Council receives almost 200 submissions citing concerns over a proposed $35m unit development at Emu Park

Angry locals have demanded a public vote over a proposed $35 million unit development across the road from the Pine Beach Hotel at Emu Park. There have been almost 200 submissions on the seven-storey project.

The development has been proposed on the corner of Pattison, Granville and Archer Streets, Emu Park. Pictured is the public notification sign.

Harsh criticism has been fired at the proposal for a $35m unit and shop development on land across from the Pine Beach Hotel at Emu Park.

Almost 200 people have raised concerns, via submissions to Livingstone Shire Council, that the building would take away the village feel of the coastal town with views blocked due to its proposed seven-storey height.

One objector went as far as to call the proposed development “fugly” and another stated it looked like a hospital.

Some locals are so worried they have called for a community meeting in relation to the project or a postal vote.

Many residents have expressed that they don’t want to see Emu Park turn into another Surfers Paradise or Noosa, or to have another “white elephant” like the abandoned Great Keppel Island Resort, Capricorn Resort or Zilzie Resort.

Zilzie resident, Mark Svendsen, submitted a colourful objection, stating if council approved the development they should construct a “giant turd” in Kerr Park.

The proposal, which was submitted to Livingstone Shire Council in September, is for a $35 million development with 49 units and two shops on the ground floor, to be built on the corner of Archer, Pattison and Granville Street, on vacant land and where the Honeybee Collective and old mall was.

The existing structures on Granville Street that would be removed to make way for the development. INSET: The vacant corner block on Pattison and Granville Streets.

The development has been proposed by Rockhampton businessman Rob Carr, whose most recent project is the redevelopment of the Red Lion Hotel in South Rockhampton.

The Emu Park proposal has since received an outcry of objections, both on social media and during the public notification period, which was held from November 22 to December 15.

The submissions were received by Livingstone Shire Council and The Morning Bulletin read through each one of them, counting 176 objections to the proposal and 10 in favour of it.

Various concerns were raised in each submission and there were more than 55 submissions which had the same report.

The concern repeated the most related to the height and density, which go against the council’s planning scheme.

The proposal is for seven storeys, however, the Local Centre Zone Code specifies a maximum building height of four storeys for that site.

This height restriction was determined after extensive consultation with the public in 2018.

*Excerpts of public submissions have been used in this story.*

Written in multiple submissions was the following: “Approving this modification makes a mockery of the public consultation and undermines the extensive work that led to the 2018 scheme. This proposal is completely insensitive to the local area. It has been constructed without respect for the local, low density nature of the area. (The development) will destroy the much loved village-like characteristics of the historic local centre of Emu Park.”

Janelle Evans said: “It is not considered that in the last three and half years to warrant such a department from the planning scheme in this location.”

P Bock said: “This proposal, within three to four years of the making of the three-four storey limit, seems a disrespectful, if not contemptuous disregard for the people of Emu Park.”

It is proposed the development would be an l-shape across the corner of Granville, Archer and Pattison Streets.

Many people who lodged submissions aren’t against the development as a whole and have called for it to be scaled down.

Kevin Hogan said: “I would only like to see three or four storeys approved. Anything higher than four will destroy the look of Emu Park big time. Not to mention all the views that people have now. Kerr Park will be in the shade and will destroy the lifestyle of many people who use Kerr Park for family gatherings.”

Leonie Johnson said: “It is too big in terms of coverage of the site and too tall by three to four storeys. The proposed plans are completely incongruent with the existing low density, village feel of Emu Park and in complete contrast to the location’s natural beauty.”

Raheela Beavers said: “I believe that it will forever alter the visual impact of the town and negatively impact all the properties directly behind it. Emu Park is a very different town to Yeppoon and the scale of this new proposal is not in keeping with the village aesthetic here.”

The density and site coverage of the proposal is 67 per cent, while the planning scheme details it should not exceed 50 per cent.

Many objectors claim tourists come to Emu Park because they like the small village and they don’t want to see the area turned into places like Byron Bay.

