SUBMISSION re 15 Garnet St · MCU18/0094

To:	The Assessment Manager				Ref:	MCU 18/0094
Noosa Council
PO Box 141, Tewantin, QLD 4565
Email:	[email protected]

From:	Emily Johnston	- 16 Emerald St, Cooroy 4563
Phone:	 H-54476132 / M-0490774223	Email:  [email protected]

SUBMISSION 	RE: 	DEVELOPMENT  PERMIT - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – MULTIPLE HOUSING – TYPE 4 CONVENTIONAL -  at 15 GARNET STREET, COOROY.
I am the owner/occupier of the adjoining property on the Northern side of 15 Garnet Street.
I have owned & lived here with my family for the past 17 years.  My residence is a low set timber Queenslander. A t the rear of my property abutting the Northern boundary line of the development site, I have a 12 meter long timber shed running along the boundary line. Both these buildings were erected in the early 1920’s, according to regulations of that time.
There are several issues regarding the proposed development which concern me greatly, mainly in relation, but not limited to:
The erecting of a 1.80 metre high fence on the Northern Boundary Line;
The proposed location & design of the access driveway & crossover:  neither which comply with regulation;
The potential destructions of a significantly large 100 year old Mango Tree located on our boundary line.

RE : 	PROPOSED 1.80mt FENCE ON NORTHERN BOUNDARY
I am extremely concerned about the proposed 1.80 meter high fence along the Northern boundary line which would totally deplete my ability to carry out any required maintenance on the rear external timber wall of my shed as the fence would leave me with no access what-so-ever to this external wall, which will naturally require continued maintenance over the years to come.
There is an external window to the workshop area of my shed which can only have glass replaced from the outside. A 1.80m high fence abutting this wall almost to the height of the roofline, would block out all natural light and as above, I would not have access to rear external wall to carry out any repairs.  NB: I do not have power to the shed & rely on the natural light to be able to use my workroom area in which we spend a lot of time. With the window directly & completely covered by fence, my use of the workshop would be depleted, which will impact on my quality of life.
2
Without access of an appropriate width between any fence & my shed, to enable maintenance & upkeep of the rear external wall & window, the wall will deteriorate beyond repair, which would decrease the value of shed & negatively impact on the value of my property.
I am concerned about the effect of cut & fill/disturbance of soil etc  will have & the proposed retaining wall & laying of concrete up the boundary, to above ground level & above the base/foundations of the shed which could cause runoff of water into the shed etc.
I do not understand the diagram/plan of retaining wall & would need this to be explained to me in layman’s terms.
I have a major issue about proposed fence of any height along the Northern Boundary & abutting my shed, which I would like to discuss further with Council Representatives.

Re: 	PROPOSED LOCATION & DESIGN OF ACCESS DRIVEWAY & CROSSOVER TO PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I am greatly concerned about the proposed location & design of the access driveway, neither of which comply with regulation, as well as the crossover to the property boundary which is an excessive amount of concrete that will have a negative impact on the streetscape.
From the property boundary to the rear parking area of the complex, a minimum 3mtr wide access driveway is required (with an additional 30cm leeway as it runs along a fence-line) whereas, according to the plans, the access driveway at midpoint along the north boundary, is only 2.60mtrs wide, so rather than having an additional 30cm leeway, it would actually be 40cm narrower than regulation requires.
The proposed crossover is 6mtrs wide at the curb by 10 meters in length spanning the width of the apron along Wattle Street to the property boundary. This excessively wide & long concrete access to the boundary would be a definite ‘eyesore’ & would destroy the beauty of the streetscape and ambience of this open green area.
Also the location of the access driveway does not comply with regulation, as it would be located within the envelope of Wattle St & Wimmers Lane Intersection. The proposal mentions that this would be a low volume driveway (estimated maximum 3 vehicles per peak hour) but has not mentioned that Wattle Street as well as Wimmers Lane, are both high volume traffic areas.
Wimmers Lane is also a busy side road that services Cooroy’s Commercial/Business area. It is extensively used throughout the day by a high volume of vehicles. As well as there being several businesses premises & car parking areas within Wimmers Lane, it is used as a thoroughfare from Maple St  to Wattle St (to avoid Emerald St & the busy traffic around IGA). The entry to off street parking beneath the commercial complex opposite the proposed development site is accessed via Wimmers Lane & within a very short distance (just a few metres) from the intersection.
3
This northern end of Wattle St (between Garnet St & Emerald St intersections) is one of the two main streets accessing Cooroy's Commercial /Business Centre & extremely heavy with traffic throughout the day, particularly around the area of Wimmers Lane.
A high number of pedestrians use the grassed nature-strip on the western side of Wattle Street (right beside the proposed development site).  e.g. every weekday after school ends, approximately 50 or more High School Students walk north along that nature strip, then cross the road at Wimmers Lane Intersection to access the concrete footpath on eastern side leading into town.
Due to the increasing growth of Cooroy’s population & increasing number of vehicles & pedestrians at the Wimmers Lane Intersection (school students & pedestrians walking from Emerald St to the commercial complex on corner of Wattle St, Wimmers Lane & Garnet) by placing an access driveway within the envelope of Wimmers Lane, which does not comply with regulation, would be placing it in an awkward & potentially dangerous location.  I refrain from using my driveway during business hours for this very reason.
If the Developments estimated number of vehicles is only 3 per hour in peak time, it would be safer & I think more logical to have the crossover in Garnet St leading directly onto the rear driveway & carparking area of the units. This would also eliminate the over excessive amount of concrete surrounding the building, the 6 x 10 metre slab leading from the curb in Wattle Street & concrete which continues along the northern boundary line,  which would preserve green landscaped area & be a far more attractive streetscape view.
I would like to discuss this further with Council Representatives.

