Council archive · source document
PM Submission Object - David Stevens - MCU18/0019
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
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed 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.