Council archive · source document
Response to Information Request 5-7 Rufous Street Peregian Beach MCU13/0092
Very large file (12.8 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
l l ~l~mijl~ fI!I~I~I~I~ lr .
X0040S07
X0017894 t~~y
Council’s Ref: MCU13/0092
Our Ref: 11078 15205gd.gd
DFS GROUP
CS 01’33 INTEGRITY’EXCELlENCE’SUCCESS
fjY)
1 August 2013
x ~J^~)4-\OK. ....20.. LEVEL 6
57THE ESPLANADE
mCu\3 COQZ COTTON TREE
PO BOX 605
The Chief Executive Officer MAROOCHYDORE
QLD 4558
Sunshine Coast Council
T 07 5443 5566
Locked Bag 72
F 07 5443 9977
Sunshine Coast Mail Centre
[email protected]
Qld 4560 dfsgroup.com.au
Attention: Jack Lewis
Dear Sir,
Response to Information Request
Proposed Material Change of Use of Premises (Entertainment and
dining Type 1 Food & beverages, Commercial Type 1 Office and
Retail business Type 2 Shop & Salon) located at 5-7 Rufous Street
Peregian Beach
Introduction:
Following is our (the applicant) response to Council’s
client’s
Information Request issued by letter dated 3rd June 2013. Please
note that this response is made pursuant to the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009, wherein the applicant is responding by giving
"all of the information requested..."
In an attempt to assist the general community in its evaluation of
the development application and its associated town planning
report we have produced an Executive Summary below which
outlines what we consider are the most relevant aspects of the
application.
Executive Summary
E. S 1 Multi Span Australia Group is proposing a Convenience Retail
Centre development comprising a 1,1 00m2 gfa IGA Store and
750m,2 gfa of Specialty Shops (defined in the Noosa Plan as
’Retail business Type 2 Shop & Salon’ and ’Entertainment and
dining business Type 1 Food & beverages", and ’Commercial TOWN PLANNING
business Type 1 Office’) on the abandoned Peregian Beach
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LIQUOR LICENSING
ENVIRONMENTAL
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 18 pages
Page 2
~
~1t
Bowls Club site legally described as lot 94 SP137431 Rufous
Street Peregian Beach ,
which is located about 250metres
north -west of the traditional Peregian Beach Neighbourhood
(Village Square) Centre with the existing 2 storey ’Marquesas’
commercial development adjacent to the site and between it
and the Neighbourhood Centre.
E.S 2 The Peregian Bowls Club site is privately owned and is included
in the Open Space Recreation zone, a legacy of its original
tenure as Crown land and ownership by TM Burke Pty Ltd
(Development Lease), and thence more recently the Peregian
Beach Bowls Club (till about 2006) who approached the Pine
Rivers Memorial Bowls Club in about 2004 seeking assistance
because the Club had been allegedly trading insolvent and
unable to pay their debts before it finally was sold to the
PRMBC in 2006 and a 10 year lease back arrangement entered
into. Notwithstanding a number of assistance initiatives by the
PRMBC it again became apparent that the Peregian Bowls
Club would be trading insolvent and unable to meet its debts
and it was placed in the hands of a Liquidator.
E.S 3 The proposed IGA Store is intended to be operated by Michael
and Roselyn White of the White IGA Group, local Sunshine
Coast residents who have the IGA store at BIi BIi ,
Mt Coolum
and Mooloolah. They intend offering amongst the normal
range of goods the following produce from the Store:
organic products,
.
.
vegan products,
.seafood,
.a full delicatessen range of continental & gourmet &
speciality lines,
.a full range of meat,
.locally sourced fresh and local produce
,along with:
a loyalty program for customers and the community,
.
a Community Chest Program,
.
an E-Catalogue/Direct catalogue offer,
.
.an on-line shopping option,
friendly, easy and convenient shopping, and
.
.a business which will be locally owned and operated
providing up to 80 new fulltime and part-time jobs.
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 2
Page 3
..
