Original source · versioned page text
2014-01-20 Ordinary Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Ordinary Meeting
Monday, 20 January 2014
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 37 sections
Section 2
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES 3
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3
3 MAYORAL MINUTES 3
4 NOTIFIED MOTIONS 3
5 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 3
6 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 4
EXECUTIVE OFFICE 4
6.1 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4
6.2 COUNCILLOR SUPERANNUATION 6
6.3 NOOSA BISOPHERE RESERVE – REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT MODEL 8
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT 10
6.4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE
FOR SHOPPING CENTRE AT 5-7 RUFOUS STREET, PEREGIAN
BEACH – PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL
(MULTISPAN) – MCU13/0092 10
7 PETITIONS 36
8 CLOSED SESSION 37
8.1 CLOSED SESSION ITEM: MASTERS HOME
IMPROVEMENT STORE & SHOWROOM FOR NOOSA BUSINESS
CENTRE – PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL (HYDROX)
– MCU12/0051 37
9 NEXT MEETING 38
10 MEETING CLOSURE 38
Page 2 of 86
Section 3
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 13 January 2014 be received and confirmed.
3 MAYORAL MINUTES
Nil.
4 NOTIFIED MOTIONS
Nil.
5 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Nil.
Page 3 of 86
Section 4
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
6 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
6.1 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
File No ECM/Subject/Governance and Executive
Author Chief of Staff, Executive Office
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to the appointment of the position of
Acting Chief Executive Officer in the interim period prior to the commencement of the permanent
Chief Executive Officer of the Noosa Council.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The process for the recruitment of the new Chief Executive Officer of the Noosa Council was
concluded with a recommendation to the Ordinary Meeting on 12 January 2014 to appoint
Brett de Chastel as the new permanent Chief Executive Officer.
Following this decision, and the conclusion of the employment of Mr Peter Franks on 13 January
2014, Council is required to appoint a suitably qualified person to temporarily fulfil the
responsibilities of the position of Chief Executive Officer under the Queensland Local
Government Act 2009.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council Resolution, Ordinary Meeting, 13 January 2014, Item 8.1:
That Council note the late report by the Recruitment Consultant to the Ordinary Meeting dated 13
January 2014 and appoint Mr Brett de Chastel to the position of Chief Executive Officer of the
Noosa Council.
REPORT
This report recommends the temporary appointment of Mr Victor Bruce Davidson as Acting Chief
Executive Officer of Noosa Council until the commencement of the new permanent Chief
Executive Officer on 3 February 2014. Mr Davidson is considered to be well qualified to fulfil the
required responsibilities of the role under the Queensland Local Government Act 2009.
It is proposed that Mr Davidson be remunerated at a level appropriate to the responsibilities of
the position.
BUDGET & FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Provision exists within the current budget to meet the cost of the temporary appointment.
Page 4 of 86
Section 5
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Chief of Staff to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 January 2014
and approve the appointment of Mr Victor Bruce Davidson as Acting Chief Executive Officer of
Noosa Council from 14 January 2014 until the commencement of the new permanent
Chief Executive Officer on 3 February 2014.
ATTACHMENTS
Nil.
Page 5 of 86
Section 6
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
6.2 COUNCILLOR SUPERANNUATION
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
File No ECM/Subject/Superannuation & Subject/Council Liaison
Author Chief of Staff, Executive Office
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the payment of superannuation contributions
for Councillors.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Queensland Local Government Act 2009 (the Act) provides for a local government to make
contributions to a superannuation scheme for its Councillors. As Councillors are not generally
considered employees for taxation and superannuation purposes, Council is not obliged to pay
superannuation contributions for Councillors and Councillors are not obliged to make
superannuation contributions. Council can however decide whether it will make contributions for
a Councillor at a maximum contribution rate of 12% (section 226).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Nil.
REPORT
In accordance with section 226 (1) (b) of the Act, Council may take part in a superannuation
scheme for its Councillors and make payments from its operating fund to the superannuation
scheme as a contribution for its Councillors. The amount that a local government can contribute
is to be no more than the proportion of a salary that it is obliged to pay for its standard employees
i.e. 12%. Noosa Council employees currently contribute 6% of their salary and Noosa Council
contributes 12%.
This report recommends that council enter into arrangements with Councillors under which the
Councillor agrees to forego a percentage or amount of their Councillor remuneration with the
following arrangements:
Councillors contribute an amount from their salaries towards a superannuation payment
which is proportionate to the amount to be made by council with the maximum contribution
to be made by Council being 12%. For example if a Councillor contributes 6% then Council
would contribute 12 % or if a Councillor contributes 3% then Council would contribute 6%;
Contributions are made through salary sacrifice arrangements under Section 226 of the Act
by way of a formal request to council;
Councillors nominate the preferred superannuation fund and where no nomination occurs
the superannuation payments are made to LG Super;
Council agrees to contribute the percentage or amount to the superannuation scheme for
the Councillor.
Page 6 of 86
Section 7
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
BUDGET & FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Provision exists within the current budget to meet the cost of councillor contributions.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive the report by the Chief of Staff to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 January
2014 and in accordance with Section 226 of the Queensland Local Government Act 2009,
authorise the payment of superannuation contributions for councillors of up to 12% on the
condition that councillors:
a) Contribute an amount of up to 6% from their salaries and council contributes a
proportionate amount of up to 12% to a nominated superannuation fund;
b) Make contributions through an arrangement by way of a formal request to Council; and
c) Nominate the preferred superannuation fund, and where no nomination has occurred the
superannuation payments be made to LG Super.
ATTACHMENTS
Nil.
Page 7 of 86
Section 8
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
6.3 NOOSA BISOPHERE RESERVE – REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT MODEL
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
File No ECM/Subject/Noosa Biosphere Reserve
Author Executive Officer, Executive Office
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend a process for the review of the management
structure of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve with the ultimate objective of maximising the levels of
community participation and the effectiveness of the Biosphere Reserve outcomes for the
community of Noosa.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Noosa Biosphere Limited is a council owned company responsible for advancing the
purpose of the Biosphere Reserve established by UNESCO in 2007.
Biosphere Reserves are considered sites of excellence, where new and optimal practices to
manage nature and human activities are tested and demonstrated. It is an inclusive process
where a community works together to achieve the ultimate environment in which they wish to live
and work.
Immediately prior to amalgamation into the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC), the former
Noosa Council designed their preferred management arrangements for the Noosa Biosphere
Reserve and this was ultimately implemented by SCRC. This model, in place for over 5 years, is
framed around an enhanced form of the former Noosa Council’s Community Sector Boards.
The new council has been elected on a platform of community participation in decision making
and the Biosphere Reserve management is seen to be a crucial vehicle to achieving this
outcome.
The new council has expressed a desire to review the current Noosa Biosphere Reserve
management model with the objective of more clearly defining and clarifying the vision,
objectives and preferred outcomes for the Biosphere Reserve; for broadening of the level of
community involvement; and an enhanced focus on the community’s aspirations for a sustainable
future.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Nil.
Page 8 of 86
Section 9
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
REPORT
Following discussions between the Mayor, Councillors and relevant staff it is suggested that the
following approach be taken to undertake the review:
Step 1
Establish a Noosa Biosphere Reserve Working Group consisting of Mayor Playford and
Councillors Abbot, Pardon and Wellington with a brief to recommend to council the preferred
vision, objectives and management framework for advancing the purpose of the Noosa
Biosphere Reserve.
