Submission MCU 13.0092 · MCU13/0092

Submission objecting to the proposed integrated shopping complex  development at 5-7 Rufous street,  Peregian Beach.
File Ref. MCU 13/0092.  	Applicant:  Multispan Australia.
21/08/2013.
The Assessment Manager,
We wish to make a submission on the above application, objecting to any commercial use of land zoned for open space / recreation.
This would constitute an extraordinary and unjustified conflict with both the Noosa Plan 2006 and the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2012.
Having been advised by the council in an information request on June 18, 2013 that the application "presents a serious conflict with the Noosa Plan", the applicant has clearly failed to support its case to justify this conflict.
The planning conflicts and negative community impacts that remain unaddressed, or inadequately addressed, by the applicant include - but are not limited to:
Erosion of the "open Space Strategies" of the Noosa Plan and those adopted by SCRC.
Demonstrated community need for more open space recreation ignored by the applicant. Community polling and views misrepresented by the applicant. "Overwhelming Community need" for a second retail centre - as defined by the Act - not supported or justified.
Economic impact assessment for the applicant - misleading and narrowly focused.
Misrepresentation of direct access from the site to David Low Way.
Substantial traffic, parking, access, safety and engineering issues remain inadequately addressed.
Applicant's failure to address street frontage and environment issues.

1/. 	Serious conflict with Open Space Strategies and zoning intent, without sufficient justification.
The applicant states, in its response to council on August 1st, 2013, in E.S 6 that "it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Eastern Beaches Locality Plan and Code are no longer applicable" as they have been "overtaken by time and development trends beyond those anticipated by the Plan and Code".
The applicant lists a number of recent developments outside the designated neighbourhood centre as precedence.  In fact, these developments in recent years have increased the need to protect the scarce open space recreation land that remains.  The applicant's circular argument that recent commercial development outside the town centre justifies even more such commercial development and removal of open space is not sustained by fact, law or logic.
2/.	Community views - ignored and misrepresented by the applicant.
A combination of surveys clearly shows the Peregian Beach community individually - as well as business, sporting and residents groups - are overwhelmingly opposed to a significant fracturing of their town's retail centre and amenity and to a loss of public, recreation space.
The community survey conducted in March, 2013 for the applicant claimed its objective "is to gain an impartial and independent assessment of the community's response to the proposed development."    In fact, the survey's wording and methodology make it clear that - as it states on page 5 - "It is also appreciated that the results of the study were to confirm the perceptions of the proponent."
This survey had no statistically acceptable basis and was nothing more than 'push polling' in that it;
Failed to inform participants of the central fact that this application involves a serious conflict with the Town Plan, and that the land is currently zoned for Open Space Recreation.
Presented participants with misleading drawings and diagrams of the site, depicting direct access to David Low Way.
The second section of the survey, using a 5-point 'Likert' scale, included a series of misleading, linked and loaded questions drawn to provoke a desired response ... such as;
(Q6b)"The area of the now defunct Bowls Club area (sic) is becoming an eyesore and diminishes the perception of Peregian Beach as a vibrant, engaging community." and,
(Q6d) "Like it or not, the population in Peregian Beach has grown and this proposed development is more suitable to the amenity and atmosphere of the village than one of the large, major supermarket chains."
Despite the biased wording and methodology, the survey itself (Q6g) still found that 70-percent of respondents agreed the development "would be of little to no value to this community and lead to the demise of current businesses."
The only useful point to be drawn from this poorly presented supporting document is that a vast majority of the community is opposed to the application, despite transparent attempts to skew the results towards the proponent.
Little, if any, weight should be given to the applicant's comments on community views, as they are unsupported by the evidence.
The applicant has not adequately addressed the Act's definition of "overwhelming community need" to justify this conflict with the intent of the zoning for Open Space Recreation.
3/.   Economic impact.
The applicant commissioned an Economic Impact report by Foresight partners, published in February 2013 (D.A. attachment H)   This report contains some fundamental errors and exclusions which undermine its usefulness as a supporting document.
