A.White Kabi Submission

33. In the second instance, I contend the scale of CYC’s proposed accommodation facilities
    and associated infrastructure is excessive and conflicts with the Noosa Plan 2020.

34. I contend the CYC application conflicts with the overall outcomes of the Noosa Plan 2020
    Rural Zone Code 6.8.3.2.

35. [6.8.3.2] (2) The viability of existing and future rural activities is protected from the
    intrusion of incompatible uses.

    I contend the excessive scale and layout of this proposal makes it an incompatible use
    which fails to protect existing and future rural activities from intrusion.

36. 6.8.3.2 (3) Areas for primary production are conserved and lot fragmentation is avoided.

37. I contend the inclusion of Lot 650 M37380 in the application effectively fragments this 40
    Hectare title from its potential agricultural use.

38. 6.8.3.2 (8) The establishment of outdoor recreation and small-scale tourism facilities in
    suitable locations is facilitated in a manner that does not significantly compromise the
    rural productivity or ecological values of the land.

    I contend the excessive scale of the CYC proposal with its four significant development
    sites cannot be considered a “small-scale tourism facility” which I note would be more
    appropriate for this location.

39. 6.8.3.2 (10) Houses or outbuildings may be available for short term guests where there is
    no resultant changes to the rural amenity or rural production of the area.

    Whilst CYC contend the proposal doesn’t compromise the rural amenity or production
    potential of the site, the significant footprint of the development, its associated
    infrastructure, including internal roads and its sport/recreational use, inevitably
    diminishes the area available for realistic agricultural production.

    I question the feasibility of the CYC proposal to operate pig and chicken tractors in the
    vicinity of the tourist accommodation.

    The proposed buildings would permanently change the sites amenity (which currently
    maintains its rural character) to the character of a medium to large-scale tourism resort.

40. 6.8.3.2 (16) Development maintains and enhances the significant scenic and landscape
    values of the area. The built form of development integrates with and complements the
    rural character intended for the zone and sensitively responds to the landscape.

    Through its significant footprint, the CYC proposal fails to maintain or enhance the
    significant scenic and landscape values of the area. It cannot be argued that the numerous
    development clusters proposed ‘sensitively respond to the landscape’.




                                                                                        Page 7 of 10