Skip to the record
Search everything, all in one place.

Council archive · source document

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

of 3

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

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

Used in these records

About this file

File size
986 KB (small file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

PM Submission Object - John Hare - MCU16_0153 & REC16_0041.pdf · 986 KB (small file)

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.