Step 2
Undertake community consultation with key stakeholders including, but not limited to, the current
Noosa Biosphere Limited Board Members and members of the Community Sector Boards.
Step 3
The Working Group consider feedback from the consultation process and provide a report and
recommendations to council on the preferred approach.
BUDGET & FINANCIAL ASPECTS
It is expected that costs should be limited to resources required for any facilitated discussions.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council agree to the process steps 1 to 3 outlined in the report to the Ordinary Meeting
dated 20 January 2014 to reshape the Noosa Biosphere Reserve management arrangements to
maximise the potential for community involvement in Noosa Biosphere Reserve projects,
activities and initiatives.
ATTACHMENTS
Nil.
Page 9 of 86
Section 10
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT
6.4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHOPPING
CENTRE AT 5-7 RUFOUS STREET, PEREGIAN BEACH – PLANNING &
ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL (MULTISPAN) – MCU13/0092
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
File No MCU13/0092
Author Coordinator, Development Assessment
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
The purpose of the report is to seek Council’s position on defending an appeal against a ‘deemed
refusal’ of an application for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Entertainment
and Dining Business Type 1 - Food & Beverages, Commercial Type 1 – Office, and Retail
Business Type 2 – Shop & Salon) situated at 5-7 Rufous Street, Peregian Beach (Peregian
Beach Bowls Club).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The application seeks to develop a shopping centre for Peregian Beach, comprising a 1,100m2
supermarket and 8 specialty shops, restaurants and/or offices of 750m2. Access is proposed via
Rufous Street, with parking on site proposed for 100 cars.
A report was included on the Sunshine Coast Council’s Ordinary Meeting Agenda for the 14
November 2013. The report provided an assessment of the proposed development against The
Noosa Plan and the submissions received and recommended refusal of the application on the
following grounds:
1. The proposed development does not comply with the Overall Outcomes of The Noosa
Plan’s Eastern Beaches Locality, Business Uses, Community Uses, Driveways and
Carparking, and Transport, Roads & Drainage Codes
2. The proposed development would effectively form a second shopping centre at Peregian
Beach, is likely to adversely impact on the role and function of the Peregian Beach village
and presents a poor unappealing urban design outcome
3. The proposal will alienate land intended for open space recreation purposes and the
applicant has not demonstrated that the community would not be disadvantaged by the
loss of open space recreation land
4. The development would have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and traffic safety
at the intersection of Woodland Drive and David Low Way, and in Rufous Street
5. Traffic generated by the development proposed would have significant adverse impacts on
the amenity of existing residences nearby and
6. The proposed development raises significant conflicts with The Noosa Plan and there are
insufficient grounds to justify the conflict with planning scheme.
Page 10 of 86
Section 11
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
A copy of the report to the Ordinary Meeting is included as Attachment 3.
The applicant decided to not wait for Sunshine Coast Council’s decision and instead elected to
commence proceedings with the Planning & Environment Court on the basis of a ‘deemed
refusal’. A ‘deemed refusal’ is made possible by the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 in the
circumstances where the decision period for the application expires before a decision is made by
the council. The decision period for the application expired on 1 November 2013, and the
applicant declined to agree to an extension to the decision period, despite officer’s advice that
the matter would be considered at Sunshine Coast Council’s Ordinary meeting in November
2013.
The appeal seeks that the development application be approved subject to appropriate lawful
conditions and provides the court with a number of grounds for approval including the
abandonment of use of the land for a bowls club and there is a demonstrable need for the
proposed development.
On the 18 December, the court gave directions including the following:
By Friday 24 January 2014 the Respondent and Co-Respondent by Election inform:
(a) if it would approve the application, and in that event, the conditions that the Respondent
should impose; or alternatively
(b) if it would refuse the application, and in that event, the grounds that would be relied upon
by the Respondent and Co-Respondent.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
At their Ordinary Meeting on the 14 November 2013, Sunshine Coast Council resolved the
following:
A. Note the commencement of appeal proceedings, appeal 4341 of 2013, by Multispan
Australia Group Pty Ltd.
B. Note the officer report regarding Application No. MCU13/0092 for a Development Permit for
Material Change of Use (Entertainment & dining Type 1 – Food & beverages, Commercial
Type 1 – Office, and Retail business Type 2 – Shop & Salon) situated at 5-7 Rufous Street
Peregian Beach.
REPORT
Site Description
The site is zoned Open Space Recreation under The Noosa Plan and is located outside the
existing Peregian Beach village being approximately a 350m walk from the village. The Peregian
Beach Community House is situated just north of the site, with a council owned car park east of
the site. A number of residential dwellings and duplex dwellings otherwise surround the site,
apart from an office building and hotel located further south along David Low Way.
Page 11 of 86
Section 12
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Application Assessment
The proposed development presents significant conflicts with The Noosa Plan as the proposal is
for land located outside the existing neighbourhood centre identified for Peregian Beach and is
on land zoned for Open Space Recreation. The proposed development would effectively form a
second shopping centre at Peregian Beach and is likely to have adverse impacts on the role and
function of Peregian neighbourhood centre identified as the focal point for the community.
There are insufficient grounds to approve the application as the level of planning need for the
proposed development is tempered by the distance between the subject site and the Peregian
Beach village and the negative results of the applicant’s own community consultation and the
large number of submissions received objecting to the application.
The development would also have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and traffic safety at
the intersection of Woodland Drive and David Low Way and will almost triple traffic volumes on
Rufous Street, exceeding the normally adopted upper limit for residential collect streets. The
increased traffic on the surrounding residential collect streets will have substantial amenity
impacts for residents.
The proposal’s design raises some concerns as the proposal is reliant on utilising the existing car
park along David Low Way with high acoustic walls presented to the site’s street frontage and
limited landscaping.
The applicant has further not adequately demonstrated that the use of the Open Space
Recreational zoned land is surplus to Peregian Beach’s needs or the proposal is an appropriate
use of the land.
A fuller assessment is provided in the previous report to Sunshine Coast Council, which is
included as Attachment 3.
BUDGET & FINANCIAL ASPECTS
If the matter proceeds to trial, council will incur costs from engaging external representation,
including a barrister, solicitor, town planner, economist and traffic engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council advise the Planning & Environment Court that, were it in a position to determine the
application, would REFUSE Application No. MCU13/0092 for a Development Permit for Material
Change of Use (Entertainment & dining Type 1 - Food & beverages, Commercial Type 1 – Office,
and Retail business Type 2 - Shop & Salon) situated at 5-7 Rufous St, Peregian Beach for the
following reasons:
1. the proposed development does not comply with the Overall Outcomes of The Noosa
Plan’s Eastern Beaches Locality, Business Uses, Community Uses, Driveways and
Carparking, and Transport, Roads & Drainage Codes
2. the proposed development would effectively form a second shopping centre at Peregian
Beach, is likely to adversely impact on the role and function of the Peregian Beach village
and presents a poor unappealing urban design outcome
3. the proposal will alienate land intended for open space recreation purposes and the
applicant has not demonstrated that the community would not be disadvantaged by the
loss of open space recreation land
Page 12 of 86
Section 13
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
4. the development would have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and traffic safety
at the intersection of Woodland Drive and David Low Way, and in Rufous Street
5. traffic generated by the development proposed would have significant adverse impacts on
the amenity of existing residences nearby and
6. the proposed development raises significant conflicts with The Noosa Plan and there are
insufficient grounds to justify the conflict with planning scheme.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locality Plan
2. Proposal Plans
3. Ordinary Meeting Report
Page 13 of 86
Section 14
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 14 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
A LL). ey x = ae
Taw 24 oF ke oe
ee. ~ we a
et | Py ee dees tong era
‘ we a> ae a = ; 4 Pan) yr. , :
Paps SUE eA ae ae, |
be hd x 4 Sd oo) .
