PM Submission Object - John Hare - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

Page 2

                                                                    2 Callitris Crescer
                                                                        Marcus Beacl
                                                                               QLD 457I

24 April2017



Patrick Murphy
The Assessnnemt   Ofur
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]



Dear Mr Murphy

            Obiection to the Scanlon Grcup Developrnent Application
                           HCU 16ftl15:l & REC l6tul'tl

I am a permanent resident of Marcus Beach and am writing to object to the
devekrpment application (DA) made by tfie Scanlon Group for a &velopment at
Peregian Beach-

My primary obiection is to the scale and density of the proposed development- The
proposal is not in keeping with the cornmunity's expeciations that Peregian Beach
remain a foillage'community atbactive to resilents. visitors ard boutique shoppers
ard those krokrrog fior asn array d fffiffiafrty esfiab,listmaerxb"

While lappreciate that The New Noosa Plan-Discussion Paper is, just a "discussion
papef" nevertheless the Scanlon propmal seems at odds with frre sentiments
e)pressed in the discrssion docrrrnent The discnsskrn paper" for exannpb"
                 *residents
recognises tfiat            ryreciab the quid pockets'' ard recognrsm &at flte Mleil{
defined settlement pattern "owes much to community efforts to prevent inappropriate
developmenf. With specific referene to Peregian Sprirgs, the discussion paper
            *Maintenanoe
states that                of fie low rise" lm key village ahnosphere with opporfunrty
for informal mnxnunlty enrents ard IncidentaE gaererings As forryortarut"-

The local community is not anti development as evidenced by the strong community
input to the improvement of comqunity infrastructnre and the facilitation of d$ital
economy in spams around RLdous Sfreef- The prmerval*rn of the vilhge
aEnosphere b irnportant.

The discussion paper also acknowledges that there is little capacity for growth in the
coastal mmmunitie and littb charrye is songht by res*lents- The discussion paper
furffpr states tmt wiE furffter groulfrr anticipabd sffith d Peregian Beach it will be
innportant to retain the lov rise 5orr dansi{y {rny enphmis) informal village
atmosphere despite increasing number of visitors.

Page 3

I make reference to these observations as the Scanlon proposal appears to run
counter to these aspirations-

Specificalty:

        It appears that this application contravenes the curent Noosa Plan and will
       destroy the cunent point of differene that Peregian Beach ofiers to both
        resklents ard to visitors- The carayan park arnenfty whic;fi was the real
       esserroe of Pereghn village wilf be replad by r"rrban density of an
        inappropriate level. The accommodation proposdd is completely out of
        character with tte local environment
       Msitor accornmodation. *'hictr I thor.lght was to be fte ssence of any
        proposd dene@rercmt, appears nw to be only a srnaltr proeortiori of ffiie
        development. The provision of low cost housing to meet the needs of the
        Peregian mmmunity and the wider Noosa community appears to have given
       way to housirg in the $725.m0 to $850"0fi) range- Hardly knr cost! Low cmt
       housirrydanenilbs ftat nrcet tre rrce*s of mnpers ard recrstional vehides
       is a mucfi more acceptabb solution, allowing v*sitors to erperbnce the
       quintessentia! beach side holiday.
       The proposed developrnent uouH cornprornbe the aesthetics and planned
       developrneflt of fte Rubus Sfee{ cunmunity hr6..
        Parking b already a srgnificant isue at Perqia* Eeacfr- Tlle Scantrn
       proposal does little to alleviate the situation and is likely instead to exacerbate
       rt. 1M private car parks are provided for within the permarrent reskJences and
       secure parking under the hoteUmdel- There appear to be only 11 ar parks
       fion yisitors" Thb wr? cater for tfie proeosd preci&cils- lnadeq{rab parkirry
       will lead to even more competition for parking. An already dinncuft situation will
       be even worse.

ln conclusion" this proposal conflids wiB! the ornmuniS ralues of all those rfirtlo
have chmen to lle in Peregian Beach arxC dose bcafilies- Livirq at htarcr.rs El#r,
Peregian Beach is very much the low impact village servicing the needs of my, and
surrounding, klcalitbs- Whib sqne development of the area b recognised, it needs
to reflect ttrc vilhge Teel'that cunenfiy exisb

Yours sincerely




     i
      NW
            -'-
John Hare