Original source · versioned page text
PM Submission Object - Barry Cotterell MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: [email protected]
Sent: 22 Apr 2017 16:40:40 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: Objection to MCU16/0153
Attachments: BAC Objection.docx
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 5 pages
Page 2
Unit 2, 1 Shearwater St.,
Peregian Beach Q4573
Postal Address: P.O.Box 275
Peregian Beach Q4573
[email protected]
22 April 2017
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Objection to the Scanlon Group Development Application
215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
Noosa Council could only approve this development application (DA) if they are
prepared to reject the Noosa Plan.
The site is zoned Open Space Recreation and there are no current approvals for
use as anything other than a caravan park.
1. What the developer proposes
What the developer is seeking to build includes:
26 multiple detached houses;
an Hotel with 20 visitor accommodation units and 12 apartments for
multiple and visitor accommodation (i.e. permanent)
2. What the community will get
It will provide another small lot housing development that lacks public amenity
and open space and includes:
very little short-term visitor accommodation; and
no low cost accommodation; and
leaves very little Open Space Recreation; and
very limited access to the land dedicated as a Council Reserve.
3. The requirements for the Open Space Recreation Zone
The Noosa Plan at Division 23 provides Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions
for the Open Space Recreation Zone in Table 7.19 in terms of consistent and
inconsistent uses. Inconsistent use means the use is strongly inappropriate in
the relevant zones because it is incompatible with other uses generally expected
in that zone. (See Noosa Plan page 2.24)
4. The developer does not dispute the DA’s lack of compliance with the
Noosa Plan.
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 3
2
In the DA prepared by Adams & Sparkes, on behalf of the developer, the
following comments appear:
Adams + Sparkes page 38 para 136
5.5.1 Eastern Beached Locality Code 5.5.1.1 Inconsistent Land Use –
Specific Outcome O73 136. The proposed development does not comply
with Specific Outcome O74 of the code, with the proposed Visitor
Accommodation (Type 4) and Multiple Housing (Type 4) not being a
consistent land uses within the Open Space Recreational Zone.
(Highlighting added)
Adams + Sparkes page 41 para 145 states:
5.5.1.2 Building Height – Probable Solution S4.1
“145. The proposed development generally complies with the preferred
maximum building height of 8 metres specified within with code, with all
detached units containing a maximum building height not exceeding 7
metres in height, when considered from the finished ground level. When
considered from the Natural Ground Level, there are a number of roof
forms associated with the detached Multiple Housing Units that
exceed the 8 metre height limit, …(Highlighting added)
Adams + Sparkes page 42 para 151 states:
5.5.1.3 Setbacks – Probable Solution S5.1
151. The proposed development does not comply with Specific
Outcome S5.1 of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code, as the proposed
development does not comply with Council’s preferred setbacks for
development within the Open Space Recreation Zone, where adjoining
land within a residential zone. (Highlighting added)
Adams + Sparkes page 43 para 155 states:
5.5.1.4 Site Cover, Gross Floor Area and Plot Ratio – Specific Outcome O6, O7
and O9
155. It is noted that there is no site cover, gross floor area or plot ratio
limitations for development within the Open Space Recreational Zone.
Despite this, the proposed development does not result in an
overdevelopment of the site, with the proposed development resulting in a
total site cover of 5,463m2 (39%), total GFA of 9,232m2 and 2,663m2
(24%) of the site as planting area. It is noted that these calculations have
been made based on the overall site area once the required land dedication
included in the Court Order approval (Appeal 2587 of 2008) and the
Shopping Centre approval (MCU13/0251) has being excluded.
I note that these “these calculations have been made based on the overall site
area” and ignore the application for reconfiguration which results in 26 small
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 4
3
house lots which range in size from 160 to 248M2. On that basis, site cover,
gross floor area or plot ratio are excessive and non-compliant.
Plot ratio1 means the gross floor area divided by the area of the site. I submit
that, in calculating the Site Cover, Gross Floor Area and Plot Ratio, each of these
26 housing lots need to individually examined and the results calculated.
Adams + Sparkes page 43 para 157 states:
5.5.1.5 Effects of Use – Probable Solution S75.1 and Specific Outcome O76
157. The proposed development does not comply with Probable
Solution S75.1 of the code, as the proposed development is not for a
Caravan Park. (Highlighting added)
158. Despite this, the proposed development complies with Specific Outcome
O75 of the code, as the development provides for low cost accommodation
needs.
