Applicant: Randal Delaney, Peregian Beach Residents Against Active Streets Topic: Peregian Beach Active Street Speakers: Randal Delaney

You hear me? I hope I get through this in time. Hello? Yes. Okay. While residents are generally supported by Noosa Council's broad goal of enhancing walking and cycling infrastructure and the specific approach. Adopted in the Peregian Beach active street initiative has provoked strong and widespread opposition. Many in the community, myself included, are particularly troubled by the plan to establish a recreational cycling route made of four interconnecting active streets traversing a quiet residential neighbourhood on the way to the village. The proposal directly contradicts the preferences of most local residents who have consistently raised concerns and expressed their objections to the concept. The depth of feeling against the initiative highlights the disconnect between Council's current plans and the wishes of residents. Handling of the Peregian Beach active street initiative has resulted in considerable time in community confidence and trust towards Council. Many residents perceived that the project as poorly planned, overly radical, largely unwanted and foamed in the community. This widespread view has intensified due to Council's misrepresentation of the extent and nature of local backing for the initiative. Members of the community feel Council has failed to engage in genuine consultation with little efforts made to involve or listen to those that would be most affected. The lack of processes fuelled further dissatisfaction and reinforcing disconnect between Council's actions and the community expectations. Residents have not received clear impartial or thorough information from Council regarding the actual impacts that these projects may have on their local community. From the outset, Council has treated the initiative as a beneficial idea and has subsequently sought to justify its implementation. Though the proposal does not align with or address the needs of the community or suit this particular residential scenario. Despite numerous inquiries and requests for further details from residents, significant concerns and issues remain unresolved. Pre-cancer hormonal reactions. Now that nature you're topics raised by the community have either gone unanswered or have not been meaningfully addressed. Despite Council's claims that the Peregian Beach active street project claims that uh the claims the prison. Pretty Peregian Beach active street projects do not align with the priorities that residents expressed during the 2021 walking and cycling establishment consultation. Feedback from the community highlighted a clear desire for the development of additional off-road pathways and bikeways. Enhanced connectivity between residential neighbourhoods and key local amenities. Enhanced connectivity between and facilities, safe crossings, improved crossings across major roads. While there was a desire for a safe recreational pathways, the focus was on the projects that would benefit access to activity centres, schools and recreational facilities. Furthermore, Council's own Transport Strategy reinforced the need to safe road crossings and prioritised encouraging walking and cycling as a preferred daily transport option. The current proposal, however, does not deliver on these expectations, particularly with respect to overall connectivity. There is a lack of adequate safe crossing opportunities on major roads such as David Low Way and Emu Mountain Road, together with a notable absence of interconnected off-road shared pathways within the precinct. As a result, these recreational-focused projects are unlikely to encourage walking and cycling as practical choices for everyday transport. Additionally, the initiative fails to address challenges linked to increased visitation in the foreshore areas, and does not provide solutions for reducing traffic, congestion, and parking issues, or. Vehicle emissions along the residential streets, within the village centre, or David Low Way. The proposed design will channel more cyclists and pedestrians into neighbourhood streets that are already experiencing increased traffic volumes. And visitor pressures. This means genuine cycling safety concerns will remain unresolved as the use of the on-road cycle zones exposes a growing number of cyclists to direct conflict without any physical separation. Moreover, the proposed. The proposal does not account for the risks associated with unlicensed reckless e-bike riders, nor the behaviour of a number of cyclists who speed, cut corners and fail to yield as required introducing by law. Introducing higher volumes of visitor cyclists and fast selling e-bikes into essentially residential streets will significantly. With I'm sorry, significant vehicle movements substantially increases the risks for all road users. Council maintain that the active street design is practical, evidence-based and specifically adapted for Noosa's unique environment, however the assertion is mainly on an internal literary review of planning materials which provides neither substantial or independent evidence. To date, Council has not referenced any comparable active street project within Australia or elsewhere that mirrors the multi-street approach planned for Peregian Beach. This addition raises significant doubts about the suitability and effectiveness solution of the proposed in the local context. One Councillor argued that similar systems in establishing cycling in established cycling cities in europe, then the same model will succeed in Peregian Beach. This stance is both unfounded and an axiological basis for drawing such a direct comparison between dissimilar contexts. Further, the Council has not offered a clear, credible justification for the introduction of on-road priority cycle zones, especially as existing infrastructure, such as wide cycle lanes along David Low Way, already accommodate cycling. Local streets in Peregian Beach have long operated. As shared spaces already, without any dedicated footpaths. Additionally, with proposals to implement the new 1.5 metre off-road shared pathways, the need for an extreme active street design remains unsubstantiated. Rather, granting cyclists a new and-bikes. Preferential access to residential streets undermines the rights and safety of residents. Without