Original source · versioned page text
PM Submission Object - Mark Sullivan MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: Mark Sullivan
Sent: 20 Apr 2017 20:56:27 +1000
To: Mailbox Council Mail
Subject: Submission in opposition to the Development Application MCU 16/0153 &
REC16/0041
Attachments: CONCERNED-RESIDENTS-OR-COMMUNITY-GROUPS-submission.docx, DEFEND-
THE-INTEGRITY-OF-THE-NOOSA-PLAN-submission.docx, Submission-for-people-concerned-about-
environmental-issues.docx
Kind regards,
Mark Sullivan
4 Tern St
Peregian Beach
4573 QLD
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
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 14 pages
Page 2
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Submission in opposition to the Development Application
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
I write to oppose the approval of the above development application (DA). The
grounds for my opposition are listed below.
1. History
The site, on which this development is proposed, was part of a caravan park
which existed in Peregian Beach from 1964. The current developer excluded
permanent caravan residents from the site and then claimed that the caravan
park was not commercially viable. For this reason, in 2009, the developer sought
approval to build a commercial building on the David Low Way part of the site
and two unit blocks each of 16 apartments and 30 of “beach shacks” behind the
commercial building and the Peregian Beach Hotel. This was agreed to by the
developer and the Council at a mediation.
However, the developer was not satisfied with what he had agreed to and in
2011 went back to the Planning and Environment Court to vary his agreed plans.
The development which the developer had had approved by the Planning and
Environment Court on 24 January 2012 was not economically viable. Apparently
the developer was unable to sell any of the “beach shacks” off the plan and the
proposed mini-supermarket, approved as part of that approval, was physically
non-viable. With no pre-commitment the developer did not proceed.
Subsequently, in 2013 the developer submitted a new development application
(for the area where the commercial building was approved) for a supermarket
and four specialty shops, this time, after discussion with the Peregian Beach
community. This proposal, was supported by PBCAI and the Peregian Beach
community and was approved by Noosa Council on 29 May 2014. It was a
significant improvement on what the developer had previously had approved.
The IGA Supermarket and the four specialty shops (the IGA supermarket
development) which was subsequently built is a positive benefit to Peregian
Beach.
1
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 3
2. The Current Development Application
The balance of the caravan park site, after the IGA supermarket development, is
what the developer is currently seeking approval to develop.
Here it is important to reiterate the written advice to the pre-lodgement meeting
held on 14 December 2016 (between Council and the developer):
The Open Space Recreation zone in Peregian Beach specifically seeks to
protect and retain the site for low cost visitor accommodation needs
reflective of the site’s previous use as a caravan park, but also acknowledges
that a range of visitor accommodation may be provided where integrated
with budget accommodation. There is no support given to permanent
residents on the site.
It is noted that the current approval included only visitor accommodation,
with no permanent resident accommodation proposed. This approved
development was supported by Council through an appeal process as it was
acknowledged that it included low to mid cost visitor accommodation being
a reasonable alternative to the Planning Scheme’s intent to retain the
caravan park.
It is considered the current proposal does not meet the Planning Scheme’s
intent for the site as there is a lack of and a limited range of visitor
accommodation proposed…….
The DA does not reflect this advice.
The other thing to mention here is the Planning and Environment Court
sanctioned approval of 12 February 2010 of the now lapsed DA referred to
above. At item 3 it stated:
The units shall operate in accordance with the defined use of ‘Visitor
accommodation – Type 4 Conventional’ in the Noosa Plan, which provides
for short term visitor accommodation. The units shall not be used for the
purpose of permanent residential accommodation, with the exception of
two manager/caretaker’s units. The Community Management Statement
for any or all Bodies Corporate having control of the development, or any
part thereof, shall incorporate this requirement.”
The DA is totally in conflict with this approval as can be seen below:
The proposal:
Multiple Housing of 3 types – 88 Beds (or Persons)
They are all proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
The Kamala & Marram Houses (in the centre of the ring road) There are
9 of these with 3 bedrooms. (27 persons). Carparking is 9x2. Estimated
price $825K
2
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 4
The Wallum Units (along Rufous Lane). There are 7 of these with 3
bedrooms. (21 persons). Carparking is 5x3 and 2x2. Estimated price
$725-800K
Reed Beach Houses (behind the Hotel) – There are 10 of these with 4
bedrooms upstairs and living down. (40 persons). Carparking is 10x3.
