Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018 · MCU18/0019

Page 2

Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO)
j) RESIDENTIAL USES
    Urban and rural settlement for residential use is contained within the defined urban
    growth boundaries shown on zoning maps ZM1- ZM9 by —
    iii. development being consistent with the character and amenity of the particular locality
    xi. development upholding the quality lifestyle and amenity sought by residents of Noosa Shire
         with consideration given to density, noise, accessibility to community services and
         infrastructure, security, traffic and aesthetics;

Noosaville Locality
a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to:
   i. be compatible with other uses and works;
   iii. avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
        including acoustic and visual qualities.

s) Noosaville’s urban residential areas, provide fully serviced, generally low density, urban housing
    in quiet neighbourhood settings;

nn) For the Detached Housing Zone—single detached housing prevails which maintains—
    i low rise, low density development form;
   ii a high level of residential amenity consistent with the varied character of the locality’s
        residential neighbourhoods;
   iii allotment sizes and densities which are consistent with the character of the particular
        neighbourhood;

Specific outcomes for the Noosaville Locality:
 Amenity
 O1 Uses are located, designed and operated to avoid                No solution provided
 significant adverse changes to the light, air quality, noise,
 accessibility or other conditions enjoyed by users of
 associated, adjoining or nearby uses

 Neighbourhood identities
 O4 The separate identities of the various residential              No solution provided
 neighbourhoods remain important and distinct elements of
 the residential character of Noosaville.

 Density
 O7 The density of development within the site area— a) is          No solution provided
 compatible with surrounding development;

Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions for the Detached Housing Zone
 Built Form
 O33 Buildings and structures—                              S33.1 The main entrance of the building faces
                                                            and is recognisable from the street;
 a) are at a scale and nature complementary
 and respectful to its surroundings;
 b) maintain the visual amenity of adjoining and
 surrounding development;
 c) are designed to address the street and
 contribute positively to the streetscape
 character;
 O35 Buildings give the physical appearance of              No solution provided
 being one Detached house
                                                                                                            2

Page 3

5.    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.
6.    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.
7.    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 5,055m2, will totally contradict
      its neighbouring houses and will look completely out of place. In essence, the DA is of
      commercial scale and appearance.
8.    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.
9.    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 the entire length of Val
      Crescent, will have an adverse impact on the nature and streetscape of this quiet, local
      residential street.
10.   A 90 bed aged care facility is an overdevelopment of the proposed site. The bulk, scale
      and mass of the proposed built form is excessive and 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.
11.   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.
12.   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.
13.   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.
14.   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.
15.   This will be particularly the case, early in the morning and late at night, given the
      following traffic movements:


                                                                                                 3

Page 4

      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.
16. 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.
17. 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 access to the site on Val Crescent.

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.
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.   The best use of the 11 lots is 11 detached dwellings, as is envisaged under the planning
      scheme.
22.   The proposed aged care facility should be located in a more appropriate area which is
      not zoned detached housing.

TRAFFIC IMPACT
23.   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.
24.   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, Mon to Fri, as detailed in the below table.

         Estimated Daily (Monday to Friday) Traffic Accessing Val Crescent Service Driveway
                                    Transport             Daily In    Daily Out        Daily Total
       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 (2 weekly)
       Other eg. Medical supplies Truck / van             2           2                4
       Other service personnel, eg. Vehicle / van         2           2                4
       tradesmen
       TOTAL                                                                           190
                                                                                                     4

Page 5

25.   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 access the site, as well as refuse collection trucks.
26.   This is an unacceptable level and type of daily traffic for a narrow local road (ending in a
      cul de sac) which, pursuant to the Planning Scheme, is only intended to service residents
      who live in the street.
27.   As a result of the increased traffic, the risk of traffic accidents involving other vehicles,
      pedestrians and cyclists will increase.

SITE ACCESS AND CAR PARKING
28.   The elements within the Noosa Plan which relate to site access and are relevant to the
      proposed development are detailed as follows:

      Noosaville Locality
      a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to:
         ii. maintain the safety of people and works;

      Overall Outcomes with the Driveways and Carparking Code
      a) To ensure safe and reasonable access from the public road edge to and from vehicle
         accommodation and standing areas within the property;
      b) The safety of pedestrians and cyclists is protected
      e) Development does not adversely impact on existing public parking

      Specific Outcomes Relating To Driveways And Carparking & Manoeuvring For The
      Driveways And Carparking Code
       General
       O1 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on       S1.1 Vehicular access is located and designed
       safety, capacity and operations of the existing or     in accordance
       planned road network, the proposed driveway,           with AS/NZS2890.1:2004;
       cycleways or pedestrian pathway systems.               AND
                                                              S1.2 Only one footpath crossing is provided;
                                                              AND
                                                              S1.3 Driveways, have a maximum grade in
                                                              accordance with Council’s standard
                                                              requirements
       O2 Driveways and crossovers—                           S2.1 Design of the driveway across the
       a) are suitable and safe for their intended use; and   footpath is in accordance with Council’s
       b) match Council infrastructure.                       Standard Drawing requirements as
                                                              appropriate for the particular type of
                                                              development as annotated on the drawings;
                                                              AND
                                                              S2.2 Driveways are designed and
                                                              constructed in accordance with Council
                                                              Standard Drawing requirements , as
                                                              appropriate for the particular type of
                                                              development as annotated on the drawings;
                                                              AND
                                                              S2.3 The change in grades in the
                                                              driveways and ramps is in accordance with
                                                              Council’s Standard Drawing requirements.



