MCU12/0023 Notice of Submission Susan Francis

           I
I,..   .




               ignore the detrimental effects on the residents of the area.

               Residents are already adversely affected by noise from the adjacent Peregian
               Beach Hotel with noise emanating from within the hotel and from patrons
               leaving the hotel on their way home. Outdoor dining at the proposed 3
               restaurants will increase the noise problem. The increased numbers of diners
               will also increase the noise of patrons coming and going.


               The Noise Issue


               The noise levels were taken by MWA on the night of Tuesday 31 January
               2012 between 6.15pm and 10.05pm. The level of noise, which will originate
               from the balconies and restaurants of this development, will be a different type
               of noise & higher pitched than the ambient noise measured by MWA. The
               amenity here is already affected by hotel noise and this noise will add to the
               detriment. As people consume more alcohol they tend to get noisier and shout
               over one another to be heard.



               Residents chose to live at Peregian Beach by the sea because they enjoy the
               sound of the surf. Those that live on David Low Way were prepared for the
               sound of traffic. The caravan park was a low noise environment and was
               down the slope from the road. By contrast, the proposed retail and restaurant
               development is raised above the road level and will have a noticeable
               detriment to residents in terms of noise.


               Unlike the low pitched constant low level noise from the surf, the noise from
               the restaurants will be of 56 diners talking, laughing and shouting and from
               clattering of plates/cutlery and glassware and will be of a higher pitch than
               "background noise". MWA does not appear to have considered this but for an
               unexplained reason, simply added 5dB(A).

               The proposed addition of Juliette (sic)Balconies


               The revised lay-out the developer had approved by the Court in February
               2012, without SCRC objection or community knowledge, now provides for 14
               ensuite motel style units rather than the agreed back-packer or hostel units
               with bunk beds referred to previously by the developer as "flash-packer"
               accommodation.


               The change from bunk beds to more up-market, and consequently more
               expensive, accommodation is a significant variation from the development
               approval, which followed from the mediated agreement of 4 September 2009,
               and which was subsequently sanctioned by the Court.


               The application for the addition of Juliette Balconies, reveals a further attempt
               to negate the SCRC’s requirement for low-cost accommodation to be
               provided as an alternative to the caravan park accommodation.

               However, I object to these balconies on the basis of their contributing to
               excessive noise to local residents.



                                                                                               2