These units will be approximately 6m below the Hotel level. Estimated
price $850K.
Essence Hotel/(Motel) & Conference Centre – 40 beds
The developer proposes to develop and run the hotel with 20 visitor
accommodation rooms and 12 apartments (4 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2
bedroom) which are described as “multiple and visitor”. (40 persons).
The 12 apartments are proposed for PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
The Hotel will apparently employ 15 people (full-time and part-time)
including conference facilitators. The Conference room is small and
apparently will seat 40. 40 Car parks are proposed with all bar 3 (Visitor
parking?) under the Hotel and behind a security gate.
3. Lack of compliance with the Noosa Plan
PBCAI’s Objection to the DA is firstly based on its lack of compliance with the
Noosa Plan Open Space Recreation zone requirements. PBCAI specifically seeks
to protect and retain the site for low cost visitor accommodation reflective of the
site’s previous use as a caravan park.
The Noosa Plan resulted from a community consultation process and was
subsequently approved by the State Government. It should not lightly be ignored
by a developer being granted an approval which significantly conflicts with the
Plan.
In addition here, in order to obtain the Council’s previous approval, although it
should be stated that no attempt was made to get community approval, this same
developer agreed with conditions which kept the then proposed development in
compliance with the Town Plan (See above). Now that developer, six years later
and having done nothing with the approval, proposes another development in
conflict with the Noosa Plan. Once again the developer wants to change the rules
for its financial benefit and not for the benefit of the Peregian Beach community.
This DA proposes only 20 visitor beds in the Hotel/Motel. It does propose a
further 12 apartments designated as “multiple and visitor” which the developer
proposes to make available for permanent residents although whether this on a
lease or sale basis is unknown. All of the 88 beds in the Multiple Housing are
proposed to be for permanent residents contrary to the Noosa Plan and the
previous, now lapsed, approval.
I agree with the comment in the Information Request at page 12 of 13 “the
limited range of visitor accommodation proposed in conjunction with the
3
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 5
primary use of the site for permanent residential living remains a significant
concern.”
This concern is increased by the fact that the commercial building, which the
developer replaced with the IGA supermarket, provided for visitor
accommodation. Now this DA provides for less visitor accommodation on the
entire site than was originally sanctioned by the Planning and Environment
Court approval of 12 February 2010.
I have serious concerns about the density, site cover, gross floor area,
planting area and plot ratio having regard to the limitations in the Specific
Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality (Semi-Attached Housing Zone).
These calculations should be based on a site area which excludes the land
dedication included in the Court Order approval (Appeal 25847 of 2008)
but which does not exclude the land associated with the Shopping Centre
approval.
4. Staging
The Sprout Architects Staging Plan shows that the developer proposes:-
Stage 1 = Multiple Housing of 3 types
Stage 2 = Hotel/Motel
Given, the location of Stage 1 in a swampy area overlooking wetlands, at least 6
metres below and behind the Peregian Beach Hotel to the east and the IGA
supermarket to the south, the developer’s suggested marketing of these houses
at $725,000 to $800,000 must raise real doubts as to whether or not any of these
houses will be built. This is especially the case if the developer requires a 60
percent pre-commitment before commencing construction. Council, of course,
could not consider the proposed pricing of these houses as low cost or budget
accommodation. While this is the developer’s risk, it has a bearing on the
completion of the proposed Stage 2 with the visitor accommodation.
Therefore, the completion of Stage 2, which contains the developer’s limited
commitment to visitor accommodation must be seriously doubted.
I ask that Council consider the sincerity of the developer in providing visitor
accommodation when it is left to Stage 2 and the developer’s record to date of
having built no visitor accommodation since 2009.
5. Disruption to Peregian Village and surrounding areas during
construction if this DA is approved
5.1 Engineering Services Report – Page 5 in Response 2B states:-
“There will be earthworks required to facilitate construction of stormwater
treatment facilities, sanitary drainage and allow for an aesthetically pleasing and
functional built form. There is little opportunity for fill material to be won on site
therefore most of the fill material will need to be imported”.
4
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 6
While the total amount of fill required does not seem to have been identified
Figure 6 “illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the lower area of the site in the
vicinity of the proposed gabion wall” and states that “a fill wall of approximately
2.0m will be required”.
I agree with the comment at page 10 of 13 in the Information Request “that the
extent of filling of the site may need to be reduced.”