Trevor Morgan said: “I would not like to see Emu Park head down the path of Bryon Bay in the name of progress. I welcome a redevelopment of that parcel of land from its current depressing state. However, I feel that the current proposal would be far too large a development and would destroy the general village aspect due to its height, number of units and shops and general uninspiring architecture.”

Peter and Laraine Lawton said: “Residents and visitors to this Emu Park Village are here because we do not want the area to look like another Surfers Paradise.

Russell Girle said: “This is not Yeppoon, this is not Rockhampton and it is certainly not the Gold Coast. This is the village of Emu Park, an unassuming jewel set in a tropical paradise - a quiet retreat from those larger centres.”

Some objectors felt there was not enough parking.

The proposal plans include seven storeys above ground and two basement levels for parking, with a combined 149 car parks and seven motorcycle parks on site, taking into account the surrounding street parking.

Anna Becker said: “There is already extreme pressure on street parking around the Emu Park Main Beach and SLSC.

There are also concerns of the pressure on infrastructure.

Desleigh Kapernick said: “The road between Rockhampton and Emu Park will have to be improved majorly as it could not cope with what will become a very high usage of commuters travelling to and fro.”

Renders by CotteeParker of what the proposed development would look like from Granville and Pattison Streets.

Issues were also raised with the general design of the development, with many saying it was a concrete eyesore that did not belong in Emu Park.

Libby Homer said: “I am absolutely supportive of the site being developed but the size and boring monstrosity of architectural design will be an eyesore. We need to stick to the height limits, and encourage the builder to take into account Emu Park’s unique village atmosphere and incorporate that into the design. More green space and fluidity in shape. Maybe a public meeting with the owner and council.”

Mark Svendsen shared his disdain for the proposal, claiming the design had a lack of grace, was greedy and “just plain fugly”.

“It bears no design references to anything in Central Queensland but would be home in any generic medium density development in any city in Australia or the world. If council determines in its infinite wisdom to approve the edifice it should also consider commissioning a 26m sculpture of a dog turd to place in the centre of Kerr Park. The advantage to this proposal is that people will come from far and wide to view the tourist attraction so large a turd, adding to the prosperity of the town,” Mr Svendsen wrote.

If approved, many residents have concerns it would “set a dangerous precedent for the future form and character of Emu Park”.

Norm and Annette Satchell said: “People have chosen to live in Emu Park for its unique laid back, village atmosphere and this development aims to destroy this. Emu Park will lose its seaside village appeal forever.”

John and Sylvia Williams said: “This is the first major development in many years for Emu Park and will set a benchmark for future perception of acceptable design parameters within the CBD. It does nothing to either enhance or complement our beautiful village – basically being an over-size oblong box typical of the southern reaches of the state. If this development is allowed to progress as proposed, it opens the door to other similar development and our unique, charming village style and atmosphere, a main attraction of living and visiting Emu Park is gone forever.”

Dr William Lang said: “If council approves this application in its current form, it will surely open the floodgates to similarly sized (and possibly larger) proposals and create a precedent for their approval. Such a move would irrevocably destroy the basic ambience of our village and an important component of the Capricorn Coast’s appeal to residents and visitors alike.”

Turtles have been nesting on the opposite beach and there are concerns their habitat will be interfered with.

Julianne Weekers said: “The full wall of balconies facing the sea will not comply with the lighting regulations for turtles as detailed in the Sea Turtle Sensitive Area Code,”

Graeme Strachan said: “This development would produce a large amount of light pollution. Fisherman’s Beach and Zilzie beaches are used by the vulnerable listed flat backed sea turtle for nesting during the breeding season from November to March. Large, bright structures such as the one proposed confuses nesting females and the hatchlings as they are attracted to light thinking they are returning to the sea. If the development was only the traditional three story height this would not be a problem as the light would be below the field of vision of the turtles.”

The proposal includes two commercial spots, potentially for a restaurant and a store.

