Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018 · MCU18/0019

      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