Council archive · source document
PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18/0019
•••••• NOOSA COUNCIL •••• To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that: 1. be made to the assessment manager 2 be in writing 3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electro", 4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission 5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why 6. be received by Council during the formal public notification period As required by the Planning Act 2016, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not they are properly made. 1. Application details File No. MCU18/0019 Postal address of Land (as advertised) 52-62 Goodchap Street & 3-11 Val Crescent Noosaville Nature of Proposed Development - Housing Type 3 Retirement and Special Needs (Aged Care Facility,-l -.J 2. Submitter details Full name of Submitter D,q '"' I r;> 5--r~vt=A./ ~ Postal address c;. v D, c..("~•• .> L... Suburb IV" 0 oS B if I l.... l.... 0;;- I State Q. l.... D I Postcode 4. 5 (. (; Signature(s) --- .~. .~ N.BThis form has been designed for the conveni~ f th :: persons wishing to lodge a submission are not obliged to use this form. .----- 3. Details of Submission I rNe), make the following submission: ?L...~A~12 E,.-vv B ,T'~ C Vlr:D (if necessary, use separate sheet of peper and at/ached) Privacy Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to coiled this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy. www.noosa.gld.gov.au I mail@n~sa.gld.gQv.au T 07 5329 6500 PO Box 141 Tewanlin aid 4565 I ABN 97969214121 Page 1 of 1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 14 pages
Page 2
David Stevens
6 Val Cr
NOOSAVILLE 4566
David@5mddesi!!n,corn
21 June 2018
Noosa Council
Level 3, 9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Submission: MCU18/00919 - 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 & 62 Goodchap Street and 3,5,7,9 & 11 Val
Crescent Noosaville (Lot 4-9 on RP 138011 and Lot 13-17 RP 151414) (site)
Dear Assessment Manager
Negatives of the Developers application and introduction to the local
community.
As a local resident, I have been disappointed by the actions in the introduction of
the development plan. The attached "Invitation to Resident Forum Arcare Aged
Care Facility" letter handed to all local residents strongly suggests and implies
that the site has been chosen by the developer "working closely with the Noosa
Council". Checking with Noosa Council, it confirmed to me that this is not the
case and this is misleading. I cannot say that all residents given this letter would
have checked it's accuracy, but taken this as an endorsement of the project from
the Noosa Council.
Further to this, other residents have indicated that they have been told that the
project is pretty much a done deal implying there would be no point in objecting.
This is extremely disappointing behaviour from the developers representatives.
( please find attached document - Invitation to Resident Forum Arcare Aged Care
Facility - RIG strategic)
1
Page 3
A. INTRODUCTION
1. I oppose the above Application for Material Changeof Use for Multiple Housing Type 3 -
Retirement and Special Needs (Aged Care Facility) and urge Noosa Council to reject the
development application on the basisthat it conflicts with the Noosa Plan on the grounds
detailed below and that there are no other relevant matters for the DA to proceed
notwithstanding this conflict.
REASONABLE EXPECTATION
2. When I purchased my house in Val Crescent I had no expectation that a 90 bed aged care
facility would be built in this quiet residential street. This expectation was totally
reasonable given that Val Crescent is zoned for detached houses only.
3. The proposed development is in direct conflict with the Noosa Plan. The Noosa Plan was
drafted based on extensive community consultation. The community expects that the
Council adheres to the Plan and does not allow development which blatantly
contravenes it, such as the proposed development. A development that would be
consistent with the planning scheme would be expected to be 11 single dwellings over 11
lots, which is very different to a 90 bed aged care facility, which is commercial in nature.
AMENITY
4. The DA is in direct conflict with the above elements and will have a substantial negative
impact on the amenity of the residential houses which surround it, including my house
which is opposite the proposed site.
S. The current zoning for the proposed site is Detached Housing and the development is a
significant departure from the scale and character intended in the planning scheme for
Val Crescent and Goodchap Street.
