Response to Information Request 5-7 Rufous Street Peregian Beach MCU13/0092

                                                                                                        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