PB Submission 300813 · MCU13/0092

A Submission in Objection to the Proposed Commercial Development in the Open Space Recreation zoned area of Peregian Beach

To 	The Chief Executive Officer
Sunshine Coast Council
Locked Bag 72
Sunshine Coast Mail Centre, QLD 4560

File No:  MCU13/0092
Name of Applicant: Multispan Australia
Postal Address of Land:  5-7 Rufous street, Peregian Beach.
Proposal:  Integrated shopping complex development

I wish to make a submission on the referenced development application, as follows:

I object to the commercial use of the area zoned Open Space/ Recreation in Peregian Beach and surrounded by consistent use and amenity including Tennis Courts, Community House, Kindergarten, Vege Village and Di Hurst Oval. The shopping complex will adversely affect these current consistent land and community facilities and organisations.

I support upholding the community consultation and spatial planning considerations of the Activity Centres Network outlined in both the Noosa Plan 2006 (DEO Part 3.7) and the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme (2012:49) as the higher order policy direction to maintain the future local economic, social and wellbeing of the Peregian community.

The current zoning for Peregian Beach has curated the very successful diverse and vibrant mix of business, recreation and community.  The integrity of the current planning process and system for the precinct should be celebrated and enhanced to maintain the balance enjoyed by community, business and visitors into the future.

I note that the SCC Open Space Strategy (2011) that clearly identifies that “Peregian Beach locality area is generally unprovided for with recreational parks…” (2011:35).

I highlight the identification of Sport and Leisure in the Sunshine Coast Economic Development Strategy as one of the 11 industry sectors for which an economic development strategy should be prepared to broaden our local economic base and fulfil our local amenity and intent of the Peregian Beach locality (Sport and Active Recreation Plan 2011-2026:9; Noosa Plan 2006; draft SCC Planning Scheme 2012:45).

My final points however are with regards to the references made by the applicant to the independent community consultation undertaken in the form of a survey in March 2013.

E.S 12 (Response to Information Request) refers to “The critical question for the majority of residents of the local community is are they prepared to forego a local supermarket and travel elsewhere for their normal shopping goods” (p6).  The Community Survey did not ask whether you needed or desired to be able to purchase all your shopping needs and groceries etc. in the Peregian Beach precinct – nor did it ask if you were happy taking a 3-5min drive to Coolum/Peregian Springs to do some of your shopping.

Further, the original planning application states

“8.0 COMMUNITY SURVEY

8.1 A Community Survey undertaken in March 2013 found a level of opposition to the proposed development of Lot 94 for the proposal, however, due to the inconsistency of participant responses to various questions it is difficult to establish if the level of opposition was to the commercial development of lot 94 per se, or to the establishment of a convenience Supermarket complex outside the Neighbourhood Centre or anywhere in Peregian Beach, or both.”

All the questions in the survey were ‘closed’ questions (yes or no answers or how many). This discourages discussion and reflection. There was no place in the survey to write a comment.
The people conducting the survey (door to door) explained that only ratepayers, and businesses were able to be surveyed and we were asked for our names, which we could refuse however the number of our house/street was recorded. Note the Community Survey Summary states that residents, ratepayers and businesses were surveyed.  This was made up of 80 residents and 20 Businesses.
The survey did not once acknowledge or make any reference to the site being zoned in both of the old Noosa Plan and the new draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme as a designated Open Space Recreation Zone.
The question of whether the open space recreation zoned site should be used for commercial purposes was not asked.
Another misleading question was with regards to how the Bowls Club/Volleyball courts are an abandoned ‘blighted site’ on the ‘respectable’ landscape of the Peregian Town.  Note- After the contract of sale took place the Beach Volleyball was closed down within a week.

Finally, the inconsistent use of the only figure referred to in E.S 8 of the Information Request - 72% of participants stating that the neighbourhood centre is “highly successful and unique entertainment, dining and social meeting place for local residents and visitors”. This is the only figure used from the community survey (also on pg10) in the Response to Information Request.  It is used as a reason “in part for the future closure of the Friendly Grocer”.  Note the original proposal by the applicant states

11. Although 72% of participants recognise that the Neighbourhood (Village Square) Centre serves an an Entertainment/Dining/Social meeting place, rather than a convenience shopping role, it may be that they do not appreciate that said centre and the proposed complex will likely complement one another, and strengthen the former by retaining weekly/monthly large shops (expenditure) and associated other activities at Peregian Beach.

Attached is a survey undertaken by 3rd year USC Regional and Urban Planning Students, which provides further reference material regarding community attitudes to the Peregian Beach Village Precinct and the current open space recreation area in question.

Submitter details:
Full Name:  Bronwyn Buksh
Address: 14 Gannet Street Peregain Beach, 4573 ph 5448 1569

Signature: not required as electronically submitted