6. The DA is substantially inconsistent with its immediate surroundings, which is
characterised by single dwellings. The DA's bulk and intensity, taking up 11 lots and
comprising an area of 6742m2 and a gross floor area of S,055m2, will totally contradict
its neighbouring houses and will look completely out of place. In essence, the DA is of
commercial scale and appearance.
7. Development that would be complaint with the planning scheme would be expected to
be 11 smaller buildings over 11 lots, which is vastly different to what is proposed.
8. As confirmed by the Applicant in its Development Assessment Report, prepared by
Project Urban, the DA is in direct conflict with Outcome 35 of the Specific Outcomes and
Probable Solutions for the Detached Housing Zone, as it does not give the physical
appearance of being one detached house. The DA will fundamentally change the nature
and character of Val Crescent which has no units or other multiple housing. The DA,
which basically consists of one very large building and runs almost the entire length of
Val Crescent, will have an adverse impact on the nature and streetscape of this detached
housing, local residential street.
2
Page 4
9. A 90 bed aged care facility is an overdevelopment of the proposed site. The bulk, scale
and mass of the proposed built form is excessiveand will be an overwhelming presence
in the streetscape and, more particularly, to its adjoining detached residential properties.
Having 11 lots to build on is not mere justification for developing a construction of such
density and scale.
10. When contrasting the DA to the Noosa Hospital (which is located directly opposite the
site) the hospital is single storey, appropriately set back in bush land and is set on a site
with sufficient space for the development. The hospital has a similar number of beds to
the DA (92) but is much more spread out, having more than double the footprint, thus
not diminishing the amenity of its surrounding residential neighbours.
11. The design of the DA poorly integrates with the immediate neighbourhood and is visually
dominant in its presentation to the street. Its style is not in keeping with the established
built form in the immediate vicinity, being modest detached houses.
12. The DA will result in the reduction in amenity for the Noosaville community as the
presence of a large, commercial sized building nearby will make the area feel less like a
residential neighbourhood.
13. The commercial service access on Val crescent will have an adverse impact on the
amenity of the dwellings located in the nearby vicinity (such as my house) due to an
increased number of trucks and vehicles over a 24 hr period, that are not typical of a
local residential street.
14. This will be particularly the case, early in the morning and late at night, given the
following traffic movements:
i. At the staff changeover in the morning between approximately 6.45am and 7.15am
there will be approximately 55 vehicles using the driveway;
ii. Prior to the commencement of the night shift there will be approximately 20
vehicles entering the driveway at around 10.00pm; and
iii. Following the completion of the afternoon shift there will be approximately 25
vehicles exiting the driveway at around 10.45pm.
15. The biggest nuisance will be the night shift change over of nearly 50 cars. As I have two
primary aged children who go to sleep by 8.30pm, the noise of these cars entering and
exiting the site (together with the car park roller shutter going up and down at night with
cars coming and going) will disrupt their sleep.
16. The above noise, combined with head light glare, will also impact on my elderly
neighbours, as they go to bed early and their bedroom is located in the front of their
house, which is opposite the proposed accessto the site on Val Crescent.
17. Ambient light produced by the facility will change the night time amenity of Val Crescent.
Val Crescent is serviced by only 2 low intensity street lights at the far end of the court.
The facility with a standard requirement for lighting in common areas, lighting in
driveway accessareas and security lighting will negatively affect the areas amenity and
create a commercial appearance at night.
USE
18. As confirmed by the Applicant's Assessment Report, the DA directly conflicts with
Specific Outcomes 30 and 31 of the Noosaville Locality Code.
3
Page 5
19. An aged care facility is not a consistent use for a Detached Housing Zone in the
Noosaville locality. It is not appropriate to have this type of multiple housing
development in this low density, residential area and this was clearly not the intent of
the Noosa Plan.
20. Whilst the aged care facility is a residential use, it is institutional in nature and a
commercial enterprise.
