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

Original Plan @ Rooms 106             10,800 litres uncompacted waste per week
Amended Plan @ Rooms 69               44,674 litres uncompacted waste per week

Conclusions
   1. The original application did not properly represent the waste generation of the
      proposal and consequently, the initial impact assessment is flawed.
   2. The current application is a more reasonable assessment, but may still be slightly
      underestimated.
   3. The current amended plan represents a waste management increase between three and
      six times that declared and assessed under the original planning report.
   4. The Noise generation and nuisance will be far greater than that previously assessed


4.     Noise Impact Resulting from Waste Management
The applicant asserts that all waste will be transported noiselessly from the hotel loading
dock to the existing clubhouse loading dock and removed from site from this point. The
applicant also asserts that the intensification of use over that currently on site will be
minimal.

Assertion 1
The 1100 litre bins will be loaded onto a trailer in the loading dock and transported quietly up
an access ramp and down the spur road a distance of nearly 200m. This will be done daily for
at least 6 x 1100 l bins. Much of this waste will be glass. Figure 1 indicates a radius of 50
metres from the loading dock and the location of the nearest affected properties at
“Parkridge”. Figure 1a indicates by blue line the path of transfer for waste skips. We believe
this claim to be fanciful.




FIGURE 1                                        FIGURE 1A
NEW LOADING DOCK                                WASTE TRANSFER ROUTE
RELATIVE TO “PARKRIDGE                          RELATIVE TO “PARKRIDGE” – in blue
Acoustic impact to Parkridge                     Acoustic impact to Parkridge


[OCR of page images]
Original Plan @ Rooms 106 10,800 litres uncompacted waste per week
Amended Plan @ Rooms 69 44,674 litres uncompacted waste per week

Conclusions

1. The original application did not properly represent the waste generation of the
proposal and consequently, the initial impact assessment is flawed.

2. The current application is a more reasonable assessment, but may still be slightly
underestimated.

3. The current amended plan represents a waste management increase between three and
six times that declared and assessed under the original planning report.

4. The Noise generation and nuisance will be far greater than that previously assessed

4. Noise Impact Resulting from Waste Management

The applicant asserts that all waste will be transported noiselessly from the hotel loading
dock to the existing clubhouse loading dock and removed from site from this point. The
applicant also asserts that the intensification of use over that currently on site will be
minimal.

Assertion |

The 1100 litre bins will be loaded onto a trailer in the loading dock and transported quietly up
an access ramp and down the spur road a distance of nearly 200m. This will be done daily for
at least 6 x 1100 1 bins. Much of this waste will be glass. Figure 1 indicates a radius of 50
metres from the loading dock and the location of the nearest affected properties at
“Parkridge”. Figure 1a indicates by blue line the path of transfer for waste skips. We believe
this claim to be fanciful.

 

     

FIGURE 1A

FIGURE 1
NEW LOADING DOCK WASTE TRANSFER ROUTE
RELATIVE TO “PARKRIDGE RELATIVE TO “PARKRIDGE” — in blue

Acoustic impact to Parkridge Acoustic impact to Parkridge