FOYE: ois oe Fog eae OS >
el ie ae Ve A a ee :
_ a by - D. bs > Sa - ak y :
Re toe pode mee ten RON a ale 5 :
Sst -- Des Ws ae oe * as }
4 : heen hee an ee gl as es 2 as |! sal ;
ih A ke. Te as Beat : ei
. * ‘ ii Th y vi 1. rs "
“- ' <] \ a Lae oF] . ‘
i Te) (ate ee tt TR |
, Te) te " S as +
: 3 " | FY ; {
ena eel . ; aS Ly - @
5 : 3 : Ai = ate Des a 3
et ge a S|
Ss J Bee. a “yi = ;
Beh ts gt
: pe ae et Be Pier }
Pere
mee f 4 & Uf Miladee {Us Y a
Od Mies at ae
4 i } | oe ag ro cs es i P
y i. cae r Y S ' wh }
) Rode mis sy te, Li
_ —_————————— — ~ Ci os atm Sa a = = = '
cae tes eee ee ae Se
Page 14 of 86Section 15
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 15 of 86
98 JO G| abed
zis WOCOLAND DRIVE ©
Ets - r @> a
i.e ee ee
2:2 tf ff =D
e = / P. cod 1
: oo I Ask =) 5]
ii i j ‘
= Yt (2} ; i! je | } ’ |
: i 7 - | . " = Lt)
‘ii fs | ===, —— wat | |
: *) yg | Mod, I'S
4 ae —, a
: ae vs Pay
PF Le) ht
= om r . ur > } )
: + | |
. wi Hh, all : : ype |
: | i OT mR > Ye 48
z | = - ee eS) os
z a Peer Ag hs J
3 j 2 ip S| "i —— oy > j
=) pS TF = . — ‘ {
i fy - Ste Py = ~ 2 i
| i ; 4 Seo “Ee fs OL i.
” l F a Dine ~ — =: i
+ fd ies ee ae {24/ |
tLe ie, sy la F
j Jed aa, ’ a7 4 =f “Hy * J } “ o. 4 } wy / / /
. Aa a7) ® & <2 i ; / /
J : hi i 3 ~ : J i Pe, A ; if j
2 —. ,y _ 7 A }} J
>> ~~ es / — 7 ‘ / se i
LY SF ff
; oy == z fi a zs . 5
tj * ® atbha
; ge att nda
= fe lb in (ite | HD
i
>
o
=r
=
m
z
=
NSection 16
Page 16 of 86
» te ee
J a | ‘ so fe - a- ——e a} i
ln a
| iy ‘et NOD = Em et
} A “a 1 SK
FO | 'N ’
/ i |
if ‘a
, Hf |
|
| al | ;
, |. ;
ah i
| 4] i"
wi
F i
_ Ip,
i pu 1!
a
eee
5 \ 3ti
a ett
Bi)
Page 16 of 86Section 17
Page 17 of 86
ee ae et i
<= SS ——
—s * “ * : = = a Tt -
= — = ithe 2 =
> — ‘ ’ yes a s 7 ’ . “—
a 7 7 : 7 ee am, diene! lo
. _ 7 ‘ at ain tas bi Dhak ' Yes 3 “.
—> = a
20S Sat =
—_————
SOUTH WEST ELEVATION - RUFUS STREET
. a : >
————— .
— —-. .
gun oe be eee eed —
oo - — — = —_ _—-*
—=—— ; = - es :
— —_— = ss — Stee ' ‘ —2—
; | es } ‘ : —_——es :
. —_"
——e ’
ee el -_-—.—_— -
ts
NORTH WEST ELEVATION *y
~_
re enG, “See rns
speminnnen — — — —S
wa tee ~ ,
——— eee <. +
~~ + +
2
——_—— _ - =—-
Es Spree se} }
1 " is ,
—, _ = e
= ete" eae ——_— <<.
ow ee eee
BUILDING SECTION AA
=
SUN DING ELEVATIONS AND SECTION
U
9
©
©
—_
~“
2,
oo
oSection 18
Page 18 of 86
98 40 g} abed
TB | a fy
eter og
> —— > hs t
2 i= | 5 a 3
Fj rile 2 IF 4
=| 8 ila!
: = i 2 7
: FI Ys
: 2s : 2 es Fr
; He is ey 7, f
f SRIEWE tis _« jie, |
. “peg UR ie
i 1 { tT Ty i
Ellie Wil
=| # ea] |
= iv |
iL § i!
| & eT iihe
| | ‘a |
}Section 19
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 19 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
7.2.2. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR SHOPS, OFFICES AND
RESTAURANT, SITUATED AT 5-7 RUFOUS ST, PEREGIAN BEACH
File No: MCU13/0092
Author: Development Planner
Regional Strategy & Planning Department
Attachments: Att 1 - Proposal Plans .00..........cccceeceeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeececeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee DL
Link to PD Online:
http://pdonline.sunshinecoast.qid.gov.au/MasterView/Modules/Applicationmaster/default.asp
x?page=wrapper&key=1323399
SUMMARY SHEET
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant: Multi Span Australia Pty Ltd
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change
of Use (Entertainment & Dining Type 1
Food & Beverages, Commercial Type 1
Office and Retail Business Type 2 Shop
& Salon)
Properly Made Date: 20 May 2013
Information Request Date: 18 June 2013
Information Response Received Date: | 6 August 2013
Decision Due Date 14 November 2013
Number of Submissions 881 properly made submissions; and
85 not properly made submissions
PROPERTY DETAILS
[Division:
Property Address: 5-7 Rufous St PEREGIAN BEACH
RP Description: Lot 94 SP 137431
6,503m*
Existing Use of Land: Open Space Recreation (Bowls Club)
STATUTORY DETAILS PO
SEQRP Designation: Urban Footprint
Planning Scheme The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011)
Planning Locality:
Planning Zone: Open Space Recreation
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 59 of 360
Page 19 of 86Section 20
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 20 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek council’s determination of an application for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Entertainment & Dining Type 1 - Food &
Beverages, Commercial Type 1 — Office, and Retail Business Type 2 - Shop & Salon) at 5-7
Rufous St, Peregian Beach. The application is before council as there were 960
submissions objecting to, and 6 supporting, the development proposal. The proposed
development also conflicts significantly with The Noosa Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application seeks to develop a shopping centre for Peregian Beach, comprising a
1,900m? supermarket and 8 specialty shops, restaurants and/or offices of 750m*. Access is
proposed via Rufous Street, with parking on site proposed for 100 cars, 5 motorbike bays
and 19 bicycle bays. The complex is proposed to operate 7 days a week, from 6am to 9pm.
The site is zoned Open Space Recreation by The Noosa Plan. The proposed retail and
commercial uses conflict with the site’s zoning intent to accommodate a variety of passive
and active recreational experiences for the community, and are identified as inconsistent
uses for the zone. Local retail, commercial, entertainment and dining uses for residents and
visitors are intended to be catered for within the existing village neighbourhood centre, with
the village square identified as a public focus for local community interaction and activity.
