Council archive · source document
Properly Made Submission (object) - Ron Gooch, Peregian Beach Community Association Inc - MCU12/0023
liijiiiiiji W
80486090
.
,_"
;
"
Peregian Beach Community Association Inc. ~~
r
P.O. Box 312, t.
f
Peregian Beach Qld 4573 ~
13 May 2012
f,
.’
;~\..
The Assessment Manager, ,.
-......
. -.’ ..~ _. ..~
:/*’!.:
Sunshine Coast Regional Council, ?E:,’s.wa. .;;.",aci:
Locked Bag 72, ";’’iJf’!"~:r,w,it! A~S’-:<:l~::-_to.! ifj_"’:
Sunshine Coast MC Qld 4560
Dear Sir/Madam,
Scanlon Property Group Pty Ltd Application MCU 12/0023
Peregian Beach Caravan Park
At a meeting of the Association held on 13 May 2012 the following motion was passed
unanimously:
"That the Peregian Beach Community Association Inc advise the Assessment
Manager, the CEO, the Mayor and the Councillors of the Sunshine Coast Regional
Council (SCRC)that the SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP application for a Material
Change of Use (MCU12/0023)involving the redevelopment of the Peregian Beach
Caravan Park at 215-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach should be rejected.
The Court Order of 12 February 2010 reflects an agreement between the SCANLON
PROPERTY GROUP and the SCRC which should not be varied."
Background IRoxQ.b\h.\.R
~-_.
~ ~
The Association considers that this Application is a continuation of the developer’s attempts
to satisfy its initial ambit claim, which was contrary to the Town Plan, and proof that it
considers the wishes of the community and the Court sanctioned agreement, as irrelevant.
The area was zoned for low cost accommodation -
namely a caravan park. As such it had a
low impact on the rest of the Peregian Beach community.
After the developer’s appeal to the Planning and Environment Court from the SCRC’s initial
rejection of the application, the SCRC entered into a mediation agreement with the
developer which attempted to maintain the essence of the Town Plan while at the same
time approving the development.
The development approval provided for low cost budget accommodation in the form of
hostel accommodation with 68 bunk beds in 12 dormitory rooms.
In December 2011, without any start on construction, the developer applied to the Court to
have the development approval varied and part of this application was approved by the
Court in February 2012, without SCRC objection or community knowledge.
,,~"’\
’~;.. 1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
The approved development now provides for 14 ensuite motel style units rather than the
approved 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 which was subsequently sanctioned by
the Court.
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 SeRe’s
requirement for low-cost accommodation to be provided as an alternative to the caravan
park accommodation. It reveals a further attempt by the developer to negate the SeRe
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.
Outdoor dining
SCRC opposed the outdoor dining for noise reasons.
On 4 September 2009, in order to obtain the SeRe’s approval, the developer willingly
conceded that outdoor dining would be prohibited.
This agreement allowed the developer to obtain 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 70m2 of outdoor dining
(seating 56 persons) including 30m2 (26persons) facing David Low Way opposite the
home of Mrs Gorrie and other residents.
The Association agrees 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 12 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 proposed. Once again it ignores 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
2
Page 3
home. Outdoor dining at these 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).
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 which does not comply with the
Town Plan.
The Association considers that the significant changes proposed will result in a
development which fails to comply with the Town Plan. The changes are not in the interests
of the Peregian Beach community and the Association objects to this incremental erosion of
the community’s living standards.
The Association requests the SeRe to reject both applications and to uphold its Town Plan.
Yours faithfully,
R. Gooch
Secretary
~~~
Cc The CEO, Sunshine Coast Regional Council,
Councillor Russell Green, SCRC
Ms Kerri Coyle, SCRC
Mr Graeme Phillips, Legal Services, SCRC
3
Used in these records
Properly Made Submission (object) - Ron Gooch, Peregian Beach Community Association Inc - MCU12/0023Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 1.9 MB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.