                                                                                                              5

Page 6

       Carpark design and layout
       O11 Access and egress points do not impact on the       S11.1 Vehicle manoeuvring areas are
       safety and operations of the road system.               provided in accordance with Australian
                                                               Standards for Off-street Carparking so
                                                               vehicles enter and leave the site in a
                                                               forward gear.
       O12 Parking areas are designed to -                     S12.1 At locations where pedestrian and
       a) provide a progressive reduction in speed             vehicle conflicts are likely to occur –
       between the external road and internal parking          a) sight distances of at least 2.5 seconds
       spaces;                                                 of travel time at the designated speed
       b) ensure lower speeds near areas of high               are provided;
       pedestrian activity through the use of                  b) splayed corners on structures are
       appropriate road geometry or devices                    incorporated;
       designed to limit speed; and                            c) landscaping is designed to allow clear
       c) maintain sight distances which are appropriate for   views; and
       the likely operating speeds in all areas of potential   d) sign placement ensures that sight
       pedestrian/vehicle and vehicle/vehicle conflict.        distance requirements are not impeded.


29.   In light of the above elements 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.
30.   Val Crescent is a narrow, local, residential road, ending in a cul de sac which is only
      intended to service residents who live on the street.
31.   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 restricted sight lines. When cars exit the proposed driveway, the sight
             distance on the left is less than 30 metres; and
      c)     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
             access to 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. Please see photograph below.




                                                                                                            6

Page 7

            Three residential driveways opposite the proposed commercial access on Val Crescent

32.   The close proximity of the roundabout, the residential driveways opposite and the
      restricted sight distances, combined with the fact that the access is 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.
33.   This risk cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by way of placing conditions on the
      development.
34.   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.
35.   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 less than 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.
36.   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 15 vehicles would have to park off site on either Val Crescent or
      Goodchap Street at this time.




                                                                                                   7

Page 8

              Estimated car parking demand at afternoon shift change

               Use                          Shift time        Vehicle Occupancy   Number
               Morning shift staff          7.00 to 3.30      1 person/vehicle    35
               Afternoon shift staff        2.45 to 10.30     1 person/vehicle    25
               Visitors/                    -                 1 person/vehicle    4
               Volunteers                                     1 person/vehicle    2
               Service personnel            -                 1 person/vehicle    1
               TOTAL                                                              67



37.   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.
38.   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).




      Cars parked on Val Crescent (looking South from bend)




      Cars parked along Goodchap Street, outside hospital (looking towards Goodchap Steet/Val Crescent
      roundabout)


                                                                                                    8

Page 9

39.   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.
40.   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.

SAFETY CONCERNS
41.   I reside with my family in 6 Val Cr, which is opposite the proposed development and is
      very close to the primary commercial access.
42.   Val Crescent does not have footpaths on either side, resulting in the roadway being used
      as the thoroughfare for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
43.   My husband 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).
44.   As a result of the increased traffic generated by the 90 bed aged care facility and, in
      particular, the location of the primary access on Val Crescent, it will make it less safe for
      our children to cycle to school (as they will have to ride past the commercial access to
      the site to exit our street) and on the street.

HEIGHT
45.   The height proposal exceeds the maximum allowable height of 8m under the Noosa Plan.
46.   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.
47.   The excessive height 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.
48.   The height of the proposed development is inconsistent with the reasonable
      expectations of the neighbourhood.

SETBACKS
49.   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.
50.   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
51.   One of the overall outcomes for the Noosaville Locality is that there is landscaping
      amongst buildings, retaining trees and vegetation wherever practical.



                                                                                                 9

Page 10

52.   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. See photographs below.




      Trees on the right side of the road which will be cut down as a result of the 90 bed aged care facility
      (looking North along Val Cr)




      Trees across the road which will be cut down as a result of the 90 bed aged care facility, excluding the
      gum tree on the far left, which is the only tree which will be retained (looking out from our front balcony
      at 6 Val Crescent)

53.   Obviously, if each of the 11 lots were to be developed in accordance with the planning
      scheme, (ie. one detached house on each of the 11 lots), the vast majority of these trees
      would be retained.
54.   These mature trees are integral to the nature and character of the streetscape of Val
      Crescent. Standing at the cul de sac and looking up the street, the streetscape is
      dominated by trees, providing a green, subtropical outlook. The trees provide a feeling of

                                                                                                              10

Page 11

      privacy, attract an abundance of birds and contribute to the feeling of it being an
      ‘established’ street.
55.   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.
56.   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.
57.   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.
58.   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.

CONSTRUCTION
59.   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.
60.   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.
61.   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.

OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
62.   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.
63.   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.
64.   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;

                                                                                               11

Page 12

           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:
                    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;
           l) 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
           o) 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;
65.   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.
66.   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.
67.   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. It would appear that Arcare could not find a
                                                                                                12

Page 13

      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
68.   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.
69.   The DA results in unacceptable and unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the
      surrounding detached dwellings, including my house.
70.   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.
71.   The location of the primary commercial access to the site on Val Crescent is dangerous
      and will compromise the safety of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, including my children.
72.   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.
73.   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.
74.   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.
75.   The adverse impacts as a result of the DA cannot be addressed through the imposition of
      conditions.




                                                                                               13