The applicant claims that "the role of the proposed convenience IGA shopping complex is not expected to compete with the traditional centre, nor detract from its role."
However, the Foresight Partners report concedes "A projected $1.9 million in sales is forecast to be redirected to the subject centre from various local retailers."
This is a very substantial slice from the total earnings of retailers in Peregian village, although business owners within the village agree that it underestimates the potential drift, particularly if the Post Office and Pharmacy are attracted to the Rufous street centre.
The applicant's Community Study (D.A. part 10) claimed the new centre was likely to attract several businesses from the Village square, including the Post Office and Pharmacy.  Clearly, there is a conflict in claims that the application will not compete with the traditional centre, and claims made elsewhere by the applicant that it will draw businesses to relocate away from the existing centre.
The applicant stresses its unsubstantiated claim that the proposed centre will "capture" an estimated $10.5 million that currently "escapes" the immediate area.    This figure is meaningless, in that retail dollars spent, for instance, at Coles - Peregian Spings, help to sustain local employment and therefore have not entirely 'escaped'.
The report fails to explain the net benefit or harm to the Peregian Beach economy of any "escaped" spending.   The applicant's frequent stressing of this "escape spending" figure is not only specious, it appears designed to suggest that the Peregian Beach economy will benefit by this amount if the application is approved.  There is no evidence to support this.
In fact, local businesses are concerned about a net loss to the "local" economy by the intervention of a large, national retail operator, even one partially owned by a Sunshine Coast company.  This fear is supported by overwhelming international evidence of higher employment and fiscal multipliers sustained by genuinely local businesses.
Nowhere does the applicant justify its claims that the proposed development will "fill a void" in the Peregian Beach area.
4/.   Misrepresentation of direct access to David Low Way, included in supporting documents such as the Community Study and Economic assessment.
The applicant has failed to comply with Council's request that it amend the architectural plans so that they no longer falsely reflect a pedestrian or driveway access along the site's Eastern boundary with the Community Centre car park at 253 David Low Way.
In doing so, the applicant continues to present a misleading claim in its drawings that there is, in fact,  access via Council-owned land directly to David Low Way and, therefore, more directly linking with the village square.
It should be noted that the community survey, on which the applicant bases its claims about community views on the proposal, misrepresented it as having direct links to David Low Way.  This misrepresentation to survey respondents helped to form the basis of the applicant's claims about perceived community views on the development.
The misrepresentation is carried throughout the applicant's supporting documents.  For instance, the Economic  Report (Needs Assessment) at  4.3.5 states "The proposed centre is located within an easy 200 metre walk from the heart of Peregian Beach with the only supermarket in Peregian Beach (sic) the centre is expected to act as an extension of the Neighbourhood Village Centre."
5/.  Traffic.
The applicant has not, in its traffic impact assessment, taken into account the potential for overflow parking to impact on the amenity of neighbours including the Kindergarten, veggie village and tennis courts, and that removal of parking opportunity along the Rufous street frontage  will severely affect patronage and congestion during the Peregian Originals concerts on Sundays.
The applicant has failed to justify the inevitable increase in danger to pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children, using Rufous street.
6/.  Local Environment issues, including impact on a small, melaleuca wetland, crucial to the amenity of Veggie Village Community Gardens.
The Peregian Beach water table feeds a permanent, natural spring on the Western side of Rufous street opposite the site.  This spring and the small melaleuca wetland that it generates is maintained by Veggie Village community gardens under an agreement with Landcare Australia.
The small creek and wetland is crucial to the existence and well-being of Veggie Village, and would be threatened by significant run-off issues from the proposed development.
The existence of this fragile wetland and its importance in the local area has been ignored in the applicant's plans.
The applicant has failed to comply with Council's request that it provide plans (Request item 14) that clearly indicate the proposed improvements to Rufous street and their effect on drainage and other issues.
It is unacceptable that the significant threat to the natural spring and wetland bordering Rufous street and to the well-being of Veggie Village community gardens has not been addressed by the applicant.
Submitter:
Mr Richard Jay and Ms Gillian Hinsbey.
282 David Low Way, Peregian Beach, Qld., 4573.