21. Information freely made available by the facility operator indicates that a Cafe is
standard their facilities, although this was not mentioned in the DA. The image below is
outside the closest Arcare facility at Peregian Springs, indicating that a commercial cafe is
also operating. If the operator is consistent in it's services then a commercial cafe may be
expected to operate, increasing the commercial nature of the location.
Arcare Peregian Springs facility.
22. The best use of the 11 lots is 11 detached dwellings, as is envisaged under the planning
scheme.
23. The proposed aged care facility should be located in a more appropriate area which is
not zoned detached housing.
24. Some of the properties scheduled to be replaced are lower cost rentals and these will be
lost. Removal of these seems contradictory to the current community requirement for
more low cost rental properties.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
25. As the main commercial entrance to the site will be via Val Crescent, the proposed
development will have a negative traffic impact on Val Crescent, as it will result in a
significant increase in vehicles using the street, particularly commercial vehicles.
26. In this regard, if the DA was to proceed, it is estimated that there will be around 190
vehicle movements over a 24 hour period, Monday to Friday, as detailed in the below
table.
4
Page 6
Estimated Daily (Monday to Friday) Traffic Accessing Val Crescent Service Driveway
Transport Daily Daily Daily Total
In Out
Morning shift staff Car 35 35 70
Afternoon shift staff Car 25 25 50
Night shift staff Car 20 20 40
Visitors/volunteers Car 9 9 18
Food Truck/van 2 2 4
Refuse Truck (2weekly)
Other ego Medical supplies Truck/van 2 2 4
Other service personnel, ego Vehicle / van 2 2 4
tradesmen
TOTAL 190
27. Importantly, the additional traffic generated by the prOposal will include commercial
vehicles such as delivery trucks, vans and trade vehicles. 12.5m long heavy rigid vehicles
will also accessthe site, as well as refuse collection trucks.
28. This is an unacceptable level and type of daily traffic for a narrow local road (ending in a
cui de sac) which, pursuant to the Planning Scheme, is only intended to service residents
who live in the street.
29. As a result of the increased traffic, the risk of traffic accidents involving other vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists will increase.
30. The main accesspoint of the centre will be located on a street used by my children to
walk or ride to school. The children also ride bicycles and scooters in the street and the
extra commercial traffic load will prevent them from doing this safely.
CONSTRUCTION
The developer has indicated that the proposed commercial entrance to the property will
be used during construction as the site entrance. The implications of this are extremely
negative and I can see them asfollows ...
31. The street will be used for all soil removal trucks - quick estimation of 6-8k cubic meters
of fill to be removed requiring approx. 2k truck movements. The removal of fill will be
followed by concrete truck (23t - 28t GVWR) deliveries. The current road surface in Val
Crescent will not support this heavy traffic flow as it is already showing signs of shifting
with the slight domestic traffic ( see image below).
5
Page 7
Road surface condition - Val Crescent entrance off Goodchap Street.
32. A construction of this size will typically require a large degree of services delivered on
heavy articulated vehicles throughout the complete build time frame. Excavating
equipment, pre-cast concrete panels, steel work, construction bricks, roofing materials
etc. The proposed Val Crescent access cannot accommodate these vehicles as no turning
space is available. Any articulated vehicle entering Val Crescent will be required to
reverse back into the roundabout to exit. The site has not enough space for drive through
unloading of these vehicles. This leaves the only option of unloading while pulled over in
Goodchap Street in front of the proposed site (in the current bus stop). The traffic
congestion and safety aspect will be extremely negative. Traffic will be required to
stopped or diverted for unloading trucks. Trucks will have to be unloaded from the road
side as a site crane cannot operate due to existing overhead power lines. This will have
to occur in business and peak traffic hours.
33. My family and I will have to endure the constant noise, huge amount of dust, machinery
operation, trucks and trade vehicles of building this huge facility for at least 14 to 16
months.
34. If the Noosa Plan was adhered to, we should only have to put up with a detached house
being built across the road, not an industrial like construction which includes a basement
car park.
