Properly made submission (object) Ralph Rogers MCU13/0092

Page 2

..




          The applicant’s consultant response that the proposal complies with the Locality Code is
          incorrect and misleading. Outcomes u(i) and u(ii) clearly states that Retail, Commercial
          and Entertainment and Dining uses are to be located in the neighbourhood centre which
          will offer a centre and ’sense of place’ for the locality. The Outcomes do not in any way
          indicate that the retail area in the form of a shopping complex should be extended.


     3.   The Overall Outcomes of the       Neighbourhood Centre zone (which forms the existing
          commercial centre of Peregian Beach) state the centre is to be the focal point for the
          community. The outcomes state:

              Neighbourhood Centre Zone      -




              i. the Peregian Beach and Sunrise Beach neighbourhood centres form focal
              points for the communities providing local shops, offices, restaurants and limited
              higher order functions to support the day to day needs of residents and visitors; and

              ii Business Uses are of a scale and character consistent with the locality and the
              commercial and retail hierarchy of Noosa.


          The proposal clearly is in direct conflict with the outcomes of the Neighbourhood Centre
          zone as    it will distend and diffuse the focal   point that is the existing Neighbourhood
          Centre. The Neighbourhood Centre is to contain local shops and the proposed shopping
          complex outside this zone will detrimentally impact on the centres function and will
          replicate the existing centre.

     4.   The Overall Outcomes reinforce the maintenance of the Open Space Recreation zone
          stating:

              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; and

          The use of the site for commercial development is in direct conflict with the intent of the
          Noosa Plan and the zone and the applicant has not demonstrated significant community
          benefit for an additional shopping complex on the site.


          The Sunshine Coast Council adopted the Sunshine Coast Sport and Active Recreation
          Plan at its special Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2011. This Strategy clearly identifies that
          the Sunshine Coast has a shortage of land for sport and recreation of over 100 hectares.
          Further the Strategy identifies as a short term priority, the investigation of the use of the
          Bowls Club site for indoor and outdoor recreation activities. The Strategy also details a
          number of existing clubs in the area that are seeking additional land for sporting facilities.


          The loss of existing Open Space zoned land in this locality therefore has a negative
          impact on the overall Open Space Strategy as adopted by Council as well as reducing
          open space land that has been identified as being needed by the overall community

     5.   The proposed shopping centre is an inconsistent use in the Open Space Recreation
          Zone in which the site is contained. The proposal does not meet the outcomes of the
          zone which   relate to open space and community uses.


     6.   Peregian Beach is detailed in the planning scheme as being a community and needs to
          be respected accordingly. Peregian needs community and recreational areas and the
          subject site forms part of the recreationlcommunity hub for the area.

Page 3

..




     7.   The applicant’s consultants comments that the site is not conducive to recreation         as

          evidenced by its width and that the site has not been used as a recreational use is again
          uninformed and misleading. There is no evidence to suggest that the owner of the site
          has   even attempted to utilise the site for recreation purposes. It is considered short
          sighted   to argue that the  existing recreation zoned land should be developed for
          commercial activities just because one use has not succeeded. The Sunshine Coast
          Sport and Active Recreation Plan further reinforces the shortage of land for sport and
          recreation and therefore any further loss would be detrimental to the community.


     8.   The site is located in an precinct that is used for Open Space and community purposes
          including the Peregian Veggie Village, Peregian Tennis Club, Peregian Community
          Centre, Peregian Kindy and the Di Hurst Oval. All these facilities are well established and
          well utili sed by the community and the introduction of a pure commercial use will have a
          negative impact on this area in terms of community cohesion, traffic, safety, carparking,
          noise and growth of community activities.


     9.   The Needs Assessment prepared for the proposed shopping centre notes that Peregian
          Beach provides the local shopping functions for Peregian Beach, Marcus Beach and
          Castaways Beach. The trade area is also indicating as extending north to Castaways
          Beach. Based on local knowledge it is known that the trade area does not extend as far
          as Castaways Beach as most of these residents head north to utilise the existing wider

          range of commercial facilities at Noosa Junction which includes both Coles and IGA
          supermarkets.

     10. The Needs Assessment report states that there are no suitably zoned parcels of sufficient
          size to accommodate a supermarket. The report fails to recognise the existing approval
          at 215 David Low Way (132007.1259.04)which has approval for 387m2 of retail floor area
          with possible expansion of up to 693 m2 which was proposed to be used for an IGA. It is
          considered that this sized facility would   more   than adequately cater for the day to day
          needs of residents of the area.