The proposed development presents serious conflicts with The Noosa Plan provisions as the
proposed development is not located within, or adjacent to, the existing neighbourhood
centre, being over a 350m walk from the village centre. The proposed development would
effectively form a second shopping centre at Peregian Beach and is likely to adversely
impact on the role and function of the Peregian Beach village.
The applicant's Economic Needs Assessment (Foresight Partners, 2013) submits that there
is a ‘clear and significant economic need’ for the use. Assessment of the proposal finds that,
while the proposed centre would provide residents with a small scale supermarket, its
location will adversely impact upon shoppers’ convenience levels. The submissions from the
local community have also expressed a view that the proposed shopping centre is not
wanted and these 2 aspects serve to reduce and undermine the level of planning need for
the proposal. For these reasons Norling Consulting, on behalf of council, concludes that
there is a low to moderate level of planning need for the proposed development. This level
of need must also be considered in view of the continued operation of a small grocery store
in the village, and there are existing full line supermarkets within 5 minutes’ drive.
While the proposal will not impact on the hierarchy of centres, it is likely to impact on the
Peregian Beach village, with impacts anticipated to be 12% to 15%. These impacts may not
be considered acceptable by some of the Peregian Beach village traders particularly given
the area’s low population growth.
The proposal will also alienate land intended for open space recreation purposes and the
applicant has not demonstrated that the community would not be disadvantaged by the loss
of open space recreation land, with a general shortage of open space recreational land
identified across the coast.
The development would also have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and traffic
safety at the intersection of Woodland Drive and David Low Way, and will almost triple traffic
volumes on Rufous Street, exceeding the normally adopted upper limit for residential
collector streets.
The design of the shopping centre is undesirably orientated to the existing council carpark,
despite no formal access consented to by council. The proposed built form does not match
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 60 of 360
Page 20 of 86Section 21
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 21 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
with the surrounding residential streetscape, given its scale and form including the use of
40m long x 3.5m high acoustic walls to Rufous Street, with no on site landscaping provision
for screening. While potential amenity impacts from on-site activities have been addressed,
the development will have significant adverse impacts on nearby residents due to the
increased traffic movement on Woodland Drive and the applicant has failed to satisfactorily
address this issue.
The proposal significantly conflicts with The Noosa Plan and there are insufficient grounds to
justify the conflict. The proposal is, therefore, recommended for refusal.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
That Council REFUSE Application No. MCU13/0092 for a Development Permit for
Material Change of Use (Entertainment & dining Type 1 - Food & beverages,
Commercial Type 1 — Office, and Retail business Type 2 - Shop & Salon) situated at 5-
7 Rufous St PEREGIAN BEACH for the following reasons:
1. the proposed development does not comply with the Overall Outcomes of The
Noosa Plan’s Eastern Beaches Locality, Business Uses, Community Uses,
Driveways and Carparking, and Transport, Roads & Drainage Codes
2. the proposed development would effectively form a second shopping centre at
Peregian Beach, is likely to adversely impact on the role and function of the
Peregian Beach village and presents a poor unappealing urban design outcome
3. the proposal will alienate land intended for open space recreation purposes
and the applicant has not demonstrated that the community would not be
disadvantaged by the loss of open space recreation land
4. the development would have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and
traffic safety at the intersection of Woodland Drive and David Low Way, and in
Rufous Street
5. traffic generated by the development proposed would have significant adverse
impacts on the amenity of existing residences nearby and
6. the proposed development raises significant conflicts with The Noosa Plan and
there are insufficient grounds to justify the conflict with planning scheme.
FINANCE AND RESOURCING
If council were to approve this development, the applicant would be required to pay
infrastructure charges for trunk infrastructure.
Council's Infrastructure Policy Branch has provided the following estimate of the
infrastructure charges required by this development.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 61 of 360
Page 21 of 86Section 22
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 22 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
Alecatien of adopted infrastructure charge to trunk infrastructure Amount Payable
Water Supply $821
romans 8,719
PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a 1,900m? shopping complex, situated at the existing
Peregian Bowls Club site at 5-7 Rufous St, Peregian Beach. The details of the proposal
include:
e¢ a1,100m* gross floor area supermarket (IGA)
e 750m? floor area of specialty shops, comprising 8 tenancies. The tenancies range in
size between 54m? and 108m gross floor area
¢ 50m? of amenities
e 100 on-site carparking spaces, 5 motorbike bays and 19 bicycle bays
e 1 service van space and service access for heavy rigid vehicles and
e the complex is proposed to open 7 days a week from 6am to 9pm.
A copy of the proposed plans is included as Attachment 1.
SITE DETAILS
Site History
The subject site was established in the early 1960s by TM Burke Pty Ltd as a Bowling Club
for the then emergent community of Peregian Beach. Since then, the site has had 4
development approvals, all relating to its use as a Bowls Club, which are described below.
Application
IDA 28 & On 31 March 1970, council issued an approval for a clubhouse to be erected
TPC 49 for the Peregian Beach Bowls Club.
TPC 2848 On 27 July 1995, council issued an approval for lighting the existing bowling
green.
TPC 2849 On 2 February 1996, council issued an approval for a new bowls clubhouse.
The redevelopment was never undertaken and subsequently lapsed.
19824 DA On 18 October 2000, council issued an approval for the subdivision of the
existing 3 lots into 2 lots and a portion of road reserve. This approval
consolidated the existing bowls club on one lot (94 on SP137431), anda
separate lot (95 on SP137431) fronting David Low Way, which was
subsequently sold to council and is used as a carpark.
On 2 July 2012, a prelodgement meeting was held with the applicant regarding the proposed
development. Officers advised the applicant that the proposal presented a serious conflict
with The Noosa Plan.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 62 of 360
Page 22 of 86Section 23
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 23 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
The proposal originally sought to provide access through the existing council carparking area
at 253 David Low Way (Lot 95 on SP137431). However, on 28 March 2013, council resolved
unanimously at its Ordinary Meeting not to provide owner's consent for access to the subject
site, through the adjoining council owned carparking area.
Although the application now provides access solely from Rufous Street, the retail tenancies
within the proposed shopping centre are orientated towards the council owned carparking
area.
Site Description
The subject site is 6,503m? in area and is located on the westerm side of the David Low Way,
approximately 350m from the existing Neighbourhood Centre (Village Square). The site is
relatively flat and is accessible via Rufous Street. The location of the subject site in relation
to its surrounds is shown on the image below:
ie yt a Mia Boo done |
PD hed a Od 8 see EE eat :
' pee Pe eet," a mk re et 3 oT f .