35. This is an enormous impost on our capacity to enjoy our street over a substantial period
of time and one we should not have to tolerate.
36. Parking congestion during construction will be extreme. I estimate at least 50-60
construction staff and trades people will be onsite continuously for the build period. This
will contribute to on street parking issue covered following.
SITE ACCESS AND CAR PARKING
37. It is clear that it is the intent of the Noosa planning scheme that any driveway access for
a new development must not compromise the safety of drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.
6
Page 8
38. Val Crescent is a narrow, local, residential road, ending in a cui de sac which is only
intended to service residents who live on the street.
39. Given that the site driveway is, in essence,servicing a large commercial facility which will
cater for all commercial vehicles and staff and visitor car parking, the access on Val
Crescent is inappropriate and unsafe. Specifically:
a) it is located too close to the Goodchap roundabout;
b) it has very restricted sight lines and seems not to meet the current design
guidelines. The current DA acknowledges that the driveway exit has sight line issues
and has failed to respond to the planning departments requests for scaled sight line
maps. Personal measurements of the sight distances from the proposed driveway,
indicate to me that the currently supplied "hand sketch" in the DA supplemental
response is grossly inaccurate and even fails to indicate any distances from the Val
Cresapproach direction.
c) the DA also fails to account for the road slope decent on the approach from
Goodchap Street.
d) when cars & commercial vehicles exit the proposed driveway, they will angle
toward the Goodchap Street round about. This will increase the sight line angle
back down Val Crescent to over 125 degrees. This angle combined with the sight
distance on the left is less than 30 metres will essentially mean that commercial
cab vehicles will be turning blind. The likelihood of a multiple vehicle collision will
be extremely high.
e) the entrance or exit of a commercial vehicle combined with several cars attempting
to enter will create a back log into the Goodchap Street roundabout.
f) the tracking maps of medium sized commercial trucks provided with the DA,
indicate clearly, that if two movements are concurrent, an entering and exiting
vehicle, will not fit in the street.
g) it is located directly opposite three residential driveways. It is noted that all plans
submitted by the Applicant as part of the DA are inaccurate to the extent that they
fail to disclose that there is a residential crossover directly opposite the proposed
accessto the site on Val Crescent (the plans only show two residential crossovers).
This is a serious omission as the existence of this third crossover, in such a critical
location, increases the risk of an accident. The residents of 2 Val Crescent, whose
driveway was omitted from the plans, have advised that they have nearly had a
number of accidents when exiting their driveway onto the street. The presence of a
commercial driveway directly opposite the residential driveways will make this area
too congested and precarious.
40. The close proximity of the roundabout, the residential driveways opposite and the
restricted site distances, combined with the fact that the accessis on a narrow residential
street and that pedestrians use the road as a thoroughfare, as there are no footpaths
(see below) will greatly increase the risk that vehicles and trucks using the access will
have an accident with other vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians on the street.
41. This risk cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by way of placing conditions on the
development.
7
Page 9
42. Whilst it is appreciated that the DA has in excess of the minimum number of car parks
required under the Driveways and Parking Code for a residential aged car facility, the 52
bay basement car park will not have sufficient car parking to accommodate the facility at
peak times, particularly the week day afternoon shift changeover:
43. The Applicant has advised that the typical day shift will finish at 3.00pm and the
afternoon shift will commence at 2.45pm. The maximum number of staff on the day shift
is 35. The Applicant has not provided the number of staff for the afternoon or night shift,
only to say that it is lessthan the day shift. Assuming then that the facility had 25 staff on
the afternoon shift, it would require, at a minimum, 60 car parks to accommodate staff
at the afternoon shift changeover as both day staff and afternoon staff would require
parks at the same time.
44. The above figure does not take into account any car parks utilised by visitors, volunteers
or any other service vehicles who may be at the facility at this time. If say, in the mid-
afternoon, 5% of residents had a visitor, there were two volunteers on site and one
service vehicle, this would take the total car parking requirement up to around 67. This
would mean that at least 15 vehicles would have to park off site on either Val Crescent or
Goodchap Street at this time.
