not accommodate the additional visitors and could lead to a condensed number of guests in a relatively small space, further exacerbating the noise in those areas. 2. Insufficient Mitigation Measures The planning application does not appear to sufficiently address how the potential increase in noise and kitchen- -related disturbances will be mitigated. NS Conclusion Given the signifi icant concerns about the lack of sufficient parking in the proposed development, we urge the planning authority to reconsider the approval of this development in its current form. We request that the developers either increase the number of parking spaces or explore alternative solutions, such as improved access to public transport, more frequent shuttles or better integration with existing parking infrastructure. Furthermore, we believe that without addressing these noise and disturbance issues the development could negatively impact the surrounding area and residents’ enjoyment of their homes. We respectfully request that additional measures be considered to reduce the potential for noise and kitchen-related disturbances, including soundproofing and limiting kitchen operating hours. We appreciate your consideration of these concerns and look forward to hearing your response. Yours faithfully, Dylan and Danielle Lunn ¢ ae 2/24 6/12/14 Dyl: n Linn Danielle Lunn
Used in these records
LUNN Council Ref 132007_2446_05.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 228 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.