PEIERE Ta c aN ae hoe ee ! |
ek ae Ly de ees is ro 9 ® as pe
P s "> po Ven i >‘ aA ss ir 25% a 5 Je )
Mb e. a . EROS Ce ee ae :
@heihigg bo pect & he kee Sue
ake Fy a % 5m oo je 5 RES! a } )
Neal ithal aati ee eis |
Sie enn i ee
. Se ee be 2] Jin
ead A) wes 7) 2 ; 5 ; ; &
' eF. ’ ate L oselky ty STp ”
J ~~ ; es ae) : 7
DOMMES STs. CR (ts NCR eee Re |
' 7 A Oe er ee
‘p b Peat Ww rhe i &
ST) | ae ene eee
Haars. NAGA Cig ge
ee ae © i th, oi (|
” Ae Le eee, :
: ee ee are - |
PI st Do ae a a Y ; :
: a Toa neh i) ee ee
Na ek, rey es it Pr ]
cares LS LO nol? SEP. Ly
eo, Bs: Ut pare ae |
ete) eS 7 So ; ‘ae - !
on er ee / ET: ae a. hf
2 - ns * o ; es 4 i ry ~ | ‘
See ee EN le ee
7 Fey sy : -, Zee . ri u
: Pie rs) a) en
SS gah! peg ae eS
. : i, Y ' y v , - J '
<r a A . : bee Fa Py ¥ x
Sa ae —————— ee 1! ef ¥ h = 3 Ly 2 =>
eS ala Mae Te Se |
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 63 of 360
Page 23 of 86Section 24
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 24 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
The site has 8 adjoining neighbouring parcels to the north, east and south. Across Rufous
Street to the west is the Di Hurst recreational reserve and residential houses fronting
Woodland Drive. Details about each of the surrounding land uses are described below:
e tothe north is 5 & 7 Woodland Drive, which are both owned by Telstra. These lots
are 608m? & 702m?, and include the Telstra telephone exchange infrastructure within
the existing building at 5 Woodland Drive
e the Peregian Beach Community House is on a 1,208m? lot, and is situated to the
north of the subject site on the corner of Woodland Drive and David Low Way. This
community infrastructure was constructed in 2009 by council
e located to the north east of the site are a 35 car and 8 motor scooter bay grass cell
carpark, situated on a 1,812m? area lot. The site is owned by council and is used as
a carpark for the community centre. Access to the carpark is only available to
northbound traffic along David Low Way
e tothe east of the site is an 18 unit office development, situated on a 2,021m? lot at
247 David Low Way (referred to as the Marquesas Development). Access to the site
is along the southern portion of the site and leads to a carpark at the rear of the
property (adjoining the subject site)
e tothe south east of the site are 7 residential properties (233 — 245 David Low Way),
comprising a mixture of multiple dwelling units and detached houses, which all
access David Low Way
e located to the south of the site are 3 tennis courts and a clubhouse on a 2,806m” lot,
which is used by the Peregian Beach Tennis Club
e across the road from the site is the ‘Di Hurst Oval’ reserve, which is 2.87ha in size
and is a State Government reserve for the purpose of recreation under control of
council as trustee. A carpark is located within the southern portion of the reserve,
with approximately 1,300m? of the site adjoining the carpark improved as gardens
associated with the ‘Peregian Beach Veggie Village’. The majority of the site is a
level and cleared grass area, currently used for formal and informal recreational
pursuits and
e across the road to the north west of the site are residential houses with frontage to
Woodland Drive.
The location of the subject site in relation to The Noosa Plan zoning is shown on the image
below:
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 64 of 360
Page 24 of 86Section 25
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 25 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
fp eo a - |
ee ee ee) eee
: beds TT Ls Maree Cee ate
oN sett) ' i cae mts
ee Ta el ees te. ey aN iy are Sees :
pipe eles] bi) Wh RE ee
ee LT LR RR °
he Bs da pe AN a
be | 4) Ie mathe 7 “= ee) rm ty -
Pal se Ar Cement Servos
_- o 1
— - - F . Cahact en) Peet)
“| * \ ,
'y PM i eptenneng tome \
Bg. ; -
- - “ i 5 a Qe Gpoce Corseraar
a Be" y i : ee
ere
* a a ’ BE owen terns ewes
| an ete Where Lar
- £ 3 ee oe ?
: Ruf «= 7
ASSESSMENT
Framework for Assessment
Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of
the following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the
development:
e State Planning Policies;
e the South East Queensiand Regional Plan;
e State Planning Regulatory Provisions; and
e The Noosa Plan.
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are: discussed in the
sections that follow.
Statutory Instruments — State and Other
State Planning Policies
The relevant State Planning Policies applicable to this application have been deemed by the
Minister for Local Government and Planning as being appropriately reflected in The Noosa
Plan and, therefore, do not warrant a separate assessment.
South East Queensland Regional Plan
The site is located within the Urban Footprint designation of the South East Queensland
Regional Plan. The regional policies in Part D of the Regional Plan are relevant when
assessing a development application. The relevant regional policy relating to the current
application is outlined below:
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 65 of 360
Page 25 of 86Section 26
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 26 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
Desired regional outcome 6 — Strong Communities
- Cohesive, inclusive and healthy communities have a strong sense of identity and
place, and access to a full range of services and facilities that meet diverse
community needs.
6.3.3. Provide adequate and appropriate community green space for outdoor
recreation, built spaces and facilities for recreation and sport, and community
facilities and space to enable community activity and healthier lifestyles.
The proposal is for a retail development on the subject site, which is currently zoned by The
Noosa Plan for Open Space Recreation. Although the 6,503m? sized subject site is privately
owned, the lot has long been used by the Peregian Beach community as a green space for
outdoor recreation purposes.
State Planning Requlatory Provisions
The SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions are applicable to this application. The
proposal is for an urban activity within the Urban Footprint designation of the SEQ Regional
Plan.
Statutory Instruments — Planning Scheme
The applicable planning scheme for the application is The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011). The
subject site is located in the Eastern Beaches Locality and is zoned Open Space Recreation.
This zone is intended to accommodate a variety of passive and active recreational
experiences for the community. The proposed retail and commercial uses in conflict with this
zoning intent are identified as inconsistent uses within the zone, and are required to follow
an impact assessment process.
Local Area Provisions
The Overall Outcomes of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code seek to provide for a wide
range of local retail, commercial and entertainment and dining uses to be located within the
neighbourhood centre to serve the immediate needs of residents and visitors of the locality.
It is intended that the neighbourhood centre provides an informal village-like atmosphere,
with a low key, attractive and safe village square that engenders a ‘sense of place’ and a
public focus for local community interaction and activity.
The proposed development presents obvious conflicts with The Noosa Plan provisions as the
proposed development is not located within, or adjacent to, the existing neighbourhood
centre, being over 350m walking distance from the village centre and on land zoned for Open
Space Recreation. The proposed development would effectively form a second shopping
centre at Peregian Beach and is likely to have adverse impacts on the role and function of
Peregian Beach neighbourhood centre identified as the focal point for the community. The
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 provides that council may only approve the application if
there sufficient grounds despite the conflict and the grounds must be matters of public
interest.
The following discussion topics set out whether the proposal meets The Noosa Plan
provisions and addresses whether there are sufficient grounds for council to approve the
application.
Economic Need
The proposed shopping centre is to be anchored by a 1,100m* IGA supermarket and 800m?
of retail specialties. The applicant describes the type of retail tenancies which will support
the IGA as including a bottle shop, takeaway, newsagency, pharmacy, coffee shop, medical
centre, post office, bakery, bank and travel agency.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 66 of 360
Page 26 of 86Section 27
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 27 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
Many of these specialty tenancies are currently located within the existing Peregian Beach
Village, with a small grocery store (approximately 250m?) servicing Peregian Beach offering
a small range of products. Residents and visitors to the locality would otherwise shop at the
closest supermarket facility within the Peregian Springs Shopping Centre, with additional
supermarket facilities provided in Noosa Junction and Coolum, a 5 minute drive away.
The applicant's Economic Needs Assessment (Foresight Partners, 2013) submits that there
is a ‘clear and significant economic need’ for the use given the trade area’s population of
almost 4,000 persons, and this size population would expect to be supplied by a supermarket
larger than 250m. The applicant's economic report also submits that the impacts on the
existing Peregian Beach Village Square are within acceptable limits, being around 8%.