     11. The Needs Assessment report indicates that the applicant sees a need for a supermarket
          to service the Peregian Beach area. The report however does not demonstrate any need
          for additional shops nor does it recognise that there is existing floor area available in the
          centre which could be utilised for a supermarket.


     12. The Needs Assessment indicates that the proposed shopping centre size is that of "small
          neighbourhood centre’ and is different to the existing neighbourhood centre due to a
          ’specialised tenancy mix’. The report therefore clearly indicates that the proposal
          provides for a new neighbourhood centre additional to the existing centre. Comments
          about a ’specialised mix’ of retail uses differentiating the new centre from the existing
          centre are deceitful and misleading as the actual tenancy mix has not been finalised and
          will not be confirmed until the centre is approved and under construction. It is noted that
          most of the proposed retail uses indicated in the Needs Assessment are already well
          established within the Peregian Village and the existing operators have informed the
          Peregian Beach Business Association and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council that
          they have no intention of relocating from the Village to the proposed site. Therefore the
          proposed retail uses would be duplicated on the proposed site, severely impacting the
          economic viability of the current traders within the Peregian Village.


     13. The Peregian township cannot digest any large scale retail footprint as proposed without
          significantly impacting on existing businesses and generating traffic that will disrupt the
          David Low Way and surrounding residential streets.

Page 4

~...




       14. Peregian Springs provides a local centre that can cater for the higher level of goods
           proposed to be provided by the shopping centre on the site.

       15. The proposed shopping centre is indicated as being a ’convenient central meeting place
           for office workers and shoppers’. This indicates that the proposal will further undermine
           the intent of the existingneighbourhood centre which is specifically seeks to create a
           public place and sense of community.

       16. The Needs Assessment acknowledges that existing shops in the Neighbourhood Centre
          will be negatively affected by the development and are likely to close down. The 70
          fulltime/part time/casual jobs are not all new jobs to the area as the report notes that the
          shopping centre will employ those people from the existing shops that will close as a
          result of the proposal. Comments such as this are again misleading as the consultant
          cannot predict that a new centre will employ those business owners or staff of shops that

           may close down.

       17. The proposal will negatively impact on the residential amenity of residents in Woodland
           Drive and Rufous Street by noise generated by the proposed centre. This is evidence by
           the applicants consultant noise report which states:


                 ’...generally   our    assessment shows that   some   loading activities can potentially
                 exceed the nominated noise limits.


                 ’Traffic noise from David Low Way is expected to increase by approximately 1dBA
                 and for Woodland Drive and Rufous Street by 5dBA to 7dBA above current levels
                 after the construction of the shopping centre. The increase of noise levels due to the
                 increase in traffic volumes will likely be noticeable at the residences along Woodland
                 Drive and Rufous Street.


                 The possible noise control treatment is provision of acoustic upgrades to existing
                 residential buildings, but it is understood that this option is not feasible. A reduction
                 of noise impacts is expected if an alternate access the shopping centre via the David
                                    ’
                 Low is provided.


           It is noted that this noise impact is not able to be overcome by conditions of approval.


       18. The applicant’s noise report states that all loading and service activities on site are to be
           limited to between the hours of 7am to 6pm. This will result in service vehicles and semi
           trailers being forced to share Rufous Street with the existing low key and users of the Di
           Hurst Oval, Peregian Veggie Village, Peregian Tennis club and Peregian Community
           Kindergarten. These community and sporting groups will be detrimentally affected by the
           additional heavy vehicles and overflow carparking that will occur as a result of the
           shopping complex

       19. The   applicant’s traffic consultants have not indicated the extent of works required to
           Rufous Street nor provided any detailed designs on the stated required upgrading of the
          Woodland Drive and David Low Way intersection. Therefore the extent of roadworks and
           impacts on the road system is unknown.

       20. The applicant’s traffic consultants report notes that properties on the northern side of
          Woodland Drive will be      negatively affected by the additional traffic generated by the
           proposed Shopping Centre. The owners of these sites would not have anticipated the
           potential delays or conflicts and therefore the proposal has a significant impact on their
           amenity.

Page 5

"




    21. The traffic impacts on the area will be significant for residents in Woodland Drive and
       those    near   the David      Low       Way intersection. Impacts will include increased heavy
       vehicles manouevring and breaking which will not be able to be controlled by conditions.


