Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018 · MCU18/0019

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