Norling Business & Property Economic Consultants have reviewed the applicant's report on
behalf of council, and conclude that the report adopts an appropriate methodology in defining
population growth, examining demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the trade
area, projected retail expenditure, and estimating the economic impacts of the proposal
across the competing centre network. The report also defines an appropriate trade area,
apart from the inclusion of Castaways Beach within the trade area population. However,
Norling considers this a minor point, amounting to only 600 persons, and advises this does
not undermine the needs assessment.
Norling Consulting advises that there is some need for the proposed development, in
particular for a small scale supermarket, but this need is tempered by the negative results of
the applicant's community consultation and by the large number of adverse submissions
received. Norling also advises that the level of planning need for the proposed development
should also be tempered by the distance between the subject site and the Peregian Beach
village, which will adversely impact upon shoppers’ convenience levels. These 2 aspects
serve to reduce and undermine the level of need for the proposed shopping centre.
As aresult, Norling Consulting concludes that there is a ‘low to moderate level of need’ for
the proposed development.
In terms of impacts, Norling advises that the proposal will not significantly adversely impact
on the existing centres network but, given there is potential for the movement of tenants from
the village to the proposed centre, considers the proposal’s impacts on the Peregian Beach
village to be between 12% to15%. These impacts may not be considered acceptable by
some of the Peregian Beach village traders, particularly given the population growth is
minimal in the trade. It is also likely that the proposed development, if approved, would
target locals, and some existing tenants in the village would relocate creating additional
vacancies. These vacancies in the village are likely to be taken up by retailers targeting
tourists, given the current trend for this village to attract a higher proportion of retailers aimed
at tourists and supplying the dining and fast food market.
Loss of Open Space Recreational Land
The proposed shopping centre is located within the Open Space Recreation zone, and will
alienate any potential for passive or recreational uses on the 6,503m7? subject site into the
future.
On 7 March 2011, council adopted the Sunshine Coast Open Space Strategy, setting a
framework for ensuring the Open Space needs of the community are met. The strategy
identifies there is a shortfall of Open Space Recreational Land across the coast. The key
strategies and future directions for the Peregian Beach community include:
a) Investigating the development of a local recreational park, and
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 67 of 360
Page 27 of 86Section 28
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 28 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
b) Considering a master plan for Di Hurst Oval to retain the current uses, increase local
recreation park capacity and integration with surrounding community facilities.
Council has recently initiated the consultation and development of a master plan for
developing an activation plan and a long term vision (2014 — 2029) for the Peregian
Recreation and Community Precinct. This master plan is intended to develop a long term
vision for the precinct to guide the future appearances and function of land uses, activities
and infrastructure and includes the subject site, along with other open space and community
zoned land in this area.
The applicant submits that the Strategy and the Master Plan do not consider the large areas
of foreshore available for recreational opportunities. Furthermore, Peregian Beach has a
limited and ageing population, such that future demand for public open space is limited,
negating the need for the use of the site as Open Space Recreational land into the future.
The applicant's submissions are not agreed with, as the foreshore areas within The Noosa
Plan are zoned Open Space Conservation and are reserved for their importance in
contributing a buffer to coastal processes and for passive recreational opportunities. These
areas are not suitable for most types of formal recreational activities. While the coast
generally has an ageing population, this also does not necessarily justify the loss of this land,
with the site’s current zoning providing for a range of organised sport and recreational
activities. Various clubs and groups continue to seek land for recreational pursuits for young
and older residents.
Traffic
The proposed shopping centre will generate significant increases in traffic movement and,
accordingly, has the potential to adversely impact on road safety and nearby residents’
amenity. The entrance to the proposed shopping centre is solely from Rufous Street, which
currently provides access to the Peregian Beach Tennis Club, Community Kindergarten, Di
Hurst Oval and Veggie Village Community Gardens. The formation of Rufous Street
includes no kerb and channel, and is only of a sufficient width to cater for the current traffic
demand.
The applicant includes a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (Pekol Traffic & Transport, 2013)
to support the proposed development. This report provides no details of any upgrading of
Rufous Street and only minor upgrades to the Woodland Drive and David Low Way
intersection, although a subsequent roundabout design was submitted to council on
2 October for this intersection.
Beard Traffic Engineering has reviewed the applicant's report and the subsequent
roundabout design, advising that:
e the development would have unacceptable impacts on traffic operations and traffic
safety at the intersection of Woodlands Drive and David Low Way
e the subsequent roundabout design includes insufficient geometric design details to
determine its feasibility, while sight lines do not appear satisfactory and the crossfalls
across the roundabout are excessive
e notably, a potential roundabout in this location was also previously investigated by the
former Noosa council and it was concluded that a roundabout was not feasible, given
driveway gradients/locations and the potential need for a service lane to be
constructed along David Low Way
e traffic generated by the development proposed would have significant adverse impact
on the amenity of existing residences near the intersection of Rufous Street and
Woodland Drive and
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 68 of 360
Page 28 of 86Section 29
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 29 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
e no details have been proposed of any upgrading of Rufous Street. The development
will almost triple the traffic volumes on this street and exceed the normally adopted
upper limit of 3000 vehicles per day for a residential collector street.
The current design of the shopping centre, with the proposed specialty shops along the
eastern side of the building, is also likely to result in pedestrians and vehicles using the
adjacent council car park fronting David Low Way. No provision has been made for such
access, nor has any allowance been made for the amended traffic generation. The
surrounding community uses would, therefore, have to compete for carparking in the
adjoining council carpark fronting David Low Way, raising additional traffic safety and
concerns.
In terms of car parking numbers, Beard Traffic Engineering recommends that the 100
carparking spaces proposed are sufficient to support a ‘stand-alone’ shopping centre of this
size.
Built Form and Amenity
The subject site adjoins existing residential, community and commercial uses. The applicant
includes a Noise Impact Assessment Report (Renzo Tonn & Ron Rumble, 2013), which
recommends the development include a 3.5m high acoustic wall to the north west edge and
a 2.5m wall to the south eastern edge of the site, so as to minimise potential noise nuisance
from the shopping centre service areas and carpark on adjacent residential properties.
This report also identifies that traffic noise from Woodland Drive and Rufous Street is
expected to increase by 5dBA to 8dBA above current levels after the construction of the
shopping centre. These noise levels are likely to be noticeable for the residents along the
existing residential collector streets and adversely impact on their amenity. The proposed
operating hours of Gam to 9pm 7 days a week, and service vehicles accessing the site would
exacerbate impacts for these residents.
The applicant has orientated the associated retail tenancies to the east opening out to
council's carpark adjacent David Low Way. Council's Urban Design specialist considers the
design as ‘turning its back’ to the Rufous Street frontage, which is not appealing and limits
any opportunities for passive surveillance or activation of Di Hurst oval to the west. This is
undesirable and will form a hard urban edge to a recreation space and the other community
uses along Rufous Street.
The service area of the shopping centre is located along the Rufous Street frontage and
includes a 40m long x 3.5m high acoustic barrier wall to this frontage. The northern fagade
of the building also includes a 37m long x 5.9m high tilt panel wall, which will be visible from
Woodland Drive. Council's urban design specialist advises that the scale of the proposed
design is out of context with the existing buildings adjoining the site, which are generally
smaller individually sited buildings of a domestic scale presenting a fine grain appearance.