COMMENT: The imported fill will all have to come in via Sandpiper Lane and on
the access road to the IGA and the other shops. It will therefore, directly and
significantly affect them and the Hardware store. This will involve considerable
noise and disruption from the source of the fill to the development and return. It
will also cause considerable disruption to the roundabout at the village and to
the Peregian Beach Hotel and other premises in that area.
COMMENT: The importation of fill will result in the creek, which seems to have
been ignored in the DA, being diverted to run through the Council Reserve.
5.2 Engineering Services Report – Page 7 in Response 2B
I querys why water reticulation is proposed down the pedestrian access lane to
the Peregian Beach Sports Ground (Lot 75 on MCH839108) and a
Unity Water meter is proposed at the Peregian Beach Sports Ground boundary
rather than on the developers property
I also querywhy Electricity supply will be provided by “installing underground
infrastructure down the Peregian Sports Reserve access strip” rather than
through the developers property.
I query the contribution the developer will be required to make, if any, to the
rectification of this pedestrian access and the extent of any delay in the lighting
and development of this pedestrian access, which is supposedly underway at
present.
6. Traffic
The DA proposes Carparking & Visitor Carparking of 115 space in total
67 with the Houses & 37 with the Hotel/Motel
4 in the west of the centre of the ring road
4 on the southside of the ring road behind the IGA
3 outside the security gate of the Motel.
This will result in an increase of 115 vehicles by the number of vehicular
movements per day over Sandpiper Lane with a considerable number of these
increasing the use of the Peregian Beach roundabout for vehicles going both
north and south. This will add to the number of vehicular movements per day
over Sandpiper Drive arising from the IGA Supermarket development without
any enhancement of the ability of Sandpiper Lane to cope with the number of
vehicular movements per day.
5
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 7
The David Low traffic at Sandpiper Lane and the Peregian Beach roundabout is
already very heavy and PBCAI questions the ability of this section of David Low
Way to carry such an increase of traffic without creating difficulties.
7. Noise
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the IGA are mounted on the roof
of the IGA store will be a source of noise for the residents of the Hotel/Motel.
There will also be noise from the IGA loading dock.
The air-conditioning and refrigeration plant for the Peregian Beach Hotel are
mounted on the rear of the Hotel. This will be will be a source of noise for the
residents of the Reed Houses who will be 6 metres below the ground level of the
Peregian Beach Hotel.
I consider that the developer should be required to submit a noise mitigation
plan agreed between the Peregian Beach Hotel and the developer with a formal
commitment by each party to implement the plan, prior to any proposed
development being considered by Council. The implementation of the plan is to
be certified by a suitably qualified and independent acoustic consultant. It will be
too late if Council approves the DA and the Peregian Beach Hotel and the
developer cannot reach agreement.
8. The Vista from David Low Way
It appears that the Hotel/Motel will not obscure the vista of the western
mountains from David Low Way. This vista needs to be protected. The
accommodation units will be behind and below the Peregian Beach Hotel by
about 6m and, therefore, will not be visible from David Low Way but it is
important that they do not exceed the height allowed under the Noosa Plan
especially along Rufous Lane.
9. Sprout Architects Site Sections shows a 12m height above natural ground
level especially for Lot 12 which would appear to be grossly excessive.
10. Pathway through the development
It is proposed to provide a public pathway linking Rufous Lane with the IGA and
the Motel and through the Supermarket site to both Sandpiper Lane and David
Low Way (via the lift). This pathway is desirable if the DA is approved.
11. Sprout Architects Ground Floor Hotel – MPR? Meal Preparation Room?
I do not understand why the change from “Motel” to “Hotel” or whether or not
this has any significance.
12. Sprout Architects Reed House Section Analysis
I consider that the amount of solar access and ventilation is limited and
inappropriate according to this analysis. The number of hours of solar access
that these windows and open spaces will receive is not clear. The apparent
inadequacy is caused by the developer’s attempt to maximize the density and
ground coverage of the site.
6
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 8
13. The Reed Beach Houses - secondary dwelling units
While I realize that the developer has provided a physical linkage from each
secondary dwelling to the main dwelling unit, the fact still remains that the
secondary dwelling can be locked off and separately occupied. If this occurs the
secondary dwelling will require a separate carpark which will not be available if
the present DA is approved.
I submit that the secondary dwelling 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.