Estimated car parking demand at afternoon shift change
Use Shift time Vehicle Occupancy Number
Morning shift staff 7.ODto 3.30 1 person/vehicle 35
Afternoon shift staff 2.45 to 10.30 1 person/vehicle 25
Visitars/ - 1 person/vehicle 4
Volunteers 1 person/vehicle 2
Service personnel . 1 person/vehicle 1
TOTAL 67
45. Moreover, the above assumes that all staff, visitors and other personnel attending the
site will want to park in the basement car park. There will always be a percentage of
people who will not use the basement car park, preferring to park on the street as they
believe it to be more convenient or easier, given that basement car parks can be difficult
to manoeuvre or park in at times.
46. Val Crescent and Goodchap Street are already under a lot of strain in terms of car
parking, with it being used as an overflow car park for the Noosa hospital's staff, patients
and visitors (see photographs below).
8
Page 10
Carsparked an Val Crescent (looking South from bend)
Cars parked along Goodchop Street, outside hospitol (looking towords Goodchap Street/Vol Crescent
raundobout)
47. Notwithstanding the fact that there is over 200 car spaces at the hospital, nurses on the
afternoon shift can often not find a park on-site for the start of their shift in the mid
afternoon. They then have to park on Goodchap Street (if they can find one), Val
Crescent or surrounding streets.
48. It is also the case that patients and visitors to the hospital regularly find it difficult to
obtain a park on the hospital grounds and have to park on Goodchap Street, Val Crescent
or surrounding streets.
49. The DA and proposed images of facades have minimized the commercial entrance to the
facility, this I feel will have the negative effect of not making it obvious to any new visitor
to facility who will immediately start looking for a parking position in Goodchap Street as
they approach the facility. This will greatly disrupt the traffic flow on Goodchap street
and also cause vehicles to travel down Val Crescent to turn in the end court. The other
scenario is to use one of the current cross overs to effect a three point turn. This scenario
is already a problem with overflow hospital traffic.
50. A realistic comparison of parking is with another local facility "NoosaCare Carra mar"
which has 142 resident beds, indicates clearly that the parking provided by the developer
will be inadequate. I have a relative in residence at "Carra mar" and the visitors only
parking area has at least 10 cars parked when I visit, with it having over 25 on special
9
Page 11
occasion days such as Mother's day or the festive seasons. Staff cars are also parked in
surrounding streets and acrossthe road in the entrance to the National Park
SAFETY CONCERNS
51. I reside with my family in 6 Val Cr, which is opposite the proposed development and is
very close to the primary commercial access.
52. Val Crescent does not have footpaths on either side, resulting in the roadway being used
as the thoroughfare for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
53. My wife or I ride our children to Good Shepherd Lutheran College each day and the
children ride their bikes on the street after school and on the weekends. (When our son
turns 12 this year we planned on letting him ride to school unsupervised).
54. As a result of the increased traffic generated by the 90 bed aged care facility and, in
particular, the location of the primary accesson Val Crescent, it will make it less safe for
our children to cycle to school (as they will have to ride past the commercial accessto
the site to exit our street) and on the street.
HEIGHT
55. The height proposal exceeds the maximum allowable height of 8m under the Noosa Plan.
56. The proposed development will negatively impact on the amenity of the surrounding
residential dwellings, due to its visual bulk. All of the surrounding dwellings do not
exceed the 8m height cut off.
57. The excessiveheight of the proposed development is highlighted when it is compared to
the Noosa Hospital opposite, which is single storey and blends well with its surrounds.
58. The height of the proposed development is inconsistent with the reasonable
expectations of the neighbourhood.
SETBACKS
59. Whilst the setbacks proposed largely meet the minimum requirements set out in the
Noosaville Locality Code, they are not however sufficient to mitigate the visual bulk of
the DA to the surrounding residential properties and do not provide sufficient
landscaping opportunities.