U
tt>~
E.S 4 The mix of Speciality Shops is still in the pre-commitment stage,
however, interest has been shown from the following range of
tenants, some of which exist in the traditional Village Square
but who wish to expand/modernise:
1. Bottle Shop,
2. Noodle Bar,
3. Newsagency,
4. Pharmacy,
5. Coffee Shop,
6. Medical Centre,
7. Australia Post,
8. Bakery,
9. Bank, and
10.Travel Agent.
E.S 5 The Noosa Plan’s Eastern Beaches Locality Code’s overall
"
outcome for Peregian Beach is, inter alia, a wide range (our
emphasis) of local Retail, Commercial and Entertainment and
Dining Uses within the neighbourhood centre serve the
immediate needs of residents and visitors of the locality", and
"For the 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".
Section 7.7 of the Code states that "Development complies
with the Eastern Beaches Locality Code if it-
7.7.1 fulfils the specific outcomes for the locality in Division 15;
and
7.7.2 is a consistent use and fulfils the specific outcomes for
the relevant zones (Divisions 16 to 24)"
The proposed development complies with the specific
outcomes of Division 15, however, it does not comply with
Division 1 6 as the proposed development uses are inconsistent
with the preferred uses for the Open Space Recreation Zone.
E.S 6 It would seem reasonable to conclude that the Eastern
Beaches Locality Plan and Code are no longer applicable, as
withthe passage of time and events since it initially
commenced in 1997 and subsequently updated in February
2006 (7 years ago), it has been overtaken by time and
development trends beyond those anticipated by the Plan
and Code, as evidenced by:
the closure of the Peregian Beach Caravan Park
.
and its proposed replacement by the P & E Court
approved ’Scanlon’ mixed use development not -
yet established;
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 3
Page 4
~
~!t
. the closure and abandonment of the Peregian
Bowls Club in about 2010;
. the establishment of thePeregian Beach Tavern
on the western side of the David Low Way
opposite the neighbourhood centre;
. the establishment of the mixed commercial use
development on the north side of Heron Street
opposite the neighbourhood centre;
. the establishment of the commercial "Marquesas"
development on the western side of the David
Low Way immediately adjacent to the
abandoned Bowls Club site; and
. the more recent approval for the closure of the
Friendly Grocer premises in the neighbourhood
centre and its conversion to a Restaurant and
market stall type development at ground level
with offices above.
All of these developments are outside the designated
neighbourhood centre zone.
E.S 7 Whilst the Character Statement narrative for Peregian Beach
at the beginning of the Eastern Beaches Locality Plan states,
inter alia, "Peregian Beach in the south serves a significant role
in providing local convenience shopping, (our emphasis)
business and community services", close examination of the
patronage and function of the Village Square (neighbourhood
centre) indicates that the local convenience shopping facilities
are limited (relatively insignificant), and certainly not providing
a ’wide range of local retail uses’, particularly once the
Friendly Grocer premise is re-developed.
E.S 8 The actual function of the neighbourhood centre is clearly that
of a highly successful and relatively unique entertainment,
dining and social meeting place for local residents and visitors,
a fact confirmed by 72 % of local residents in response to a
recent independent Survey This in fact may be part of the
.
reason for the proposed closure of the Friendly Grocer and its
replacement by a Restaurant and small market stalls in that the
owner of the premise is aware that the neighbourhood village
centre functions as an entertainment/dining/social centre and
not as a true convenience shopping centre.
E.S 9 In relation to the establishment of commercial developments
outside designated town and village centres the following
Planning & Environment Court determinations are of relevance,
namely:
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 4
Page 5
.~
~
t&1t
’If "edge of centre" development is to be tolerated, and if
there are no other suitable and available sites within the zoned
Local Centre, an edge-of-centre site is preferred to a more
remote location"
"Taking 1000 or so local people to be opposed (out of 7,500),
we are still far from a majority. Even if the majority of the
opponents be taken to hold a strong view that there is no
need for the proposal (in opposition to the economic experts)
we are far short of having a community view established that
there is no need the situation must be that the weight of
numbers, whilst not ignored, cannot prevail."
