After talking to residents in Sunshine Cove I made the following submission to the SCRC:
December 19, 2019
The Assessment Manager
Sunshine Coast Council Locked Bag 72
Sunshine Coast Mail Centre
Your Reference: MCU19/0143
Attention: John Alderson
Dear Mr Alderson
RE: Proposed Development: Preliminary Approval for Material change of Use (Variation Request to Vary the Effect of the Preliminary Approval for the Wises Farm Mixed Use Development), Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (1 lot into 103 Residential Lots) for Lot 3000 on SP306280
My name is Kathryn Hyman and I am a candidate for Division 8 in the Sunshine Coast Regional Council local government elections of which the above location falls within the Division 8 boundary.
It has come to my attention that the above application is currently before council. I have briefly looked at the application documents and submissions made, and I note public submission period ends December 19, 2019 (today).
It is my understanding residents’ objections to this application are valid for reasons outlined below.
1). Lack of meaningful community engagement
The developer’s attempt to consult with the community was flawed as follows;
- The alleged door knocking regime by the developer within Sunshine Cove was limited to the expectation that owner occupiers were home at the time door knocking occurred. As I have been personally door knocking this area, I can confirm that generally most residents are not home weekdays
- The developer did not provide follow up information requested by residents who were home at the time door knocking occurred, and
- Information available in the public domain demonstrates a large proportion of residences are rental properties and attempts were not made to contact homeowners directly
2). Non-compliance with the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code
The area of open space is subject to The Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Map within the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme, 2014. Section 220.127.116.11 seeks to:
- Protect, rehabilitate and enhance ecologically important areas
The Planning scheme identifies in Schedule 1 Definitions:
- Ecologically important areas include non-remnant vegetation, and
- contains habitat for flora and/or fauna species of local ecological significance (I understand the local species list has recently been removed from the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014)
The consultant for the developer has erroneously assessed this open space area with respect to the applicable codes by reporting that the open space under assessment does not apply to that of ecological significance as defined in the planning scheme. Given the subject site contains non-remnant vegetation there is clear non-conformity with the overall outcomes.
3). Proposed Sewer location within designated 6 metre buffer.
- A proposed 300mm Gravity Sewer Main is located where a dense vegetated buffer is to be established to visually screen the development from residents
- Unitywater policy does not allow vegetation to be planted within areas where such infrastructure exists
There is a disconnect between the Engineer’s Report, and the policy that falls under Unitywater jurisdiction with respect to this element of the application.
4) Visual Amenity
- The current stand of vegetation protected in the Conservation and Habitat area is considered to provide green relief in a rapidly developing area
- The concept design depicts the replacement of mature trees in the same location – there is insufficient rationale and scale with respect to the purpose, or likelihood of this outcome
5) Open Space
The proposal represents a considerable reduction in publicly accessible open space when compared to that achieved in the Wises Farm Preliminary Approval Document (WFPAD). This is a considerable loss of opportunity to current and future residents of the precinct.
- Open space provisions for Precincts 7 and 10 resulted in an overall open space area in the order of 24,000 m2 (2.4 ha)
- Under the current proposal the applicant is proposing to reduce this total open space contribution to 16,000m2 (1.6 ha)
- The 3,145m2 of “vegetated’ 6 metre buffer is part of the proposed total open space area. This vegetated buffer will not be accessible to the public therefore provision of access to open space by the public is non-conforming with Open Space provisions outlined in Supplementary Preliminary Approval Document (SPAD)
- The current configuration could result in this buffer area becoming a maintenance burden for both Council, existing and future residents of Sunshine Cove. According to residents, there is apparently a demand for storage space for vehicles, trailers, boats and caravans within the Sunshine Cove Precinct, and residents suggest that this proposed area is more likely to be better utilised as a storage site rather than a buffer.
The revised Masterplan requests a Net Loss of Open Space calculated to be 11,135 m2 or 46.4% of the original proposal. This is an unsatisfactory outcome for residents.
6). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles
Residents are concerned that the built environment to create safer neighbourhoods as above, has not been adequately observed. Concerns around;
- Natural surveillance provisions
- Natural access control
- Natural territorial reinforcement
- Maintenance and Graffiti
These concerns need to be addressed by the developer via the applicable codes and provisions in order that residents’ safety is not compromised.
Residents that I have spoken to have relayed that the precinct does not have adequate ‘Community Hub’, ‘Open Community Space’ to gather and meet. Residents have indicated a desire to form a working group or initiate a volunteer program similar to nearby Traill Park (500 metres to the east of this site) that enjoys regular community working days involving residents in replanting/weed control and general maintenance.
There is an opportunity within the Sunshine Cove precinct to accommodate, foster and nurture the coordination of a community within the precinct to build social capital and wellbeing. Given the sentiments of resident’s, and the fact that the applicant has failed to discharge its onus, I urge council to refuse this application in its current form.
Thank you for receiving my submission in relation to this application falling within the Division 8 Boundary.
6 Elderberry Court
TWIN WATERS Q 4564