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

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