5. The lack of Low Cost accommodation
I query where it is proposed to provide this low cost accommodation in the
development when the developer intends to sell the Houses in the housing estate
for more than the documented median house price of $695,000 in the Peregian
Beach area.2
6. A speculative ambit claim
With all of the acknowledged areas where the DA does not comply with the
Noosa Plan, I cannot understand why the developer is putting the Noosa Council
and the community to the time and expense of having to consider what is
obviously a speculative ambit claim.
7. Further non-compliance
Sprout Architects refer to the allowable site coverage as 40 percent under the
Noosa Plan and, therefore, none of these reconfigured lots would comply.
Any DA for Multiple Housing or Detached Housing is an inconsistent use on this
Open Space Recreation zoned site and should be rejected.
The built form of Multiple Housing is another Inconsistent Use.
1 See Noosa Plan page 2.27
2 See Adams + Sparkes page 44 para 160. “Further, it is identified that there is a
significant gap in the residential market within Peregian Beach, which has
resulted in a high median house price of $695,000. It is noted that this is 50%
higher than the median house price for the Local Government Area (LGA) of the
Sunshine Coast, 37% greater than the Gold Coast and 22% greater than the
median for the Brisbane LGA”
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 5
4
I object to the inclusion of both an Hotel and the housing estate in this proposal.
It is essential to retain and protect the Open Space Recreation zoning given by
the Noosa Plan for this site and the access to short-term visitor accommodation
8. Disturbance of the wetland system
The development, if approved, will result in changes to the natural drainage of
the site, disturbance of the wetland system and of the creek which crosses the
site - contrary to the Noosa Plan.
9. The Need for short-term visitor accommodation?
The developer attempts to justify the DA on the basis of need. Urban Economics
mainly concentrates on the supposed need for short-term accommodation that
"caters to the short-break and small travel groups" which clearly does not justify
permanent residential houses.
In the DA Adams + Sparkes page 44 para 159 states:
159. … quoting Urban Economics (Appendix 3), ‘there is a gap in the
provision of short‐term accommodation facilities, other than family holiday
facilities, in the centres of Noosa and Peregian Beach’.
I submit that this does not justify permanent accommodation in the DA.
Giving the DA its most positive spin, it proposes only 31 % short-term visitor
accommodation and 69 % permanent accommodation.
There is a serious disconnect between the Urban Economics Report and this DA.
I urge Council to reject the application, but if perchance it was to approve it, I
urge that the stages be reversed to ensure some short-term visitor
accommodation.
10. Secondary Dwellings in the Reed Beach Houses
I submit that if any approval is granted, the Secondary Dwellings in the Reed
Beach Houses 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.
11. Reflective of development within the semi-attached housing zone or the
attached housing zone
I note and agree with the developer’s Town Planning & Development Consultancy,
Adams + Sparkes admission that “Despite this, it is noted that the proposed
Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units is (sic) highly urban in
nature and is reflective of development within the semi‐attached housing
zone or the attached housing zone rather than the Open Space Recreational
Zone”.
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017
Page 6
5
The proposed Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units are highly
urban in nature and this development is reflective of one within the
semi-attached housing zone or the attached housing zone rather than the Open
Space Recreational Zone and for that reason should be rejected.
12. Land dedicated to Council
Adams + Sparkes fail to point out that the land the developer proposes to again
dedicate land to Council is not suitable for building on as it is wetland and on the
other side of the creek which the developer so carefully has avoided
acknowledging.
How many times can the developer dedicate land to Council in order to be given
an approval without actually assigning it to Council? I also assume that a
significant reason for dedicating this land to Council is to reduce the amount of
rateable land and not for any altruistic reason.
13. Period of Approval
If Council were to approve this DA in any form, I request that the period of
approval be reasonable but as short as possible and that the staging be reversed
to provide for the Hostel to be exclusively for visitor accommodation.
14. Summary
In summary the proposed development significantly conflicts with the Noosa
Plan, for the following reasons:
The DA proposes building on Open Space Recreational zoned land a
development which is totally inconsistent in a multitude of ways with the
Noosa Plan;
The DA raises significant environmental concerns especially with regard
to the watercourse and wetlands;
the proposed development is in serious conflict with multiple
requirements of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code:
The proposed development is not consistent with the reasonable
expectations of residents in the locality, given the Peregian Beach
Caravan site is to primarily provide for budget visitor
accommodation, which is in the public interest;
There are no grounds provided that are sufficient to overcome the
level of conflict identified with the Noosa Plan.
For all of the above reasons I urge Council to uphold the Noosa Plan and refuse
this DA and the application to reconfigure the 1 lot into 29 lots.
Yours Sincerely,
Barry Cotterell
Document Set ID: 20306792
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/04/2017