"What is more important than numbers alone is the validity of
the contents of the submissions"
"It is not a proper function of the court to act with a view to
preserving the status quo, to restrict the introduction of
competition, etc. Its proper function is to assess the merits of
the development proposal and whether conflicts with the
planning scheme must defeat it or can become overcome by
sufficient grounds.
The proposal results in economic and community benefit
overall and would go so far as to hold that the "need"satisfied
is "overwhelming".
(Source: BD 2747 of 2008 which dealt with the re-Iocation and
expansion of an existing IGA Store at Mt Tamborine)
An additional point of interest given that sectors of the
Peregian Beach community are likely to be opposed to the
alienation of a perceived community recreational site (albeit
privately owned) is that the P & E Court also takes the view that
’the meaning of "overwhelming community need" will vary
enormously from case to case, and when as here, the need to
be satisfied involves the daily essentials of ordinary life, the bar
should not be set too high.’
(Source:BD 1490 of 2007 Parmac Investments Pty Ltd v BCC)
E.S lOAn economic "Needs Assessment" report by Foresight Partners
(2013) found that "there is a clear and significant economic
and community need for the proposed neighbourhood
centre", and that "more than $10.5m (85%) is expected to be
recaptured of spending currently escaping from Peregian
Beach" during the first year of full trading (2015),and "the lack
of supermarkets indicates a clear void in the existing retail
provision", and "impacts are unlikely to adversely affect the
vitality and viability of any existing supermarkets or retail
centres and initial impacts will be ameliorated by continuing
market growth";
E.S 11 Peter Sharpe who when working for TM Burke in the 1960’s was
responsible for the establishment of the Bowls Club concept, in
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 5
Page 6
"
~
t&1t
his 2007 publication"Up Rose An Emu" observed that
"Additional licensed premises, the growth and expansion of
the Surf Club, a drop in patronage, and the overall interest in
other community facilities by the general public may well see
its (The Peregian Beach Bowls Club) demise" how prophetic -
this may turn out to be.
E.S 12 The critical question for the majority of residents of the local
community is are they prepared to forego a local supermarket
(and accept that considerable escape expenditure will leave
the Peregian Beach community) and travel to Peregian
Springs/Coolum Beach/Noosa Junction and elsewhere for their
normal daily and weekly convenience goods, and if not, is the
proposal’s conflict with the Noosa Plan provisions so major that
there are not sufficient grounds to justify approval, despite the
conflict. Such questions grow in significance with the ageing of
the local community, increased fuel costs, and the need to
ensure that needs of future generations of Peregian Beach are
not overlooked.
Information request response
Each issue (and heading) itemised by Council has been provided
below in the same sequence as Council’s Information Request,
with the applicant’s response provided underneath each issue.
As part of this response four (4) amended drawings by Cater Hood
Architects are included at Attachment A. The four plans are listed
in the Table below.
Drawing Number Description
7044-0 dated 02 AUG 13/DA SITE PLAN
7044-0 dated 02 AUG 13/DA GROUND FLOOR PLAN
7044-0 dated 02 AUG 13/DA BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND
SECTION
7044-0 dated 02 AUG 13/DA BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PRELIMINARY ADVICE
Whist the Planning advice from the Pre-lodgement Meeting did
refer to serious conflict, because speciality shops are an
a
inconsistent use in the Noosa Plan’s Open Space Recreation zone,
our subsequent site and locality specific research and detailed
town planning analysis which forms part of our town planning
report, found that the conflict is not considered serious, for the
reasons provided at Section 1.0 (pages 5 and 6) and Section 9.0 of
our town planning report.
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 6
Page 7
.,
~
t&!t
This assessment is not dissimilar to that determined by the Planning
& Environment Court in the Scanlon Appeal which also involved
retail shopping facilities in the Open Space Recreation zone of the
nearby Peregian Beach Caravan Park site.
Further there are myriad of Planning and Environment Court
a
determinations that accept that notwithstanding a conflict with
the planning scheme, that in many circumstances, there are
sufficient grounds to grant approval notwithstanding a conflict.
