Submission to DA-MCU13_0092_sharyn Kerrigan · MCU13/0092

A Submission in Objection to the Proposed
Commercial Development in the Open Space
Recreation zoned area of Peregian Beach
To   The Chief Executive Officer
     Sunshine Coast Council
     Locked Bag 72
     Sunshine Coast Mail Centre, QLD 4560

File No: MCU13/0092
Name of Applicant: Multispan Australia
Postal Address of Land: 5-7 Rufous street, Peregian Beach.
Proposal: Integrated shopping complex development

I wish to make a submission on the referenced development application,
as follows:
      It is concerning that an applicant of such an important piece of
      land in our town did not consult with the Peregian Beach Community
      nor listen to the planners from Council or respected the Town plan.

     I object to the commercial use of the Peregian Bowls Club area
     zoned Open Space/ Recreation as determined in both The Noosa Plan
     2006 and the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme (2012).

     This development will adversely affect the consistent land and
     community use of the current Tennis Courts, Community House,
     Kindergarten, Veggie Village and Di Hurst Oval and surrounding
     residents.

     The SunshIne Coast Council Open Space Strategy 2011 identifies that
     “Peregian Beach locality area is generally under provided for with
     recreational parks”(2011:35) and we object to loss of this
     recreational land for the current and future residents of Peregian
     Beach and wider catchment to commercial development.

The planning conflicts and negative community impacts that remain
unaddressed, or inadequately addressed, by the applicant include - but
are not limited to:

1. Erosion of the "open Space Strategies" of the Noosa Plan and those
   adopted by SCRC.
2. Demonstrated community need for more open space recreation ignored
   by the applicant. Community polling and views misrepresented by the
   applicant. "Overwhelming Community need" for a second retail centre -
   as defined by the Act - not supported or justified.
3. Economic impact assessment for the applicant - misleading and
   narrowly focused.
4. Misrepresentation of direct access from the site to David Low Way.
5. Substantial traffic, parking, access, safety and engineering issues
   remain inadequately addressed.
6. Applicant's failure to address street frontage and environment issues
                                            Page 1 of 2