PM Submission Object - Nell Harvey - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

Subject: Planning objection MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041
From: nell harvey
Date: 2017-04-26T07:00:55+00:00
To: Mailbox Council Mail

Mr Patrick Murphy,

The Assessment Officer,

Noosa Shire Council

[email protected] <mailto:[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.

 

 

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

 

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 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”. 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Chanelle Elizabeth Harvey 

5Tern Street

Peregian Beach

4573

 

 


-- 

Nell Harvey


Tel: 0432 632 913