PM Submission Object - Deidre Mooney MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

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.




                                                                                        !1

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)

                                                                                         !2

Page 4

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). Car parking is 9x2. Estimated price
      $825K

       The Wallum Units (along Rufous Lane). There are 7 of these with 3
       bedrooms. (21 persons). Car parking 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). Car parking 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

                                                                                          !3

Page 5

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.

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:-

                                                                                       !4

Page 6

“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 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 query 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 query why 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 Car parking & Visitor Car parking of 115 spaces 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 south side of the ring road behind the IGA
       3 outside the security gate of the Motel.




                                                                                        !5

Page 7

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.

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 and 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 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.


                                                                                     !6

Page 8

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.


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 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

                                                                                        !7

Page 9

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.

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.


Deirdre Mooney
12 Lorilet Street,
Peregian Beach Queensland 4573

[email protected]




                                                                                          !8