Properly Made submission (object) Kenneth Sleeman - MCU13/0092

Page 2

3.         The Overall Outcomes of the Neighbourhood Centre zone (which forms the existing
commercial centre of Peregian Beach) state that the centre is to be the focal point for the
community. The Outcomes state:

"Neighbourhood Centre Zone       -




i. the Peregian Beach and Sunrise Beach neighbourhood centres form focal
points for the communities providing local shops, offices, restaurants and limited higher order
functions to support the day to day needs of residents and visitors; and
ii Business Uses are of a scale and character consistent with the locality and the commercial
and retail hierarchy of Noosa."


The proposal clearly is in direct conflict with the Outcomes of the Neighbourtlood Centre zone
as it will distend and diffuse the focal
                                       point that is the existing Neighbourhood Centre. The
Neighbourhood Centre is to contain local shops and the proposed shopping complex outside
this zone will detrimentally impact on the centre’s function and will replicate the existing centre.


4. The Overall Outcomes reinforce the maintenance of the Open Space Recreation zone
stating:

"Open Space Recreation Zone- areas of open space contribute to the desired lifestyle of
residents by offering a variety of passive and active recreational experiences that are conducive
to community interaction and wellbeing".


The use of the site for commercial development is in direct conflict with the intent of the
Noosa Plan and the Open Space Recreation zone and the applicant has not
demonstrated any significant community benefit for an additional shopping complex on
the site.


The Sunshine Coast Council adopted the Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation Plan
at   a   Special Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2011    .
                                                         This Strategy clearly identifies that the
Sunshine Coast has a shortage of land for sport and recreation of over 100 hectares.
Further, the Strategy identifies as a short term priority, the investigation of the use of the Bowls
Club site for indoor and outdoor recreation activities. The Strategy also details a number of
existing clubs in the area that are seeking additional land for sporting facilities.

The loss of existing open space zoned land in this locality therefore has a negative impact on
the overall Open Space Strategy as adopted by Council as well as reducing open space land
that has been identified as being needed by the overall community.


5.         The proposed shopping centre is an inconsistent use in the Open Space Recreation
Zone in which the site is contained. The proposal does not meet the outcomes of the Zone
which relate to open space and community uses.


6.         The applicant’s consultants comments that the site is not conducive to recreation as
evidenced by its width and that the site has not been used as a recreational use is again
uninformed and misleading. There is no evidence that the owner of the site has considered
utilization of the site for alternative recreation purposes. Further, in the past, the Peregian Beach
Volleyball Group (The Sandpit) utilised this site successfully and provided great benefit to the
local Peregian community. It cannot be argued that the existing recreation zoned land should be
developed for commercial activities simply because one recreational use has ceased. The
Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation Plan further reinforces the shortage of land for
sport and recreation so any further loss would be significantly detrimental to the community.

J~    Tbe-siteJsJocated.withifl.-a.,precinct that is used for Open Space;-Recreational and
Community purposes including the Peregian Veggie Village, Peregian Tennis Club, Peregian

Page 3

Community Centre, Peregian Kindy and the Di Hurst Oval. All these facilities are well
established and well utilised by the community and the introduction of a pure commercial use
will have a negative impact on this area in terms of community cohesion, traffic, safety,
carparking, noise and growth of community activities.

8.     The Needs Assessment prepared for the proposed shopping centre notes that Peregian
Beach provides the local shopping functions for Peregian Beach, Marcus Beach and Castaways
Beach. The trade area is also indicated as extending north to Castaways Beach.
However, based on local knowledge, it is well known that the trade area does not extend as far
as Castaways Beach, as most of these residents head north to utilise the existing wider range of
commercial facilities at Noosa Junction which includes both Coles and IGA supermarkets.


9.     The Needs Assessment report states that there are no suitably zoned parcels of
sufficient size to accommodate a supermarket. The report fails to recognise the existing
approval at 215 David Low Way (132007.1259.04)which has approval for 387m2 of retail and
306m2 of restaurant plus 70m2 outdoor dining which could easily accommodate a local
supermarket to assist in meeting the needs of the Peregian Beach locality. It is proposed that
this development is scheduled to come online within the next 12- 18 months and further, the
existing convenience store located in the Village is likely to remain in operation into the
foreseeable future.


