Further submission from John Cochrane in response to amended plans - MCU21/0110

                    applicant’s own submission, this kitchen will only be used for breakfast
                    service and as a satellite servery for restaurant functioning.
        The point being that the buildings functional and therefore income producing
        component has been reduced from 106 rooms to 69 rooms – a reduction of 35% of
        income yet the communal facilities have not decreased in size. This change will have
        a significant impact on the financial viability of the project and will of necessity affect
        operation planning.

     e) The change does remove a component which was integral to the financial operation of
        the building – see above. We believe that the most likely effect of the change is the
        need for future application to “rebalance” the efficiency of the building by increasing
        floor area or reduction in service areas. We believe this to be a “foot in the door”
        application as a precursor to future expansion. This is likely given the availability of
        site cover and FSR within the TAZ zoning – an area the applicant declines to utilise in
        this application, but could use in future applications.
     f) No comment
     g) We disagree with this on the basis of the stated waste movements – see section of the
        is statement.
     h) No comment
     i) We disagree on the basis that there is a substantially increased impact in waste
        movements – see relevant section

We therefore submit that the proposed changes do not represent a “minor change” under the
Planning Act.

2.      Impact Mitigation Due to Amended Plans

I submit that the amended plans do not mitigate any issues raised in prior objection to the
development. Nor do they provide any reason to reverse council’s decision to refuse the
application. Specifically,

     a) The amended application does not address the Purpose and Outcomes of the
        recreation and open space zone. It does not provide for any additional cultural,
        educational, leisure, recreation and sporting use and activities. It does not reduce any
        loss of existing public facilities – notably, tennis, physiotherapy, pilates, holiday
        activity camps etc.
     b) The amended application is still sited within the odour contour deemed unacceptable
        by Unity Water. The outdoor areas (pool etc) and the public lounge areas are located
        within or open directly to affected areas.
     c) The proposed building is located significantly within the open space recreation zone.
        The amended plans locate 1,550 m.sq. of site cover within the OSR zone and 1,200
        m.sq. of site cover within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. There can be no
        justification for this intrusion into the OSR zone – particularly as there is
        approximately 8.500 m.sq. of TAZ land available for development.1 This land could
        be utilised without any impact on the existing club facilities.2


1
  This area is currently occupied by car parking areas and could be utilised with covered parking and building
over
2
  We have produced conceptual design indicting that the proposed number of rooms in the amended application
could be accommodated in the TAZ


[OCR of page images]
8)

h)

applicant’s own submission, this kitchen will only be used for breakfast
service and as a satellite servery for restaurant functioning.
The point being that the buildings functional and therefore income producing
component has been reduced from 106 rooms to 69 rooms — a reduction of 35% of
income yet the communal facilities have not decreased in size. This change will have
a significant impact on the financial viability of the project and will of necessity affect
operation planning.

The change does remove a component which was integral to the financial operation of
the building — see above. We believe that the most likely effect of the change is the
need for future application to “rebalance” the efficiency of the building by increasing
floor area or reduction in service areas. We believe this to be a “foot in the door”
application as a precursor to future expansion. This is likely given the availability of
site cover and FSR within the TAZ zoning — an area the applicant declines to utilise in
this application, but could use in future applications.

No comment

We disagree with this on the basis of the stated waste movements — see section of the
is statement.

No comment

We disagree on the basis that there is a substantially increased impact in waste
movements — see relevant section

We therefore submit that the proposed changes do not represent a “minor change” under the
Planning Act.

2.

Impact Mitigation Due to Amended Plans

I submit that the amended plans do not mitigate any issues raised in prior objection to the
development. Nor do they provide any reason to reverse council’s decision to refuse the
application. Specifically,

a)

b)

The amended application does not address the Purpose and Outcomes of the
recreation and open space zone. It does not provide for any additional cultural,
educational, leisure, recreation and sporting use and activities. It does not reduce any
loss of existing public facilities — notably, tennis, physiotherapy, pilates, holiday
activity camps etc.

The amended application is still sited within the odour contour deemed unacceptable
by Unity Water. The outdoor areas (pool etc) and the public lounge areas are located
within or open directly to affected areas.

The proposed building is located significantly within the open space recreation zone.
The amended plans locate 1,550 m.sq. of site cover within the OSR zone and 1,200
m.sq. of site cover within the Tourist Accommodation Zone. There can be no
justification for this intrusion into the OSR zone — particularly as there is
approximately 8.500 m.sq. of TAZ land available for development.! This land could
be utilised without any impact on the existing club facilities.”

' This area is currently occupied by car parking areas and could be utilised with covered parking and building

over

? We have produced conceptual design indicting that the proposed number of rooms in the amended application
could be accommodated in the TAZ