Most recently this was the outcome in the Mackay Shopping
Centre Pty Ltd A.C.N 140 014 875 as Trustee for the MSC Unit Trust
.v. Mackay Regional Council and Parkside Development Pty Ltd
A.C.N 009 802 233 (1786/2012) which involved, inter alia, a 1650m2
"full line" IGA supermarket and speciality shops, and where the
Court recognised ’a clear conflict with the planning scheme’ and
determined that the proposal should be approved.
PLANNING
Open Space Network
J. Provide evidence justification that the Open Space
and
Recreation zoned land is not required for current and future
open space recreation/community uses
Representations:
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. Di Hurst Oval and neighbouring lands to the south and south-
east are included in the Open Space Recreation zone and
are largely in public ownership with the Di Hurst Oval
complex capable of accommodating additional
recreation/community activities, particularly in the southern
portion of the Reserve. Much of the area appears as grassed
areas with no formal designation for public recreation uses;
2. By contemporary standards the Di Hurst Oval is under-
developed and under-utilised;
3. Council’s 2011 adopted Sunshine Open Space Strategy
report does not identify the subject Peregian Bowls Club site
as a desirable site for any form of public recreational
(passive or active) uses;
4. As with many Coastal communities the Beach and foreshore
areas offer considerable opportunities not
recreational
factored into the town planning POS supply requirements for
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 7
Page 8
~
tt>1t
local populations, and as such the provision of available POS
is under-represented;
5. Parks and Recreation Spaces west of the David Low Way
and other major coastal Roads are often relatively
underutilised by residents and visitors due to the attraction of
the Beach, foreshore and associated licensed premises, ie
Jack Morgan P"ark at Coolum, the Peregian Bowls Club and
Di Hurst Oval at Peregian Beach;
6. Peregian Beach has a limited and ageing population with
very restricted opportunity for an increased population, such
that the future demand for additional public open space
opportunities is limited. This is one of the main reasons why
the original Peregian Beach Community Swimming Pool was
closed by Council it was not financially viable due to many
-
of the factors expressed above;
7. There is no school at Peregian Beach, and as such local
children often use facilities outside Peregian Beach as a
matter of convenience;
8. The Peregian Bowls Club has been abandoned as an active
sporting destination for about 3 years and no Community or
Council progress has been made in acquiring and
developing it for a recreational or community use during
that period, which would suggest that any potential public
use is highly likely to be unviable, for similar reasons which led
to the demise of the Bowls Club i.e lack of population,
demographic constraints, competing venues outside of
Peregian Beach township, and competing activities east of
the David Low Way ;
9. The dimensions of the site are not conducive to a range of
public recreational/community uses, particularly given its
relatively narrow width;
10. Any public use would need to also provide car parking and
this would further erode the ability of any significant public
recreational use of the site; and
11. We understand that Council has recently resolved to
prepare a Master Plan for Di Hurst Oval. This may well
suggest that any future public recreational requirements for
Peregian Beach residents would likely be provided at Di
Hurst Oval. In addition to the area of the current Reserve we
are unaware of any reason why the Di Hurst Oval complex
could not expanded given it has no immediate
be
residential/urban neighbours. Council’s resolution did not
include the subject Bowls Club site in any investigations.
In conclusion there is no evidence to justify the purchase and use
of privately owned land at Peregian Beach for Public use. Further,
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 8
Page 9
.,
~
~!t
we have not any evidence regarding specific public
sighted
activities which are not provided at Peregian Beach and which, if
provided, would be patronised as to be viable should the
community acquire private land for said purpose.
2. Demonstrate how the Peregian Beach community would not be
disadvantaged by the loss of Open Space Recreation zoned
land.
Representations:
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. In recent years (since about 2010) no section of the Peregian
Beach community has had access to the subject site which
isprivately owned. Prior to that it is assumed that access
would only have been available if the resident was a
Member of the Peregian Bowls Club (or had reciprocal
membership through another Club, or was signed in by a
member or staff), and therefore would not now be
disadvantaged by its use for other private purposes.
To the contrary the public will have access to the site if it is
ultimately developed for a convenience shopping centre as
proposed;
2. Similar concerns expressed in the Scanlon Appeal were not
upheld; and
3. As with the conversion of the original Peregian Beach
Swimming Pool complex in the centre of the Village Square,
the community has not been disadvantaged as a greater
range and proportion of residents (and visitors) now enjoy
the entertainment, dining and social meeting opportunities
offered by the retail setting of the Village Square.