10.    The Needs Assessment report indicates that the applicant sees a need for a
supermarket to service the Peregian Beach area. The report however does not demonstrate any
need for additional shops nor does it recognise that there is existing floor area available in the
centre which could be utilised for a supermarket.


11.    The Needs Assessment indicates that the proposed shopping centre size is that of
"small neighbourhood centre" and is different to the existing neighbourhood centre due to a
’specialised tenancy mix ’. Claims of a ’specialised mix’ of retail uses differentiating the new
centre from the existing centre are not supported as the actual tenancy mix has not been
finalised and will not be confirmed until the centre is approved and under construction.
All of the proposed retail uses indicated in the Needs Assessment are already well established
within the Peregian Village. From discussions held with the existing operators of these retail
uses, none have any intention of relocating from their current location to the proposed site.
Therefore, the duplication of the proposed retail uses would severely impact the
economic viability of the current traders within the Peregian Village, not to mention
anyone hoping to open a similar business at an additional nearby centre.

12.    The proposed shopping centre is indicated as being a ’convenient central meeting place
for offICe workers and shoppers’ This indicates that the proposal will further undermine
                                  .




the intent of the existing neighbourhood centre which specifically seeks to create a
public place and sense of community.

13.    The Needs Assessment acknowledges that existing shops in the Neighbourhood Centre
will be negatively affected by the development and are likely to close down. The 70 fulltime/part
time/casual jobs are not all new jobs to the area as the report notes that the shopping centre will
employ those people from the existing shops that will close as a result of the proposal. Claims
such as this are incorrect as it cannot predicted that a new centre will employ those
business owners or staff of shops that may close down.


14.    The proposal will negatively impact on the residential amenity of residents in Woodland
Drive and Rufous Street by noise generated by the proposed centre. This is evidenced by the
applicant’s consultant’s noise report which states:
’_.generaJJYJUJI:..a~~essment shows that~ome loadingaGtivities can-potentially exceed the
nominated noise limits.

Page 4

’Traffic noise from David Low Way is expected to increase by approximately 1dBA and for
Woodland Drive and Rufous Street by 5dBA to 7dBA above current levels after the construction
of the shopping centre. The increase ofnoise levels due to the increase in traffic volumes will
likely be noticeable at the residences along Woodland Drive and Rufous Street.

The possible noise control treatment is provision of acoustic upgrades to existing residential
buildings, but it is understood that this option is not feasible. A reduction ofnoise impacts is
                                                                                              ’
expected if an alternate access the shopping centre via the David Low Way is provided.

This noise impact is cannot be overcome by the conditions of approval.


15.      The applicant’s noise report states that all loading and service activities on site are to be
limited to between the hours of 7am to 6pm.This will result in service vehicles and semi-trailers
being forced to share Rufous Street with the existing low key end users of the Di Hurst Oval,
Peregian Veggie Village, Peregian Tennis Club and Peregian Community Kindergarten. These
community and sporting groups will be detrimentally affected by the additional heavy vehicles
and overflow carparking that will occur as a result of the shopping complex


16.      The applicant’s traffic consultants have not indicated the extent of works required to
Rufous Street nor provided any detailed designs on the stated required upgrading of the
Woodland Drive and David Low Way intersection. Therefore the extent of road works and
impacts on the road system is unknown.

17.      The applicant’s traffic consultant’s report notes that properties on the northern side of
Woodland Drive will be negatively affected by the additional traffic generated by the proposed
Shopping Centre. The owners of these sites would not have anticipated the potential delays or
conflicts and therefore the proposal has a significant impact on their amenity.


18.      The traffic impacts on the area will be signifICant for residents in Woodland Drive and
those near the David Low Way intersection. Impacts will include increased heavy vehicles
manouevring and braking which will not be able to be controlled by applying conditions.