President of the Emu Park Surf Lifesaving Club, Justice Graeme Crow, wrote a lengthy submission, including the following extract which refers to the two commercial spaces planned for the ground floor.

“Even with the redevelopment and the Pine Beach Hotel, it is inconceivable that it is commercially viable to have any part of the building for non-residential purpose. In the Emu Park CBD area, there are always empty shops, even places where there is an extremely small rent, tenants cannot be found. In my view it is madness to have commercial shops placed in any level of the proposed development. It will be ruinous to other businesses,” Mr Crow said.

Martin and Jo Clarke said: “The proposed shops on the ground floor are unnecessary in Emu Park as there are enough retail spaces to fulfil the needs of Emu Park and would just lay empty which would devalue the area.”

The planning report in the original development application to council states the development would alleviate the housing crisis at the Capricorn Coast.

A search of rentals on realestate.com.au by this publication on November 2, showed only two rentals available in the area – both in Zilzie.

The application notes: “We believe the proposed development provides a much-needed addition to the short-term accommodation market in the township.”

Kerry Picot said: “Claims that this development will assist with the housing shortage are very misleading. Families are not going to go and live there, in high-rise apartments in the middle of Emu Park. Only investors from away, will come here and probably only in holiday times. It will not assist in our housing shortage and it will only slightly affect our local economy as these investors will be here for minimal amounts of time.”

A handful of submissions, mostly from Rockhampton residents, stated they would like to buy a unit, supporting the development.

Kevin and Janice Usher said: “As Rocky locals hoping to retire in Emu Park this proposal excites us. We’ve been looking for a unit by the beach and this certainly ticks all our boxes. Modern, high-quality but low maintenance, ocean views, and is central to the town centre so we can walk everywhere. We’re really looking forward to seeing it come to life.”

Michael and Maria Learmonth wrote that they enjoyed holidaying at Emu Park but had found “limited, quality accommodation options available, especially during busy times”.

“On occasions we’ve had to commute back and forth from Rockhampton due to the lack of suitable and available accommodation. Consequently, my family and I believe this apartment complex will give other locals and their families the opportunity to spend holidays together more comfortably, as well as bring more visitors to town and in return help local businesses thrive,” Michael and Maria Learmonth said.

Brian Dodson said: “This project will be an exciting time for Emu Park and make accommodation more readily available and it will be a huge benefit for all in the community. It will put Emu Park on the map. A unit in this project will be ideal for my family especially for my young grandchildren.”

Back on the objecting side, there are also concerns the development would “jack up the price of rentals even more”, as Wayne Smith wrote.

It’s not the first time the community has fought against a development, with many locals involved in the fight against IGA’s initial proposal, causing the building to be reduced to two storeys.

Karen Spiers said: “I feel this proposal should be promptly rejected, without forcing the residents of Emu Park in to yet another time-consuming, frustrating, and for some expensive fight for protection of their town from over-development – protection we thought we had achieved with the establishment of the Local Centre Zone Code within the Town Plan.”

Pamela and Peter Richardson said: “The community of Emu Park have already put in objections to this type of proposed construction. Let the people of this area be heard and take notice.”

Kathleen Coulter is the wife of Ross Coulter, who was on the committee that “defeated the proposed five storey building” where the IGA now stands.

“What an eyesore that would have been … blocking sea and views to the islands and our iconic Singing Ship. I do not object to a three or four above ground building where this project is proposed. In fact it would contribute to accommodation for tourists, lifesavers and their families for surf carnivals. It will also provide long term employment for our younger people in hospitality. However I cannot understand why developers want to ruin the Emu Park village atmosphere with a seven storey building … anywhere,” Ms Coulter said.

Supporting the project, Stuart Reoch said in his submission it would be good for jobs.

“The project would also benefit the town’s economy providing employment to locals in the shops and restaurants that would surely follow once built. As a teacher, that is one thing that I want to see in our region is jobs! Jobs that our kids can get while at school to make them feel engaged and love their community and not have to move somewhere else to work or rely on government handouts to stay in a town they love. Why should Yeppoon get all of the development when Emu Park main beach is the best beach on our Capricorn Coast? It is projects like this, that should be approved to enhance the regions prospects of being a destination town. I thoroughly support the development,” Mr Reoch said.