Re: 	POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING  & SIGNIFICANT 100 YEAR OLD MANGO
The proposal intimates there are no large trees or vegetation worth preserving, which in fact is not correct.
I am extremely concerned about the potential removal or possible destruction of an existing very large Mango Tree (in excess of 100yrs old) which although not specifically a ‘native’ tree, is extremely significant.
This Mango Tree is located on the North East Corner of the site with a portion of trunk on my land. Trunk base is approx 1.25mt on each face. The trunk begins 1.25mtrs in from North East Corner Boundary Marker & ends at 2.50mt in from that marker. The trunk spans approx 1mt on Southern side of boundary line (development site) & approx 25cm on Northern side of boundary line (my property).  I cannot estimate the height of the tree other than it has been growing in excess of 100 years & is accordingly extremely tall & magnificent.
4
As well as this Mango Tree being a natural buffer between adjoining properties, it benefits our environment & health and is integral to the local ecosystem.  The Mango Tree is a natural habitat & food source for the many wildlife/native animals /birdlife etc, which shelter in & feed from the tree; Parrots/Rainbow Lorikeets, Kookaburras, Owls, Lizards etc & very importantly Bees who’s survival rely upon the survival of such vegetation.
The Mango Tree provides my family privacy as it buffers from open viewing into our back yard/open private space, from the adjoining property, from the many vehicles & pedestrians using Wattle Street & from the large Commercial/Business Premises (which contains a restaurant) & the associated customer street parking on Eastern side of Wattle Street.
It is a buffer from the noise & pollution from the constant high volume of traffic travelling this northern section of Wattle Street, which is a main access street to Shopping Precinct/Business Centre of Cooroy.
The tree also offers protection from sun, dust & wind to our private open space & provides shelter to my shed (vehicle garage/workshop/storage area) & secludes the side of my garage from public view.
The tree benefits our environment & health, absorbing carbon gases & releasing healthy oxygen back into the air, which is particularly important in this location, for the reason mentioned above (that there is such a high volume of traffic & fumes on this extremely busy section of road).
If the Mango Tree is removed or destroyed, as well as having a major impact on the above-mentioned, the 2 x top floor north facing windows (at the side of Unit 1) would have un-interrupted view beyond my shed roof, Overlooking our backyard, onto rear porch & likely into our living room through 3mt wall of windows. This would be a massive invasion of privacy which concerns me greatly. Our view looking south would be considerably altered from what we currently enjoy, to an unsightly view which would be a mass of 2nd storey building & conglomeration of roofline dominating the skyline.
Preserving the Mango Tree would alleviate the above problems.  The Canopy of the tree currently & would continue to filter any invasive view from either property & each property would retain its amenity, privacy & acoustic buffer etc. This is important as the proposed development,  with a frontage setback that does not comply with regulation,  and having 4 Units with 3 rooms each on the 2nd level, which could all potentially be used as bedrooms,  the complex could actually house up to 16 residents as opposed to the 10 or so as indicated.
For Environmental & Heritage reasons & potential depletion of privacy with so many residents possible & non compliant setback, destroying this Significantly Magnificent Mango Tree would be negligible.  Its destruction could not be justified for the sake of an access driveway design as indicated on the proposal, which does not even comply with regulation.
There is another very large tree adjacent to the Mango but within the envelope of the built form which would need to be removed & a leopard tree where the rear driveway is proposed, both of which would be depletion enough of natural & important vegetation.
5
Lastly I would like to note, the proposal intimates that the built form would be in keeping with the surrounding land uses, which I don’t believe is actually correct.  Within the Multiple Housing Zone on this Western side of Wattle St (& in Garnet St) including those recently developed on the western side of the sites boundary & the property to the north west,  all consist of 1 level, low set residences. The only building this huge & dominating Development with long street frontage, might be in keeping with, is the Commercial Complex opposite, which is in Commercial Zoning.
I understand that Council would prefer the access driveway not be via Garnet Street as it is a heavy vehicle detour (diverting trucks from using Maple St) however heavy vehicles/delivery trucks to IGA etc (and buses) also travel Wattle Street. At any given time during the day, the volume of moving traffic & pedestrians on this section of Wattle Street (between Garnet & Emerald) is more often greater than it is along Garnet Street (west of Wattle St intersection)  i.e.: for every 1-2 vehicles travelling Garnet St, approx 4-5 vehicles travel Wattle Street (many of those on Garnet also turn into Wattle to the Shopping Centre).
With all due respect, unfortunately Council members do not have 1st hand knowledge or experience of living in this location, which I have for the past  17 years, so Officers would not be fully aware of the existing  attractiveness of the streetscape of this particular area, which would potentially be destroyed, particularly if the unnecessarily overbearing concrete access driveway is via Wattle St, in a non-compliant area , which would have a negative impact on the streetscape as well as my rear shed, as opposed to a driveway via Garnet Street which would be feasible & logical, would  result in far less concrete & extra green landscaped are  & have no negative impact on the road network of Garnet Street, particularly if the estimated movement of vehicles entering or leaving the site is only 3 vehicles per hour at peak times.
I have tried to keep this submission as brief as possible, however with the many concerns I have regarding this proposed development,  it is difficult to articulate on paper.
I would like to further discuss with Council Representative, the preserving of the Mango Tree & other matters mentioned.
I would like to have a meeting with Council Representatives, prior to any approval of the Development Application, in order to personally discuss my concerns as mentioned & in relation to the policies/regulations which do not comply,  to explore various possible solutions & positive outcomes.

Sincerely
Emily Johnston
19 August 2018