PM Submission Object - Barry Cotterell MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

                                                                                                           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