Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018 · MCU18/0019

           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