As stated in the Information Request at page 9 of 13
“The proposed land use is a substantial variation from that which has
previously been approved on the site or is supported under the Open Space
Recreation Zone. As the proposed style of development is more consistent
with that expected to be found within the nearby Semi-Attached Housing
Zone it is considered that the development should be compatible to both the
Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions for the Eastern Beaches Locality
related to the Semi-Attached Housing Zone and the existing built form and
established character within Peregian Beach.
COMMENT: in the my opinion, the design for the Reed Beach Houses is upside
down. The bedrooms should be on the ground floor and the living areas on the
first floor. This would enable the living areas to have greater solar access and, if
the secondary dwelling units are removed, give them the possibility of some
outlook, which is not available with the current design.
14. Building Heights
As a result of the proposed filling of the site both the Multiple Housing dwellings
and Visitor Accommodation/Shared Housing building exceed the preferred
maximum building height. Of particular concern is the height of the Hotel/Motel
building and how this may affect vistas from David Low Way towards the
National Park and Cooroy Mountain. If the DA is approved, Council will need to
specify the height of this building to ensure that the vista is maintained.
15. Relevant period of approval
The first development application by this developer for this site was lodged in
2009. The developer received the first approval for developing accommodation
in 2010. Now in 2017, the developer is seeking another approval to build, not
budget visitor accommodation but, in the main, permanent resident
accommodation. In the intervening years, despite having approval the developer
has not constructed any accommodation units on the site. The developer,
therefore, since 2009, has deprived visitors to Peregian Beach of the low cost
visitor accommodation that the caravan park provided.
7
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 9
If Council were to approve this DA in any form, I request that the period of
approval be reasonable but short and that the staging be reversed to provide for
the Hotel to be exclusively for visitor accommodation with the possible
exception of one or two manager/caretaker’s units. I also request that the
developer be informed that the period of approval will not be extended.
For all of the above reasons I request that Council refuse this DA.
Kind regards,
Mark Sullivan
4 Tern Street
Peregian Beach
4573 QLD
8
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 10
For the attention of:
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Submission in opposition to the Development Application
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
EFFECTIVE PLANNING POINTS THAT DEFEND THE INTREGRITY OF THE NOOSA PLAN
I strongly object to the inclusion of the housing estate in this proposal, but in particular, the lack
of visitor accommodation being provided as required by the Noosa Plan.
The proposed development significantly conflicts with the Noosa Plan for the following reasons:
The proposed development being located within the Open Space Recreation Zone does
not contribute to the desired lifestyle of residents because it does not offer a variety of
passive and active recreational experiences that are conducive to community interaction
and wellbeing;
The proposed development seeks to provide a small lot housing development and, in
particular, Multiple Housing Type 4 – Conventional which is not a consistent use in the
Open Space Recreation Zone;
The proposed development seeks to provide Visitor Accommodation Type 4, but not in
association with Visitor Accommodation Type 2, and therefore is not consistent with the
Open Space Recreation Zone;
The proposed application appears to reflect an incorrect site cover percentage where
some structures have not been included in the calculation. An example of this is the stair
and entry for the Reed Beach Houses (refer pages SD12 and SD23). This is a clear omission
and indicates that either the developer is seeking to misrepresent the proposed site cover
or they have been inaccurate in their calculations by error. In either case the Noosa
Council has an absolute duty to reject the application until all inaccuracies have been
identified and included in the Council’s deliberations on whether this DA should be
accepted.
The proposed development does not protect the Peregian Beach caravan park site for low
cost visitor accommodation;
Visitor Accommodation Type 4 is being proposed on the land, but is not integrated as part
of a caravan park use or other form of budget accommodation;
The proposed buildings and structures are not designed and sited to be attractive,
comfortable and accessible to the public or provide suitable landscape treatments and
amenities, conducive to community interaction and convenience and public safety;
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 11
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;
The Proposed development does not in any way conform to the written advice, cited
below, from the Council to the developer prior to the pre-lodgment meeting held on 14
December 2016 (between Council and the developer):
The Open Space Recreation zone in Peregian Beach specifically seeks to protect and retain
the site for low cost visitor accommodation needs reflective of the site’s previous use as a
caravan park, but also acknowledges that a range of visitor accommodation may be
provided where integrated with budget accommodation. There is no support given to
permanent residents on the site.
It is noted that the current approval included only visitor accommodation, with no
permanent resident accommodation proposed. This approved development was supported
by Council through an appeal process as it was acknowledged that it included low to mid
cost visitor accommodation being a reasonable alternative to the Planning Scheme’s
intent to retain the caravan park.