In conclusion, the dominance of ’public open space’ along the
foreshore more thancompensates for the conversion of the
subject privately owned site to a convenience shopping complex.
As previously mentioned the publicly owned Di Hurst Oval Reserve
is currently under-developed and under-utilised, and any identified
specific public recreation needs for Peregian Beach should
explore the opportunities of using public owned land, before
expending public funds on acquiring private land, for all the
obvious reasons fie. capital expenditure, ongoing maintenance,
and functional viability)..
3. Provide evidence and justification for the creation of a second
’neiQbourhood centre’ in PereQian Beach, and demonstrate
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 9
Page 10
~
~!t
how the development will contribute to a compact town centre
in accordance with the Outcomes of the Noosa Plan.
Representations:
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. The economic Assessment by Foresight Partners has
identified a number of community benefits from creating a
second "retail’ node -
refer to the Conclusions at the end of
their report;
2. The existing Village Square does not function as a
’neighbouhood centre’, as evidenced by our town planning
report’s analysis of the land uses in it, the way in which the
community and visitors use the Square as an entertainment,
dining and social meeting place, a fact confirmed by 72% of
the Survey respondents in the Community Survey refer to -
Question 6i at page 49.
Neighbourhood centres traditionally provide a range of
convenience shopping facilities this is not the case in the
-
Village Square (Neighbourhhod centre);
3. The definition of compact is a relative term, which will have
different interpretations for differing localities. The proposal
will offer a range of convenience shopping not presently
available within Peregian Beach, or likely elsewhere in
Peregian Beach due to the absence of suitably zoned or
convenient sites.
The proposal will offer car parking which is deficient in
quantum at Peregian (confirmed by the responses to the
Community Survey).
Customers to the IGA convenience centre will have the
option of walking to the Village Centre (200-300metres)
which is a level walk and not an unreasonable walking
distance by town planning standards, or by a 1 minute drive
to the Village Square this is considerably less than the
-
current practice of the majority of residents driving to
Peregian Springs, Coolum Beach or towards Noosa to do
their convenience shopping.
Inspection of the Community Centre carpark on Sundays will
disclose that residents park there and walk to the Markets
near the Surf Club, confirming that the location is not outside
of what the locals consider a compact town centre.
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 10
Page 11
~
~1t
4. We note that the Peregian Beach Sports & Recreation Club
are producing a "Vision on the Village" which has the
subject site and the Village Square within the boundary of
said Village, confirming, in our opinion, that this represents a
relatively compact centre node. This is supported by the
relatively low speed environment of the David Low Way due
to traffic calming devices in this locality refer to -
Attachment B for a copy of the "Vision on the Village" aerial
plan.
5. It is our expectation that the proposed IGA based
convenience centre will provide a bona fide convenience
centre for Peregian Beach residents as by default, the
existing neighbourhood zoned centre does not full-fill this
role.
In conclusion, as with many other urban centres which incorporate
nodes with differing functions (i.e retail node and entertainment
node), this would be the case at Peregian Beach should the
proposed development receive approval.
4. Amend plans, depicting a fence with no
the architectural
pedestrian or driveway access along the site’s eastern
boundary with the Council carpark at 253 David Low Way (Lot
95 SP 137431). Also, include a statement about the viability of the
proposed retail tenancies 2-6 with an eastern orientation and no
access beino provided throuoh the car park.
