PM Submission Object - Darren Tindale - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

Page 2

                         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.

                         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.




Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 3

                         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
                             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.




Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 4

                         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.

                         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



Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 5

                         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”.

                         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.




Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 6

                         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.

                         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




Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 7

                         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.

                         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



Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017

Page 8

                         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.

                         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.

                         DARREN TINDALE
                         1/12 PLOVER STREET PERIGEAN BEACH QLD. 4573
                         PHONE: 0473 147 777




Document Set ID: 20308173
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017