DECLINE / REJECT ENZO's On The BEACH Development Application

COMMUNITY PETITION / SUBMISSION AGAINST DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - MCU-141028 - Development Application Seeking Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Food and Drink Outlet and ancillary Function Facility; and Shop (Outdoor sport and recreation equipment hire and associated retail goods) over Land described as Lot 219 on SP166253, Part of Lot 218 on MCH4901 and Part of Lot 220 on SP185042 and situated at 351A & 351B Esplanade, Hervey Bay

The grounds relied on in making this petition /submission OBJECTING to the development application and the facts and circumstances supporting these grounds of objection include the following:

1. The development application fails to identify all the land that is the subject of the proposed development for material change of use. Therefore the application is considered invalid.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the Open Space Zone; which is to provide for the informal active recreation needs of residents and visitors.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the planning scheme’s parking requirements; and relies on the use of the public parking spaces to provide and fully fund maintenance of parking for staff and patrons driving to the premises.

4. Increasing the scale and intensity of built development on land which forms part of the Coastal Management District and is mapped as erosion and prone and subject to storm surge / tide hazard is inconsistent with Council requirements and does not represent a good planning outcome. This may well results in even further public funds having to be expended on protecting the development once constructed from adverse coastal influence.

5. The proposal has not demonstrated that it will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the local area and adjoining residents.

6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable noise nuisance to surrounding public areas or private properties.

7. The applicant has failed to properly assess the visual impact of the second storey. The building’s bulk will have a detrimental impact on the setting and visual amenity plus privacy of surrounding public spaces, private properties and businesses.

8. The development application has failed to include information on the intended operations of the proposed material change in use which is necessary for both the public and Council to properly assess such a development proposal especially considering that the subject site is totally surrounded by public land.

9. The development application has failed to include information on the proposed design of the alterations to the existing building which is necessary for both the public and Council to properly assess such a development proposal especially considering that the subject site is totally surrounded by State land allocated for public purposes.

10. Land zoned for public use as open space and set aside as an erosion buffer should not ever be compromised or alienated by changing its use for the benefit of a commercial enterprise.

11. Approval will establish a dangerous precedent for future development proposals

ACCESS THE FULL OBJECTIONS LODGED WITH COUNCIL THROUGH THESE LINKS:
Town Planning Report 1 AGAINST the application here: http://jeanettemaynes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/L01-Submission-Against-Development.pdf
Town Planning Report 2 AGAINST the application here: http://jeanettemaynes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MY-SUBMISSION-TO-COUNCIL.pdf
Jeanette Maynes Blog - http://jeanettemaynes.com.au/2014/10/08/submission-against-development-application-mcu-141028-by-enzo-andreuzzi-for-enzos-on-the-beach/

* Should the development application be approved based on the information available to the public during the public notification period then it is considered that the public has been seriously disadvantaged in being able to make an informed decision. So much so that should there be a submitter appeal to the Planning and Environment Court it may be that some submitters will be seeking costs being awarded against Council on the basis that Council failed to ensure that the public were adequately informed.

* Should additional information be provided to council before Council makes any decision to approve the application, the development application should undergo public notification again advising submitters of this, so that the public can reassess the development application with the benefit of the additional information.