Properly made submission (object) Ralph Rogers MCU13/0092

..




     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.