60. The inadequacy of the setbacks are highlighted when the DA is compared to the Noosa
Hospital opposite, which is positioned in a bush setting and blends well with its
surrounds.
VEGETATION
61. One of the overall outcomes for the Noosaville Locality is that there is landscaping
amongst buildings, retaining trees and vegetation wherever practical.
62. There are in excess of 40 mature trees on the 11 lots, which make up the current site,
however, as a result of the proposed development, only one of these mature trees will
be retained.
63. Obviously, if each of the 11 lots were to be developed in accordance with the planning
scheme, (I.e. one detached house on each of the 11 lots), the vast majority of these trees
would be retained.
10
Page 12
64. These mature trees are integral to the nature and character of the streetscape of Val
Crescent. Standing at the cui de sac and looking up the street, the streetscape is
dominated by trees, providing a green, subtropical outlook. The trees provide a feeling of
privacy, attract an abundance of birds and contribute to the feeling of it being an
'established'street.
65. It is devastating to think that these trees, which have taken many decades to achieve
their full height, will be cut down and replaced by shrubs. The street will be left looking
stark and exposed.
66. The DA advises it will landscape the site to 'soften the built form'. However, this
landscaping will not be sufficient to replace the mature trees and will fall a long way
short of disguising a massive two story building which will extend the length of Val
Crescent.
67. On a site of this size it is not an unreasonable expectation that more than one mature
tree would be retained. It is, of course, impossible to keep the mature trees when the
construction of such a large, continuous building is contemplated. However, it must be
borne in mind that a building of this bulk and scale is not intended for this site under the
planning scheme. Basically,if the Noosa Plan was adhered to, the trees would be saved.
68. Replacement planting does not adequately compensate for the loss of the exiting mature
trees. The removal of all but one of the mature trees and replacement with juvenile
specimens is unacceptable due to the time that it would take for the replacement trees
to reach the height and spread of the existing trees.
OTHER RELEVANT MAnERS
69. The Applicant is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the DA conflicts with the
Noosa Plan, there are sufficient planning needs to approve the application, despite these
conflicts.
70. The applicant acknowledges that the DA directly conflicts with the Noosa Plan as follows:
a) consistent uses;
b) inconsistent uses;
c) physical appearance of being one Detached house; and
d) maximum height.
71. It is submitted that in addition to the above, the DA also conflicts with the following
elements of the Noosa Plan:
a) It is inconsistent with the character and amenity of the particular locality;
b) It does not uphold the quality lifestyle and amenity sought by residents of Noosa
Shire with consideration given to density, noise, traffic and aesthetics;
c) It is not compatible with other uses and works;
d) It will not maintain the safety of people and works;
e) It will have significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other
premises, including acoustic and visual qualities;
f) As it would be located in Noosaville's urban residential area, it does not fit
within the character of being low density, urban housing in a quiet
neighbourhood settings;
g) As it would be located in a Detached Housing Zone, it:
11
Page 13
i. is not considered a low rise, low density development form;
ii. it does not have a high level of residential amenity consistent with the
varied character of the locality's residential neighbourhoods; and
iii. its allotment size and density is not consistent with the character of the
particular neighbourhood;
h) its use will have a significant adverse changes to the light, air quality, noise,
accessibility or other conditions enjoyed by users of associated, adjoining or
nearby uses
i) The density of development within the site area is not compatible with
surrounding development;
j) It buildings and structures:
i. are not at a scale and nature complementary and respectful to its
surroundings;
ii. it does not maintain the visual amenity of adjoining and surrounding
development;
iii. are not designed to address the street and contribute positively to the
streetscape character;
k) it does not protect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists;
I) it adversely impacts on existing public parking;
m) the Vehicular access adversely impacts on safety, capacity and operations of the
existing or planned road network, the proposed driveway, cycleways or
pedestrian pathway systems.
n) Access and egress points impact on the safety and operations of the road system
0) Parking areas do not maintain sight distances which are appropriate for the
likely operating speeds in all areas of potential pedestrian/vehicle and
vehicle/vehicle conflict;
72. The nature and extent of these conflicts are not merely technical or mechanical, but are
obvious and significant. The community expects that the requirements set out in the
Noosa Planning Scheme will carry substantial weight in any assessment. There is not
sufficient justification for ignoring the Council's planning strategies contained in the
Noosa Plan.
73. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a need for additional aged care facilities, this does
not override all other matters and the need is not sufficient to overcome the serous
conflicts with the planning scheme. The proposed development should be built on a
more appropriate site that is not zoned detached housing.
74. It is interesting to note that at the "Resident Information Forum, Arcare Aged Care
Facility", held on 30 May 2018, a representative of Arcare acknowledged that they would
have preferred to locate the 90 bed aged care facility on a 1 hectare site, with it being
single storey and having a car park around it.
75. It would appear that Arcare could not find a 1000m2 site in the Noosa Shire that suited
its budget, as such, it is proposing to squeeze the development onto a smaller site by
building a large two storey construction that compromises the amenity and aesthetics of
the facility and its surrounding dwellings.
CONCLUSION
12
Page 14
76. When buying my house I had a reasonable expectation that such a development would
not be built directly opposite me because the land is zoned Detached Housing. A
ordinary, reasonable person would not expect that the Noosa Plan would intend for an
aged care facility to be located on the proposed site.
77. The DA results in unacceptable and unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the
surrounding detached dwellings, including my house.
78. The additional traffic which will be generated by the DA on Val Crescent is unacceptable
and unreasonable for its residents. It will increase the risk of accidents.
79. The location of the primary commercial accessto the site on Val Crescent is dangerous
and will compromise the safety of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, including my children.
80. The basement car park of the DA will not be sufficient to meet the car parking needs of
the facility. Val Crescent and Goodchap Street are already under strain, acting as a
defacto car park for the Noosa Hospital. The DA will make this problem worse.
81. In excess of 40 mature trees will be removed, leaving the street looking stark and
exposed. The proposed replacement shrubbery will not disguise the scale and mass of
the facility. If single dwellings were to be built, in accordance with the Noosa Plan, it is
highly likely that most of the mature trees would be saved.
82. Whilst acknowledging the need for the DA by providing aged care accommodation, this
need does not outweigh the serious conflicts with the Noosa Plan. The facility should be
built in a more appropriate location.
83. The adverse impacts as a result of the DA cannot be addressed through the imposition of
conditions.
David Stevens
Additional attachment -Invitation to Resident Forum Arcare Aged Care Facility
13
Page 15
Invitation to Resident Information Forum
Arcare Aged Care Facility
Wednesday 30th May
Meeting Rooms Central Queensland University
Goodchap Street, Noosaville
Arcare presently have been allocated by the Federal Government 90 aged care beds for the Noosa
Region. We have been working closely with Noosa Council to find the most suitable site to be able
to locate an Aged Care facility (not retirement living) that will ensure the best care and operation
of the facility for our future clients.
Arcare has lodged an application with Noosa Council over a number of properties in Goodchap
Street and Val Crescent for the purpose of gaining an approval for an Aged Care Facility.
We are inviting you to attend an information evening, so we may provide you with full details and
answer any of your questions relating to the Aged Care Facility and its proposed development and
operation.
We will have in attendance at the forum our town planners, architects, builders and key staff from
Arcare. The forum will present you with information relating all elements of the project.
If you have any questions prior to the forum, please do not hesitate to contact me directly so I may
assist you. We would also appreciate if you could confirm your attendance, so we ensure we have
sufficient space for everyone.
We genuinely hope we can see you there on Wednesday 30th May at 5.30pm.
Kind Regards
lW\J\
Russell Green
0438210182
ru [email protected]
Used in these records
PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18/0019Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.9 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.