PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18/0019

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