    22. Residents in the surrounding area would not have envisaged a commercial use such as a
       shopping centre as being permitted on Open Space zoned land.

    23. The shopping centre will result in the use of the Council carpark on the David Low Way
       for carparking associated with the shopping centre as patrons from the south will find it
        easier to access this carpark. The use of this carpark will reduce the carparking available
       for community uses.


    24. The location of the shopping centre on the very edge of the Peregian township is not
        desirable as there is limited vehicular access to the site and provides limited integration
       with the existing neighbourhood centre. This will therefore have significant impacts on the
        area as the    proposed centre will operate in direct conflict to the existing centre.

    25. The  applicant’s consultant’s submission that the Eastern Beaches Locality Plan is no
        longer applicable is ludicrous and illogical. The consultant’s reference to the 1997
        Strategic Plan which is no longer in force is irrelevant and seeks to misinform and
        deceive the general public. The application is to be assessed against the current 2006
        Noosa Plan. This 2006 plan was not ’updated’ as referenced by the consultant but was a
        new scheme for the whole of the Shire. The consultants attempt to discredit the validity of

        the planning documents are not able to be substantiated or therefore able to be used as
        a sufficient ground for the conflict with the planning scheme.



    26. The reference to  specific applications as precedence for non compliance with the
        planning scheme and undermining of the neighbourhood centre is irrelevant and
        misleading as the projects specifically mentioned have been assessed on their merits
        noting:

                       o   Peregian Beach Caravan Park closure and subsequent approval for units
                           and  shops. Comment       2006 Noosa Plan indicated that Visitor
                                                             -




                           Accommodation and offices were a consistent use on this site. Does not
                           undermine planning scheme.


                       o   Closure of Peregian Bowls Club. Comment             -
                                                                                   Closure has nothing to do
                           with Planning Scheme or Council. No impact on Planning Scheme.


                       o   Peregian Beach Hotel         -
                                                            Comment   -
                                                                         This site was previously a hotel
                           and continues to be           a   hotel No   impact on validity of the Planning
                           Scheme.


                       o   Office development on David Low Way Comment                  -
                                                                                            Offices consistent
                           use   as   defined     by the planning scheme. No impact on validity of the
                           Planning Scheme.

                       o   Closure of supermarket in square   Comment
                                                                    -
                                                                         Closure has nothing to
                                                                                   -




                           do with     Planning Scheme or Council. No impact on validity of the
                           Planning Scheme.

    27. The proposed shopping centre does not fit the Peregian Beach character which states
        development is in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape qualities. The
        construction of a building that has a 50 metre long wall and incorporates 2.5 to 3.5 metre
        high   noise barriers is not        a    desirable solution and does not fit in with the natural
        beach side character desired for the area.

Page 6

"




        28. Limited     landscaping is provided across the site which will result in an urban form that
            lacks the Peregian character of small scale buildings within a landscaped setting.               .




        29. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a critical need for the location of the use
            on the site.



    Development Application MCU13/0092 should be refused for reasons including the following:

                 a.     The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan.


                 b.     The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a need for the use to be located
                        in the Open Space Recreation zone.


                 c.     The   proposal   is   inconsistent with    the   Sunshine     Coast    Sport   and       Active
                        Recreation   Plan which    clearly   demonstrates     a    shortage   of open space for
                        recreational purposes.


                 d.     The proposal will result in the duplication of the existing       neighbourhood centre
                        which will undermine the character and vision for the area and severely impact
                        the sustainability of the current Village precinct.


                 e.     The   applicants economic report is flawed and does not demonstrate an
                        overriding need for the shopping complex as there is appropriately zoned and
                        approved land in the locality that could cater for an appropriately sized
                        supermarket to meet the demands of the locality.

                 f.     There is no need to provide a shopping complex of this order as the area is well
                        supplied with existing shops and          the   shopping   centre at   Peregian Springs
                        provides higher order goods.

                 g.     The applicant has not demonstrated that an approval should be granted despite
                        the conflicts with the Planning Scheme


                 h.     The proposal will detrimentally impact on the surrounding residential areas by
                        means   of noise and additional traffic which cannot be adequately controlled by
                        any conditions of approval.

                 i.     Approval of the proposed use will detrimentally affect the amenity and character
                        of the intended recreational and community area and its surrounding residents.




    Yours faithfully,




    Ralph Rogers