delivering clear and measurable benefits to the community, instead Council continues to promote unverified advantages while minimising and impacts ignoring the on local amenity and safety which have been consistently raised in the. Community Council submissions to Council. Another significant concern pertains to Council's exclusion. Of any mention of active streets in its current five and ten year implementation plans. Community the has yet to receive. Comprehensive a explanation regarding the criteria by which these projects were prioritised over other, potentially more deserving initiatives identified within Council's own project prioritisation documents. This lack of transparency diminishes public confidence in the decision-making processes and raises legitimate questions about the rationale for this project's selection. Despite repeated calls from residents, Council has not provided an adequate explanation for. The decision. To reject the off-road shared pathway within the road reserve on the west side of David Low Way. Community members argued that this alternative is not only safer and more straightforward, but could be a more cost-effective solution and could be better suited to preserving local amenity. The two metres of shared pathway along David Low Way on the west on the west side in kool, are already forming part of a coastal pathway. This sets a strong precedent for serious considering this option. Additionally, developing a dedicated pathway along the edge of the national park would help to maintain a fire buffer for the residential prisons, offer a more scenic route and provide the opportunity to create shaded rest points entirely free from driveways and motor vehicle conflict. These recreational and tourist benefits are not achievable through the Lorikeet Drive alignment. Even the creech and beech community association has refrained from endorsing the extension of the pilot to additional streets. And said instead urging Council to give consideration to the use of the western road reserve along David Low Way. Council's claim the preferred route was chosen following consultation of the 2020 consultation pathway corollary study is insufficient. Particularly as these findings this study have not been made available to the public or subject to an independent review. The assertion that these factors such as safety, connectivity, comfort and feasibility guided the selection process lacks credibility given the absence of a thorough feasibility assessment and cost benefit. Analysis specific to the Peregian Beach scenario. Council has misrepresented the actual level of local community support for the active streets despite the submission of the formal petition with signatures of over 140, now probably about 160, local residents opposing the proposed project. Council appears to have placed considerable weight on the recommendations and support from special interest groups such as those involving tourism events, cycling and associated business. There are concerns regarding whether the guidance from these financially invested and non-local groups can truthfully represent or prioritise the needs of Peregian beach's community. Justification for both the chosen route and the implementation of cycle zones lacks transparency and detail. No additional solutions have ever been presented to the community. Additionally, the grant application that's secured 1.6 million in state funding for the pilot project remains inaccessible for review. The lack of transparency leaves residents in a position of having to trust Council decisions without critical information. Many community members are now only becoming aware and understanding the impacts these projects will have on their streets. Even the most recent digital door knock news update, which was intended to address previous complaints about inadequate communication, was vague and failed to provide the necessary detail. The ongoing lack of clarity and authentication and collective engagement raises serious concerns about whether Council has learned from experiences such as the criticisms levelled at the Noosa Shire master plan for its over-designed and insufficient consultation. Council has neglected. To follow teetown county principles. And its own established design values. These principles call for considering the broader context, avoiding isolated project views, accounting for the effects of design decisions. Respecting the unique character of towns and villages and creating a transport network that integrates with rather than overwhelms the environment. Despite these values, Council has not developed a comprehensive or holistic walking and cycling master plan for the Peregian Beach precinct. Even the PDC has advocated for a detailed design from jabiru street to sestrania drive and for meaningful consultation with the community before any further action is taken. Many residents in Peregian Beach have expressed strong opposition to the prospect of a coastal recreational pathway. A source of concern is the expected increase in cycle traffic through residential streets, a situation that is likely to be made worse by ongoing development and population growth south of our border and increased tourism ahead of the 2032 Olympics. These changes are anticipated to add pressure on local streets, intensifying existing infrastructure and concerns within the community. Is united in its preference for safe streets, not overactive streets. Residents overwhelmingly support the use-road shared pathways instead of on-road cycle zones. Residents favour recreational pathways routed through scenic bushland rather than residential areas. Viable alternatives to Council's current planning exist and would ease rather than increase the burden on local streets. Some residents have already put forward alternative ideas demonstrating the community is actively discussing solutions tailored to local needs. Residents believe the effective consultation would enable Council to identify and implement these locally informed alternatives. Consequently, residents are calling on Council to halt both the current pilot and any future planning of active streets in the area. We urge Council to engage in genuine consultation with all directly affected residents and ensure that the current plans and route redesigns are informed and guided by community feedback. Thank you.