Andrew and Michelle Isler shared their faith in the developer, saying they were pleased to submit a letter of support for the proposal.

“It is our belief that the proposal will provide residents of the Capricorn Coast and Central Queensland with greater choice in accommodation and fulfil the shortfall of Unit living space in the Emu Park area. Moving forward is important for any community, and while change may seem scary for small coastal towns such as Emu Park, we have trust in local developers like Rob Carr that the project will complement the town and empower Emu Park’s established community, residents and businesses alike,” Andrew and Michelle Isler said.

Other objectors said the proposal would cause the loss of the views of the Singing Ship, ANZAC Memorial Walk and the ocean.

Kerry Olive said: “It would impede views to the Singing Ship and coast for many existing residents and the design of the building is quite unattractive and not at all in keeping with the coast environment.”

Objectors have called for more consultation and had concerns about the short public notification period, which was 14 days as per the legislated requirements.

Bob and Vicki Hazeleger said: “I would like to see a public meeting with the council and possibly the applicant, this would allow residents who do not have access to modern technology such as the internet, smart phones etc to voice their opinion.”

The public notification signage on the Honeybee Collective.

Documents submitted to Livingstone Shire Council by Capricorn Survey Group CQ as part of the application process stated a notice was placed in CQ Today on November 20, a notice was placed on the site on November 19, and the four owners of the adjoining lots were sent a letter in registered post about the public notification process.

Capricorn Survey Group CQ, on behalf of the developer, responded to a request by council about meeting the requirements and outlined several reasons why the proposal should be approved.

“Yeppoon has developed significantly over the years with little to no movements on the commercial development front in Emu Park. The development is of similar scale to existing and future planned multi level medium rise unit developments in Yeppoon however we do not feel the proposed development will undermine Yeppoon as the major centre of the shire,” it said.

The report claims the proposal “will contribute to the growth of the Emu Park town centre, as an attractive, walkable and lively place for residents and visitors to town”.

“There is a major shortfall of not only short term and long term accommodation but also centre activities such as retail shops and restaurants within Emu Park,” the report said.

“We feel there is a demand for centre activities within Emu Park to create a lively buzz and further promote the town as a pedestrian friendly space.

“The proposed commercial spaces are expected to attract retail tenancies such as a clothing boutique and possibly food facilities such as a cafe or restaurant.”

In response to the height of the building, the applicant claims it does not fully block views.

“It is undeniable the sheer height of the building will have some impact on view corridors to the ocean,” the response states.

“The view corridors to the ocean from the identified points are quite wide.

“The development does not fully block ocean views or major scenic or cultural places, ie Bell Park, Singing Ship, The Keppels.

“The green backdrop created by the hoop pines and vegetation following the coastline is maintained.

“We believe the development is sited in the most appropriate location in Emu Park to have the lowest impact on view corridors as possible.

“The proposed building only blocks views to some existing vegetation and a couple of dwelling houses atop the hill along Bright Street.”

The applicant admits the proposed building is the first of its scale within Emu Park but claims it has been designed “tastefully and carefully” with respect to the existing built form of the town.

“Siting, building materials and articulated design features all contribute to minimising the building bulk as best as possible.”

Livingstone Shire Mayor Andy Ireland said pre-lodgement discussions were held with the applicant and council’s development assessment and development engineering officers.

The development application is still being reviewed and will need to go to the council table.

“Council assesses every application on merit based on the information provided in the application and a performance assessment of the planning scheme provisions,” Cr Ireland.

“The subject application is still under assessment with officers to take a recommendation to council for determination in the new year.

“All submissions will be considered in the assessment and decision making for the application.”

Originally published as Council receives almost 200 submissions citing concerns over a proposed $35m unit development at Emu Park