Representations:
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. We respectfully advise that the plans have not been
amended to depict a fence with no pedestrian access
along the site’s eastern boundary because:
such a barrier is contrary to all basic town planning
.
principles of providing convenient pedestrian access
from the nearby Bus Stop on the David Low Way, for
members of the local Community wishing to gain access
to the convenience shopping centre from the adjoining
Peregian Beach Community Centre, or for residents
walking to the site from nearby residential addresses;
a fence/barrier is contrary to the provisions of Council’s
.
own planning scheme which aims to increase the use of
public transport and pedestrian movement. This is
significant at Peregian Beach where traffic calming has
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 11
Page 12
U
~!t
been introduced so as to prioritise pedestrian
movements;
. Council’s letter of 4th April advising that Consent would
not be provided for the inclusion of Lot 95 on our clients’
MCU application, however, no reference was made to
pedestrian access;
. Provision of a fence, if agreed to, would create an
undesirable precedent associated with an unreasonable
and unacceptable town planning outcome;
. A fence introduces security issues and surveillance
difficulties at a community activity node;
For the reasons presented above the applicant advises that,
with respect, it is not their intention to provide a statement as
requested.
Notwithstanding the reasons provided above, it would also
be known to Council’s town planners that there are
numerous examples of retail tenancies with an eastern
orientation and no direct access from a car park or public
street -
refer to examples in Hasting street Noosa Heads,
Sunshine Plaza at Maroochydore etc.
In conclusion there is no valid town planning reason for the
establishment of a fence between the site and the Peregian
Community Centre/ David Low contrary Council
Way. To the
would normally insist that there was no fence so as to improve
circulation, surveillance and accessibility to and from neighbouring
public recreation/community facilities. Further, a fence
discourages the use of public transport by potential IGA shoppers
etc.
5. Identify any proposed pedestrian links and potential upgrades
to the existing retail and commercial shopping areas within the
Neighbourhood Centre zone (Pereaian Sauare!.
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. No upgrades are proposed within the Neighbourhood
Centre zone;
2. We assume thePeregian Square is the same as the
Village Square, the term Peregian Square is not
as
referred to in the planning scheme and is not normally
locally used;
3. We are unaware of the reasons for such a request, and
are unaware of similar requests associated with the
establishment of the Marquesas development, the
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 12
Page 13
’lI
tt>~
Peregian Beach Tavern development, the Scanlon
development or the Heron Street (north-side)
development;
4. Notwithstanding, the above our client may be prepared
to consider a further pedestrian crossing of the David Low
Way and any associated footpath works if the
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Council’s
Traffic consultant, PH Traffic Consultants and the Council
consider such would benefit the local residents and be
safe.
In conclusion we are not aware of what Council’s intentions are
for this issue, but would accept a condition setting out said works
provided that there is a nexus between the proposed
development and the works required, and that said works are
reasonably required and not an unreasonable imposition on the
development.
6. Provide details of how access to the proposed shopping centre
being limited only to Rufous Street, affects the way in which the
proposed shopping centre integrates with, and impacts upon
the existinQ PereQian Beach NeiQhbourhood Centre
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
1. As discussed in our report and further
town planning
documented in the Economic Assessment report by
Foresight Partners, there is not expected to be any
discernible impact from the proposed centre on the
tenants of the Neighbourhood Centre, nor the role
they provide, as they are predominantly either Dining
establishments, Fashion Shops, Interior decorating
shops, Offices, Real Estate agencies and Health Care
related businesses, with only a few relatively small
convenience type outlets;
2. We do not consider that the proposed convenience
shopping centre will integrate with the existing
Peregian Beach Neighbourhood Centre because they
are physically separated by the David Low Way, and
further both centres will provide different functions,
although we would expect the proposed centre to
complement the existing traditional Village Square
(Neighbourhood Centre) by bringing additional
shoppers/residents back to Peregian Beach for their
weekly/fortnightly/monthly convenience shopping ,
after which we would expect a proportion would
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 13
Page 14
~
~!t
gravitate to the Village Square to enjoy the
entertainment/dining/social meeting ambience and
role it offers;
3. As established by Foresight Partners in the first year of
operation of the proposed IGA convenience centre
(assumed to be 2015) there would be about $1 0.5m of
escape expenditure returning to Peregian Beach, with
the traditional Neighbourhood Centre traders being
beneficiaries to part (albeit a small part) of that
otherwise escape expenditure;
4. In addition Foresight Partners concluded, inter alia,
there would be no threat to the viability of any existing
supermarkets or retail centres or the proposed retail
hierarchy of the Sunshine Coast;
5. It has always been our client’s preference for access
to be both from Rufous Street and the David Low Way.
