Re MCU22 0039 submission.rtf

John Gill and Claudia Gaber
16 Ponderosa Drive
Cooroy QLD 4563

To the assessment manager.
Noosa Shire Council
Re: MCU22/0039
Relocatable Home Park proposed in Cooroy

We live at 16 Ponderosa Drive and the proposed development backs directly onto our property. Although we are generally in favour of Community and Affordable Housing, and are even willing to have it in a property adjacent to ours, we have several concerns and objections to this particular plan, as follows:
·	Numbers / density is too high.
When we first heard of this proposal, it was suggested to us that perhaps 20 home units would be built; now we find that 34 are suggested. Any potential problem with noise, stray pets, run-off, litter and environmental damage is multiplied by this sort of crowding. It will affect our amenity and that of the residents of the development as well.
Noosa Council should allow and even encourage more “relocatable” or “tiny homes” or “granny flats” on rural blocks such as the one in question, but with limitations. The limits should be that they are for permanent occupation by family or private rental (NOT short stay accom) and that a sensible number of persons be accommodated as defined by number of bedrooms allowed per hectare or some other reasonable measure.
The area of the property in the proposal is 2.43ha, but about half of that is to be nature reserve, so we are talking about 34 homes, with a total of 50 bedrooms on just over one hectare. And all of this located in the back half of the property, literally in our back yard.
·	Pets need to be restricted
We have a dog. Our neighbours on either side each have a dog; on average every house on our street has one dog. A person has the right to have a dog (or other companion animal) but is it fair to us, to the local wildlife or even to the dogs themselves to have so many pets crowded into this small area without any restrictions? This potentially doubles the number of dogs in our neighbourhood and all of them in our back yard. If this development houses “workers” as proposed, then dogs will be left for many hours, with no fenced exercise or toilet areas. Cats should be kept inside, for their safety and for wildlife protection.
·	Water run-off into our property would be a problem.
The application states, “The site slopes gently downhill to the east at an average gradient of 4.2%.” This is not true. Send a surveyor out and see.
Most of the site slopes eastward, but on the upper portion of the block, from around the power-line easement (and proposed driveway?) is a high point and water runs off onto our property. The proposal map shows 10 houses and a driveway in that area. Each rooftop, driveway or other hardened ground will create more run-off onto our land. During the recent flooding rains water ran in a gentle sheet from that high point and through our property. It flooded our grey-water tank but just missed flooding our septic tank and the house by a few centimeters. Storm water must be channeled away from our property or it could flood our house.