Skip to the record
The definitive source for everything Noosa Council.

Council archive · source document

PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18/0019

of 15

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

                          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

Used in these records

About this file

File size
5.9 MB (large file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18_0019.pdf · 5.9 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.