Original source · versioned page text
PM Submission Object - Robyn Moore MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: Robyn & Doug Moore
Sent: 21 Apr 2017 09:07:02 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: CONCERNED-RESIDENT Submission
Attachments: CONCERNED-RESIDENTS-OR-COMMUNITY-GROUPS-submission Rob.odt
Importance: Normal
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
CONCERNED-RESIDENTS-OR-COMMUNITY-GROUPS-submission Rob
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 8 pages
Page 2
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Submission in opposition to the Development Application
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
I write to oppose the approval of the above development application (DA). The grounds for my
opposition are listed below.
1. History
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. For this reason, in
2009, the developer sought approval to build a commercial building on the David Low Way part
of the site and two unit blocks each of 16 apartments and 30 of “beach shacks” behind the
commercial building and the Peregian Beach Hotel. This was agreed to by the developer and
the Council at a mediation.
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.
The development which the developer had had approved by the Planning and Environment
Court on 24 January 2012 was not economically viable. 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 physically non-viable. With no pre-commitment the developer did
not proceed.
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. It was a significant improvement on what the developer had previously had approved.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 3
The IGA Supermarket and the four specialty shops (the IGA supermarket development) which
was subsequently built is a positive benefit to Peregian Beach.
2. The Current Development Application
The balance of the caravan park site, after the IGA supermarket development, is what the
developer is currently seeking approval to develop.
Here 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 does not reflect this advice.
The other thing to mention here is the Planning and Environment Court sanctioned 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.”
The DA is totally in conflict with this approval as can be seen below:
The proposal:
Multiple Housing of 3 types – 88 Beds (or Persons)
They are all proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
The Kamala & Marram Houses (in the centre of the ring road) There are 9 of these with
3 bedrooms. (27 persons). Carparking is 9x2. Estimated price $825K
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 4
The Wallum Units (along Rufous Lane). There are 7 of these with 3 bedrooms. (21
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
and living down. (40 persons). Carparking is 10x3. These units will be approximately 6m
below the Hotel level. Estimated price $850K.
Essence Hotel/(Motel) & Conference Centre – 40 beds
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”. (40 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. 40 Car
parks are proposed with all bar 3 (Visitor parking?) under the Hotel and behind a
security gate.
3. 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. 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.
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.
In addition here, in order to obtain the Council’s previous approval, although it should be stated
that no attempt was made to get community approval, this same developer agreed with
conditions which kept the then proposed development in compliance with the Town Plan (See
above). Now that developer, six years later and having done nothing with the approval,
proposes another development in conflict with the Noosa Plan. Once again the developer
wants to change the rules for its financial benefit and not for the benefit of the Peregian Beach
community.
This DA proposes only 20 visitor beds in the Hotel/Motel. 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.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 5
I agree 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 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.
I have 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.
4. Staging
The Sprout Architects Staging Plan shows that the developer proposes:-
Stage 1 = Multiple Housing of 3 types
Stage 2 = Hotel/Motel
Given, the location of Stage 1 in a swampy area 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 $800,000 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. While this is the developer’s risk, it has a bearing on the completion of the
proposed Stage 2 with the visitor accommodation.
Therefore, the completion of Stage 2, which contains the developer’s limited commitment to
visitor accommodation must be seriously doubted.
I ask that Council consider the sincerity of the developer in 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.
5. Disruption to Peregian Village and surrounding areas during construction if this DA is
approved
5.1 Engineering Services Report – Page 5 in Response 2B states:-
“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”.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 6
While the total amount of fill required does not seem to have been identified 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”.
I agree 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.”
COMMENT: The imported fill will all have to come in via Sandpiper Lane and on the access road
to the IGA and the other shops. It will therefore, directly and significantly affect them and the
Hardware store. This will involve considerable noise and disruption from the source of the fill to
the development and return. It will also cause considerable disruption to the roundabout at the
village and to the Peregian Beach Hotel and other premises in that area.
COMMENT: 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.
5.2 Engineering Services Report – Page 7 in Response 2B
I querys 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
I also querywhy Electricity supply will be provided by “installing underground infrastructure
down the Peregian Sports Reserve access strip” rather than through the developers property.
I query 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, which is supposedly underway at present.
6. Traffic
The DA proposes Carparking & Visitor Carparking of 115 space in total
67 with the Houses & 37 with the Hotel/Motel
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 Motel.
This will result in an increase of 115 vehicles by the number of vehicular movements per day
over Sandpiper Lane with a considerable number of these 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.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 7
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 difficulties.
7. Noise
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the IGA are mounted on the roof of the IGA
store will be a source of noise for the residents of the Hotel/Motel. 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 who
will be 6 metres below the ground level of the Peregian Beach Hotel.
I consider 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 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.
8. The Vista from David Low Way
It appears that the Hotel/Motel will not obscure the vista of the western mountains from David
Low Way. 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.
9. Sprout Architects Site Sections shows a 12m height above natural ground level especially for
Lot 12 which would appear to be grossly excessive.
10. Pathway through the development
It is proposed to provide a public pathway linking Rufous Lane with the IGA and the Motel 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.
11. Sprout Architects Ground Floor Hotel – MPR? Meal Preparation Room?
I do not understand why the change from “Motel” to “Hotel” or whether or not this has any
significance.
12. Sprout Architects Reed House Section Analysis
I consider 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.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 8
13. The Reed Beach Houses - secondary dwelling units
While I realize 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.
I submit that 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.
COMMENT: in the my opinion, 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.
14. Building Heights
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/Motel building and how this may affect vistas from
David Low Way towards the National Park and Cooroy Mountain. If the DA is approved, Council
will need to specify the height of this building to ensure that the vista is maintained.
15. Relevant period of approval
The first development application by this developer for this site was lodged in 2009. The
developer 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. The developer,
therefore, since 2009, has deprived visitors to Peregian Beach of the low cost visitor
accommodation that the caravan park provided.
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 9
If Council were to approve this DA in any form, I request that the period of approval be
reasonable but short and that the staging be reversed to provide for the Hotel to be exclusively
for visitor accommodation with the possible exception of one or two manager/caretaker’s
units. I also request that the developer be informed that the period of approval will not be
extended.
For all of the above reasons I request that Council refuse this DA.
Robyn Gaye Moore
113 Persimmon Drive
Peregian Beach Qld 4573
Document Set ID: 20306454
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017