This would improve the potential for any integration;
6. We do not expect the proposed development to
directly integrate with the existing Peregian Beach
Neighbourhood Centre, although we do expect that
the latter will gain indirect benefits from ’flow on’
patronage after residents and visitors complete their
convenience supermarket and other convenience
shopping activities, as already discussed above. We
expect that only positive impacts will occur over time
within the Village Square.
In conclusion we do expect any physical integration.
ECONOMIC
Foresight Pty Ltd by letter dated 4th July 2013 and
Partners
addressed to the DFS Group has responded to the two (2)
economic issues in Council’s Information Request. A copy of this
advice forms Attachment C to this letter.
A summary of their respective responses are included below each
of the issues raised by Council.
7. Provide details of all the retail and commercial premises located
within Pereqian Beach, includinq the use of floorspace area.
Foresight Partners Pty Ltd identified the following:
Category Estimated Floor Area (m2)
Clothinq Apparel 990
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 14
Page 15
~
t&~
Commercial 1,530
Household 810
Personal Services 990
Professional Services 2,160
Food 1,960
Vacant -
Retail 187
Vacant -
Commercial 249
8. Provide details of historic population growth of the Trade Area
from 1996 to 2011.
Foresight Partners Pty Ltd has advised that due to boundary
changes between 2006 and 2011 that population changes are
approximations only.
The approximate growth has been 414 persons and 158 dwellings
which equates to an average annual growth of 83 persons and
323 dwellings respectively or an average annual growth rate of 2%.
ENVIRONMENT
Amenit
9. The car parking areas increased traffic in the local street, loading
bay service area and operation of commercial plant and
equipment (after hours deliveries, air conditioning and
refrigeration units, waste collection and vehicle noise)has the
potential to denigrate the amenity of adjacent properties top the
north west and east of the site. A noise impact assessment is
required addressing the potential noise impacts that may be
generated by the use. Where potential impacts are identified,
which can be viably controlled, the assessment is to be prepared
by a suitably qualified person and in accordance with the
Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008, and relevant
Australian Standard, e. .AS1055 series.
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to the "Proposed Shopping Centre, Rufous Street, Peregian
Noise Impact Assessment Report (1 August 2013) by Renzo Tonin
Ron Rumble, Acoustic Consultants, a copy of which forms
Attachment D to this letter.
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 15
Page 16
~
~~
Waste servicing
10.Clarify the type of bins proposed for the use and their point of
servicing. Provide an access and swept path analysis for the
front loading Refuse Collection Vehicle (RCV/HRV), using a
computer aided program compliant with AS2890.2 to
demonstrate that safe easy and unobstructed on-site servicing
of bulk bin containers can occur. Design vehicle specifications
are outlined in the Noosa Planning Scheme Policy 9 Waste -
Management. Note that the RCV/HRV must enter and exit the
site in a forward motion and the swept and access pat analysis
needs to assume that car parks on the site will be occupied at
the time of servicing. On-site reversing of the RCV /HRV is not
preferable where crossing pedestrian pathways. Further, the
awning proposed in the loading area may impeded bulk bin
servicing with regards to clearance height, it is requested that
the point of collection for bins be clarified.
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
ENGINEERING
(PH) by letter dated 29thJuly 2013 and
Pekol Traffic & Transport
addressed to Multi Span Australia Pty Ltd C/- the DFS Group has
responded in part to the six (6) engineering (traffic) issues in
Council’s Information Request. A copy of this advice forms
Attachment E to this letter.
A summary of their respective responses are included below each
of the issues raised by Council.
Access and parkina
11.Provide plans that indicate separate access points for service
vehicles and customer vehicles, or demonstrate how the
proposed layout is in accordance AS/NZS2890.1 :2004
with
section 4.1.3(bl and AS2890.1 :2002 sections 3.1 and 4.1 (fl
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to Figure 1 at page 2 of the PH report.
112.Provide swept paths diagrams for the customer vehicles on the
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 16
Page 17
~
t&1t
internal access aisles and the internal intersections. The
diagrams must demonstrate that sufficient space is available to
permit vehicles to pass as described in AS/NZS280.1 :2004 section
2.5.2 (c)
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to Figure 2 at page 3 of the PTT report.