The scale and form of the proposed shopping centre is not in keeping with the surrounding
streetscape presentations to David Low Way, Woodland Drive or Rufous Street, and will
have significant adverse amenity impacts on nearby residents.
CONSULTATION
IDAS Referral Agencies
There are no IDAS referral agencies applicable to this application.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 69 of 360
Page 29 of 86Section 30
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 30 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
Internal Referrals
Unitywater
The application was forwarded to Unitywater and their assessment forms part of this report.
Internal Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal council specialists and their
assessment forms part of this report:
e Development Engineer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
e Hydraulics and Water Quality Specialist, Engineering and Environment Assessment
Branch
e Landscape Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch;
e Urban Designer, Planning Assessment Branch
e Environmental Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch;
e Strategic Planner, Strategic Planning Branch and
e Social Planner, Community Planning Branch.
Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 days in accordance with the requirements of the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 881 properly made submissions and 85 not properly made
submissions were received. Only 6 submissions were in support of the application, while the
majority of objecting submissions were local residents to the Peregian Beach area.
The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Inconsistent use in the zone Even though The Noosa Plan was gazetted
- The Noosa Plan is relevant. more than 7 years ago, the document is still
- Peregian Beach Caravan Park approved | relevant, and is reflected in the draft Sunshine
generally in accordance with The Noosa | Coast Planning Scheme retaining many of the
Plan. same zoning and planning provisions for the
- The proposal conflicts with the subject site.
surrounding land uses. - -
- - . . It is agreed that the proposed Regional
- ropes also noon estent wit ne Economic Development Strategy 2013-2033
ral sunsning Coast Panning Scheme. | ide4ntifies that sport and leisure are a key
- Does not align with the Sunshine Coast driver of the economy
Economic Development Strategy, with :
Sport and Leisure identified as being a
key driver of the economy.
Fragmentation of centres The Village square is currently the focal point
- Limited integration. for community interaction in Peregian Beach.
- Competing centres. The proposed development provides no
- Connection is nether short or readily opportunities for integration between the
accessible. subject site and the existing centre, being over
- The Peregian Beach's ‘sense of place’ a 350m walk. The proposed convenience
and human scale of the village is shopping will change the role of the existing
threatened by this application. centre and is likely to adversely impact on the
Village’s ‘sense of place’ being the focal point
for Peregian Beach.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 70 of 360
Page 30 of 86Section 31
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 31 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
Developing Open Space Land for retail | The development will result in a loss of open
- Other developments have increased the | space land, with a general shortage of open
need for Open Space land. space land identified for the coast. This is
- Does not align with the Council endorsed | identified within the Council endorsed Open
Open Space Strategy. Space Strategy 2011 and is being further
- There is a demonstrated need for Open __| investigated through the Master Planning
Space Recreational land in the area. Process. Recommendations from the master
planning process are expected to be finalised
in early 2014.
Economic The applicant includes an Economic Needs
- There is no need for another Assessment (Foresight Partners, 2013) to
supermarket or specialty shops. support the establishment of the proposed
- The Peregian Beach Caravan Park has shopping centre. Norling Business & Property
approval for 387m? of retail floor space, Economic Consultants have independently
with the intention to provide reviewed the applicant's report on behalf of
appropriately sized supermarket to Council and conclude that the report adopts an
adequately meet the needs of the local _| appropriate methodology apart from the
residents. inclusion of Castaways Beach in the trade
- The supermarket in Peregian Beach has _ | area.
not closed down. : ; ; :
- The square already has a range of Norling Consulting estimate the economic
retailers selling milk, bread and impacts of the proposal on the Village Square
convenience items. to be in the range of 12% to 15%. This is
- There are 5 full sized supermarkets mostly due to the potential movement of
within a 10 minute drive, proving there is_ | tenants from the Village Square tothe
an oversupply of supermarkets. proposed centre. These impacts are not likely
Critiques of the Needs Assessment to be acceptable for some traders, given the
- The Foresight Report assumes that minimal population growth in the area.
the proposed clipermarket chopora The proposed shopping center is over 350m
centre, despite that fact that it will not be walk from the village, and this distance is likely
a full- service supermarket. It also to adver sely impact upon shoppers .
assumes that residents do not have convenience levels and shoppers are likely b
other reasons for travelling to Peregian drive between the two centres. This distance
Springs, Coolum or Noosa. significantly tempers the need for the shopping
- The trade area selectad in the needs centre, and detracts from potential planning
assessment is extremely selective rather grounds for the proposal, with other
than presenting the commercial reality. supermarkets within 5 minutes’ drive of
- The Application includes provision for Peregian Beach.
100 car parks which realistically The proposal is also likely to change the role
indicates that the developer envisages —_| 34 function of the existing village and impact
that people will drive rather than walk to - .
on Peregian Beach village square as a
the proposed supermarket. Why would community focal point.
they not drive to the larger existing
supermarkets?
- The report fails to explain the net benefit
or harm to the Peregian Beach economy
of any "escaped" spending. _ This fear
is supported by overwhelming
international evidence of higher
employment and fiscal multipliers
sustained by genuinely local businesses.
Economic Impacts
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 71 of 360
Page 31 of 86Section 32
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 32 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
issues Comments
- The duplication of retail uses would
severely impact the economic viability of
the current traders within Peregian
Village and provide no net economic
benefit.
- The reported job creation of the
proposed development is misleading, as
their will be job losses from the existing
centre.
Application Details There are no grounds for council to insist that
- The Application was Lodged and notified | the applicant renotify the application or relodge
in the name of Multi Span Australia Pty the application, particularly given that
Ltd. It did not include its ACN which itis | development approvals under the Sustainable
mandatorily required to do under the Planning Act 2009 are issued over the land
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the and not to a person or company.
Corporations Act 2001. As such itis not | Notwithstanding this, the applicant provided
a properly made application and its non- | the ACN number for the applicant on the 19
compliance has not been waived by the | August 2013.
assessment manager. In regard to the community survey
- Voted auestons survey were accompanying the application, the majority of
. the responses in the survey was negative
towards the proposal, and is not considered to
support the applicant’s proposed grounds for
approval.
Traffic Beard Traffic Engineering reviewed the
- Proposal does not include any detail applicant's traffic impact report and
about external road upgrades. subsequent roundabout design. Serious
- The applicant has failed to justify the concerns are raised about the safety of the
inevitable increase in danger to existing | surrounding road network to cope with the
motorists, pedestrians and cyclists using | additional traffic associated with the
Rufous Street, Woodland Drive and the development. It is also recognised there are
David Low Way intersection. substantial constraints regarding upgrading
- Traffic lights for upgrading the Woodland _ | the existing network to cater for the increased
Drive and David Low Way intersection traffic volumes. The Noosa Plan Outcomes are
are not acceptable. not supportive of traffic lights to overcome
- Already existing carparking and traffic these issues. The development will also
issues within Rufous Street, with no significantly impact the amenity and increase
upgrades proposed. traffic noise on the existing residential collector
- Woodland Drive was closed so as to streets.
avoid extra traffic from Peregian Springs. | The proposed design of the shopping centre is
- Onsite manoeuvring will not work, with —_| orientated to Council’s carpark, along David
service vehicles proposed to use the Low Way, even though no formal access is
same access road as patrons entering provided. This carpark was constructed by
the carpark and into the incoming traffic Council, using money collected by
to the site. contributions in lieu for carparking
- There is no means of regularly requirements in the Peregian Beach Village
monitoring shop delivery activities and Square, and intended for use by staff of the
would, no doubt, rely solely on nearby village tenancies and parking for the adjacent
residents to report infringements of community facility.
agreed limits. . . .