19.      Residents in the surrounding area would not have envisaged a commercial use such as
a   shopping centre as being permitted on Open Space zoned land.

20.      The shopping centre will result in the use of the Council carpark on the David Low Way
for carparking associated with the shopping centre as patrons from the south will find it easier to
         carpark. The use of this carpark will reduce the carparking available for
access this

community uses.

21.    The location of the shopping centre on the very edge of the Peregian Township is not
desirable as there is limited vehicular access to the site and very limited integration with the
existing centre can be provided

22.     The applicant’s consultant’s submission that the Eastem Beaches Locality Plan is no
longer applicable is totally wrong. The consultant’s reference to the 1997 Strategic Plan cannot
be accepted as it is no longer in force. This reference is therefore irrelevant and will misinform
and even deceive the general public. The application is to be assessed against the current 2006
Noosa Plan. This 2006 plan was not ’updated’ as claimed by the consultant but is the new
scheme for the whole of the Shire. The consultants attempt to discredit the validity of the
planning documents. Their argument cannot be substantiated and cannot therefore be used as
a sufficient ground for the conflict with the planning scheme.



23.      The reference to specifIC applications as precedence for non-compliance with the

Page 5

planning scheme and undermining of the neighbourhood centre is irrelevant to the point of
misleading as the projects specifically mentioned have been assessed on their own merits.
Specifically, in regards to:

i. Peregian Beach Caravan Park closure and subsequent approval for units and shops.
Comment    -   2006 Noosa Plan indicated that Visitor Accommodation and offices were a
consistent use on this site. This does not undermine the planning scheme.


ii. Closure of Peregian Bowls Club. Comment     -   Closure has nothing to do with Planning Scheme
or Council. There is no   impact on Planning Scheme.

iii. Peregian Beach Hotel   -   Comment   This site was previously a hotel and continues to be a
                                          -




hotel. There is no impact on the validity of the Planning Scheme.


iv. Office development on David Low Way Comment            -
                                                               Offices are a consistent use as defined
by the planning scheme. There is no impact on validity of the Planning Scheme.

v. Closure of supermarket in square      Comment The supermarket is still in operation,
                                          -            -




with no fixed date for closure. Cessation of operation of that supermarket has nothing to do
with the   Planning Scheme nor Council.       There is no impact on the Planning Scheme.


24.     The proposed shopping centre does not fit the Peregian Beach character which states
that development will "be in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape qualities".
The construction of a building which has a 50 metre long wall and incorporates 2.5 to 3 .5 metre
high noise barriers is not a desirable solution and does not fit in with the natural beachside
character desired for the area.


25.     Very limited landscaping is provided across the site which will result in an urban form
which lacks the Peregian character of small scale buildings within a landscaped setting.


26.     The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a critical need for the location of the
use on the site.



Accordingly, I request that Development Application             MCU 13/0092 be refused for the
above   reasons summarised thus:



a.      The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan.


b.      The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a need for the use to be located in the
Open Space Recreation zone.

c.      The proposal is inconsistent with the Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation Plan
which clearly demonstrates a shortage of open space for recreational purposes.


d.      The proposal will result in duplication of the existing neighbourhood centre which will
undermine the character and vision for the area and severely impact the sustainability of the
current Village precinct.


e.      The applicant’s economic report is flawed and does not demonstrate an overriding need
for the shopping complex as there is appropriately zoned and approved land in the locality that
could cater for an appropriately sized supermarket to meet the demands of the locality.


f.      The applicant has not demonstrated that an approval should be granted especially as
there are conflicts..witbJhe-2lanning,scheme.

Page 6

~




    g.      The proposal will detrimentally impact on the surrounding residential areas by means of
    noise and additional traffic which cannot be adequately controlled by any conditions of approval.


    h.      Approval of the proposed use will detrimentally affect the amenity and character of the
    intended recreational and community area and its surrounding residents.




    Yours faithfully,



    ~)J
    Dr Kenneth W Sleeman