It is considered the current proposal does not meet the Planning Scheme’s intent for the
site as there is a lack of and a limited range of visitor accommodation proposed…….
The Noosa Council has correctly performed, as reflected in the cited correspondence
above, its role as custodian of what was formerly publicly (ratepayer) owned land by
informing the developer that the DA proposal does not comply with the requirements
requested by the Council in regard to provision of low cost, non-permanent
accommodation. For Noosa Council to now allow the development application would be a
failure of its duty to the Noosa ratepayers.
There are no grounds provided that are sufficient to overcome the level of conflict
identified with the Noosa Plan.
The proposed development application should be refused for the above reasons.
Kind regards,
Mark Sullivan
4 Tern St
Peregian Beach
4573 QLD
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 12
Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]
Dear Mr Murphy,
Objection to the Development Application
MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
The DA makes no mention of any creek or watercourse in the plans. I object to the DA on the
basis that it does not take into account damage to the environment that has already occurred,
nor future negative impacts on the environment. Please review the information below that
supports my concerns. However, from the attached photographs taken on Sunday 16 April
2017, you will see that a creek or watercourse runs through the site.
The building on the left is the IGA Supermarket and the fence is where the proposed access road will enter
the site. The slope behind the IGA is where the Hotel is proposed to be built with the access road passing in
front on the right.
Much of the ground in the foreground is very “springy” from being waterlogged and covered in mulch.
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 13
2
This photo again shows the creek or watercourse to the right of the above photo and some of the many
trees which have been chopped down despite the lapsed approval requiring them to be retained “except
where required to be removed due to building operations”. There have been no building operations.
The following Google Earth aerial photo clearly shows the creek/watercourse running through
the site behind the IGA supermarket where the developer plans to build the Hotel and the
access road to the housing development is proposed to go farther to the west where the
creek/watercourse runs.
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 14
3
Division 14 – Overall outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality at 7.10 states:-
“Environment and cultural heritage values
O10 There are no significant adverse effects on biodiversity, natural vegetation
etc…including those related to-
a) changes to natural drainage;
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017
Page 15
4
b) …
c) disturbance of the …wetland system;
d) …
The Covey Associates Pty Ltd Engineering Services Report of March 2017 states:
“The interface with the western boundary to the Council reserve will require approximately 2.0m
of fill to be placed. It is proposed that a rock filled gabion wall is constructed along this boundary
to retain the fill material. The proposed retaining structure would be subject to Geotechnical
investigation and advice to determine an appropriate design. The photograph below (Figure 6),
illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the lower area of the site in the vicinity of the proposed gabion
wall.
Along the southern boundary with the Noosa National Park, a ‘fill’ wall of approximately 2.0m
will be required. These walls will most likely be of a concrete sleeper, or similar, construction. This
would continue the existing wall in-situ.
Along the northern boundary, ‘fill’ walls of approximately 1.5m height will be required. These
walls will most likely be of a concrete sleeper, or similar, construction.”
While the Report speaks of the ‘Swampy’ nature of the area it does not refer to the creek or
watercourse. Likewise, it does not refer to the fact that the gabion wall will be on the bank of or
in the bed of the creek requiring footings to suit.
The development will result in changes to the natural drainage of the site and disturbance of
the wetland system contrary to the Noosa Plan. I submit that Noosa Council should refuse
approval to develop under these circumstances.
The developer should now be requested to provide a detailed survey of the site showing the
location of the creek/watercourse in relation to the site boundaries and the proposed location
of the Wallum Houses numbers 10 to 13. The developer should also be required to provide
plans and appropriate expert advice on what is proposed in regard to the creek/watercourse.
Perusal of the latest version of the DA shows that the applicant did not tick the box (Item 7)
indicating that there is a watercourse in the site. There is a watercourse on the site and this is
plainly misleading. Noosa Council must clarify why the applicant did not indicate the true
situation and cannot grant approval for the DA until this question has been answered and the
implications of the fact that there is a watercourse have been fully resolved. The DA covers a
site that abuts directly onto a Noosa National Parks National Park and this is a serious issue.
Until this information is provided neither the Council nor the community are in a position to
assess the development and can only oppose it.
Kind regards,
Mark Sullivan
4 Tern St
Peregian Beach
4573 QLD
Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017