- Customers will park in the Council The development will create conflicts with the
carpark on David Low Way, which will users of the existing community uses adjacent.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 72 of 360
Page 32 of 86Section 33
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 33 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
reduce the carparking available for
community uses.
- The community carpark was paid out of
contributions in lieu money from the
square over time. Any new development
should be obliged to contribute
disproportionately to carparking.
Built Form The proposed design of the new shopping
- The proposal is a mundane prototype centre is considered ‘out of scale’ with the
development, with poor aesthetic design | surrounding developments and streetscape.
and layout, which is out of character with | The design includes large expanses of blank
the area. walls to its northern boundary and the Rufous
- The proposal will obscure the view from _| Street frontage, effectively turning its back to
David Low Way to the west, substantially | the only street frontage — a poor design
blocking the view to the national park. outcome.
~ The houses along Woodland Drive and The design attempts to maximise its
Cormorant Cres to the north east, as prominence to the David Low Way and limits
well as the adjoining residential houses —_| vegetated views to the Noosa National Park
in the south east will overlook the from this major road. As a result, the proposed
proposed development from their development is not considered to meet the
bedrooms. / design outcomes sought in The Noosa Plan
- The proposal fails to address the Rufous
Street frontage.
- The proposed building has a 50m long
wall and includes 2.5m to 3.5m high
noise barriers, which is not a desirable
solution of The Noosa Plan.
- Di Hurst Oval already suffers from a lack
of passive surveillance and this proposal
serves to entrench this position by the
construction of blank walls along this
facade. This is unacceptable from an
urban design perspective and will impact
on the perceived safety of ad hoc use of
this recreation space.
Amenity The development proposes substantial
- Light pollution on neighbouring acoustic barriers along the north western and
dwellings, with restrictions already south eastern boundaries in order to alleviate
imposed for lighting impacts on the noise emanating from the site. These walls
existing site. affect the aesthetic treatment to the main
- The proposal will affect the amenity and | frontage of the site and provides for no
character of Di Hurst Oval (recreational | surveillance or integration with the adjoining Di
area). Hurst recreational oval to the west.
- Noise from the development (including Council’s Environment Officer comments that
car's and trolleys) will interrupt the appropriate light attenuating measures could
neighbouring Peregian Beach be designed to address residential neighbour's
Kindergarten’s rest times. concems.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 73 of 360
Page 33 of 86Section 34
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 34 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
issues Comments
- Local Environment issues, including specialists, consider that appropriate water
impacts on a small, melaleuca wetland, | treatment could be designed so as not to
crucial to the amenity of Veggie Village | impact on the surrounding environment.
Community Gardens.
Other A Master Planning process is currently being
- Council should compulsorily acquire the _| carried out over the Open Space Recreation
land and Community Service zoned land in the
Peregian Beach area. Recommendations
about these investigations are expected to be
finalised in early 2014.
- The so-called “abandonment” of the land
was as a result of its owners forced
action, not as a result of its would-be
users.
- More appropriate to locate the “= ci “of:
development on the old Caravan Park This site has an existing count approval id
- - - 387m of retail tenancies fronting David Low
site, which would create a logical Way. As part of th | relating to th
extension to the existing village and the ly. AS palt OF tne appeal relating fo ne
capacity to walk between the two. approval, many of the issues which needed to
be overcome related to the integration with the
existing Village Square and achieving an
appropriate built form consistent with Peregian
Beach.
~ The proposal will affect property prices. The proposal will have impacts on the
residential amenity of the neighbouring
properties.
Supportive The applicant's parking only addresses the
- Will alleviate the carparking problem proposal’s likely parking demands.
- No detrimental effects on the commercial
office buildings on David Low Way
- Peregian Square will be encouraged to
have more cafes and restaurants
- Poor opening hours of existing
businesses do not allow any
convenience shopping after driving up
from Brisbane.
DRAFT SUNSHINE COAST PLANNING SCHEME
The site is included in Sport and Recreation zone under the draft planning scheme for the
Sunshine Coast, with the existing village identified as the local centre for Peregian Beach.
The proposal is contrary to the draft planning scheme outcomes sought for the site and the
existing village for Peregian Beach, with no expansion envisaged for the village and the
village continuing to serve only a local role providing for basic convenience needs of
residents and visitors.
It should be noted that on 18 March 2013 council resolved to not include the Noosa Planning
Scheme area in the yet to be finalised Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme due to de-
amalgamation of the Noosa area on 1 January 2014.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 74 of 360
Page 34 of 86Section 35
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
Page 35 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 14 NOVEMBER 2013
CONCLUSION
The proposed shopping centre is an inconsistent use within the Open Space Recreation
Zone of the Eastern Beaches Locality. Section 326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act
2009 seeks that the assessment manager's decision must not conflict with the Planning
Scheme, unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict.
This assessment finds the increased traffic demand created by the proposed shopping
centre presents serious safety concerns to the surrounding road network, with doubts raised
as to the technical feasibility of any road upgrading to resolve the problems. The increased
traffic on the surrounding residential collector streets will also have substantial safety and
noise impacts.
The design of the shopping centre is reliant on utilising an existing carpark along David Low
Way, even though no formal access has been provided by council, creating a conflict with the
existing community uses that use this car parking area. Furthermore, the proposed built form
does not match with the surrounding residential streetscape, including the use of 40m long x
3.5m high acoustic walls presenting as an entrance to the development from the only street
frontage to which the site has access.
While the applicant’s economic report indicates a level of economic need for a convenience
retail development in Peregian Beach, the overwhelming objection to the development
expressed by the community during public notification serves to undermine the level of
planning need for the development. The location of the site is also physically separated by a
350m walk to the Peregian Beach Village Square, which is the community’s existing focal
point for community interaction and commerce. The separation between the 2 locations will
result in 2 centres, operating independently from each other and further reducing the level of
planning need for the proposal.
The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the use of the Open Space Recreational
zoned land is surplus to Peregian Beach’s needs. This development alienates any future
use of the site for sport and recreation purposes, which is contrary to The Noosa Plan,
Sunshine Coast Open Space Strategy and the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme.
It is, therefore, concluded there are insufficient grounds to justify the proposal’s significant
conflicts with The Noosa Plan, and the application is recommended for refusal.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Agenda Page 75 of 360
Page 35 of 86Section 36
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
7 PETITIONS
Nil.
Page 36 of 86
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
7 PETITIONS
Nil.
Page 36 of 86Section 37
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
8 CLOSED SESSION
8.1 CLOSED SESSION ITEM: MASTERS HOME
IMPROVEMENT STORE & SHOWROOM FOR NOOSA BUSINESS CENTRE –
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL (HYDROX) – MCU12/0051
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
File No MCU12/0051
Author Coordinator, Development Assessment
REASON FOR CLOSED SESSION
This report was considered in closed session in accordance with Section 275 (1)(f) of the Local Government
Regulation 2012, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to
starting or defending legal proceedings involving the local government.
Page 37 of 86
Section 38
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 20 JANUARY 2014
9 NEXT MEETING
The next Ordinary Meeting will be held on Thursday, 6 February 2014 in the
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin commencing at 6pm.
10 MEETING CLOSURE
Page 86 of 86