Properly Made Submission (object)- Barry Cotterell (1) - MCU12/0023

Page 2

The significance of this application for the addition of Juliette (sic) Balconies,
is that the development further departs from compliance with the Town Plan
and the SCRC’s requirement for low-cost accommodation to be provided as
an alternative to the caravanpark accommodation. It reveals a further attempt
by the developer to negate the SCRC requirements of the Town Plan and for
that reason alone should be rejected.


The addition of Juliette (sic) Balconies will result in noise, which is contained
within the building on the current plans, being transferred outside the building
and contributing further detriment to residents. This adds another reason for
rejecting this application. I object to these balconies on the basis of their
contributing to excessive noise to local residents.

Outdoor dining


SCRC refused the outdoor dining application for noise reasons.


On 4 September 2009, in order to obtain the SCRC’s approval for the
development, the developer conceded that outdoor dining would be
prohibited.

The agreement of 4 September 2009, which was subsequently Court
sanctioned, gave the developer approval for an internal area of 306m2 for
"Entertainment and Dining Business". The prohibition on outdoor dining kept
any noise from this activity indoors.

In this application the developer seeks to obtain approval for an additional
70m2 of outdoor dining (seating 56 persons) including 30m2 (26 persons)
facing David Low Way opposite the home of Mrs Gorrie and other Peregian
residents.


I agree with Mrs Gorrie that the proposed closure of the outdoor dining area
facing David Low Way at 10pm will not be enforced and that the noise from
the outdoor dining area will continue to midnight. The departure of diners from
the restaurant will result in on-going noise beyond 10pm until after midnight
with further detriment to residents.


There is also no suggestion from the developer that there will be no
entertainment and amplified music in the three proposed restaurants.


It is clear that the developer is not offering to do anything to reduce the
additional noise generated by the outdoor dining. Once again it continues to
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.




                                                                                     2

Page 3

   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.


   The noise from the outdoor dining 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).


   Conclusion


   It is not appropriate to look at this application for incremental changes in
   isolation. The SeRe must look at the overall impact of the development.


   The significant changes proposed will result in a development which
   continues to fail to comply with the Town Plan.


   The changes are not in the interests of the Peregian Beach community and I
   object to this incremental erosion of the community’s living standards.

   I request that the SeRe reject both applications and that it uphold its Town
   Plan.


   Yours faithfully,



  ~~~
~afrYCotterell
   B.A., LLB, M.Pub. Admin., Barrister


   Cc      The CEO, Sunshine Coast Regional Council,
           Councillor Russell Green, SCRC
           Ms Kerri Coyle, SCRC
           Mr Graeme Phillips, Legal Services, SCRC




                                                                                    3