13.Provide plans that indicate separate pedestrian paths
(specifically along the centreline of the shade structure over
carspaces 20-48) or demonstrate how the proposed layout is in
accordance with AS/NZS2890.1 :2004 section 4.1.3 and the
Noosa Plan’s Driveways and Carparking Code Specific
Outcome 013.
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to "Internal Car Parking and Manoeuvring" at page 2 of the
PTT report.
In addition to the PTT advice the applicant wishes to advise that
on-site commercial development car parks are invariably Slow
Speed environments where motorists are aware of pedestrian
movements, and speed is low due to short aisle lengths and the
nature of activities being undertaken i.e motorists often looking for
a car parking space. Numerous examples exist of successful car
parks without dedicated pedestrian paths, such as parts of the
Sunshine Plaza car park and Council’s own car park at the Council
Chambers in Nambour.
External Road Improvements
14. Provide plans that clearly indicate the proposed improvements
to Rufous Street. the plans must include but not be limited to:
(a)The full frontage of the subject site;
(b)Any necessary modifications to the existing pavement, kerb
and channel, drainage etc;
(c)A concrete footpath extending from the existing path in
Woodland Drive to the site entrance; and
(d)The design of the frontage works must consider the existing
uses to the south of the subject site along Rufous Street and
the existing pathway linkage through to the David Low Way
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 17
Page 18
~
~!t
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to Pages 3 and 4 of PTT’s response.
In summary, it is considered unnecessary to provide plans until
Council’s decision, and in the event of an approval, the detail of a
related condition is known.
The Rufous Street reserve is of sufficient width and topographic
nature to enable reasonably required
any to be condition
satisfied. Similarly the ultimate Operational Works design would
take into account the existence of the Tennis complex, Child Care
Centre (kindergarten) and Community Garden to the south.
TRAFFIC
Assumptions of Traffic Report
15.Provide Council with a revised Traffic Impact Assessment which
addresses all of the above issues
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
The David Low Way -
Woodland Drive intersection was re-surveyed
to coincide with the School departures peak hour on a Thursday.
PTT concluded its analysis with the recommendation that the
intersection be upgraded by the provision of separate right And
left turn lanes in the Woodland Drive approach to the intersection,
and that there is sufficient carriageway width to accommodate
the 2 turn lanes for the distance suggested (18 metres).
Potential Traffic Impacts
16.Amend the Traffic Impact Assessment, including the potential
impacts on the existing residential developments at the
intersections of Woodland Drive, Rufous Street and the David
Low Way. Where potential impacts are identified, which can be
viably controlled, the assessment should provide
recommendations accordingly.
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 18
Page 19
~
~1t
The followings Facts and circumstances are considered relevant to
Council’s issue, namely:
Refer to the "Proposed Shopping Centre, Rufous Street, Peregian
Noise Impact Assessment Report (1 August 2013) by Renzo Tonin
Ron Rumble, Acoustic Consultants, a copy of which forms
Attachment D to this letter.
END OF INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE
The above response to the information request demonstrates that
all of the issues raised by Council can be adequately dealt with by
appropriate conditions. In the case of any conflict with the Noosa
Plan we contend that the level of conflict is relatively minor given
the economic, employment and community benefits attributed to
the provision of convenience Supermarket Shopping which is not
likely to be satisfactorily provided elsewhere in Peregian Beach.
We consider that there are sufficient Planning and Environment
Court examples to support this opinion, although we are the first to
admit that each application must be determined on its individual
merits.
As thiscorrespondence provides "all of the information
requested", we will now initiate the public notification of the
application. Should you have any queries relating to this issue,
please do not hesitate to contact the writer on 5443 5566.
Yours faithfully
DFS Group
Encl. Attachments A & b
cc: Multi Span Australia Pty Ltd
2/08/13 Multi Span Australia -
IR response Page 19
Used in these records
Response to Information Request 5-7 Rufous Street Peregian Beach MCU13/0092Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 12.8 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.