Response to amended plans - John Cochrane - MCU21/0110

 The use of the ROSZ not being for     1. the ownership of the land is
 community benefit or being               irrelevant to the land use zoning
 accessible by the general             2. the land is available for public use
 community.                               and could be sensitively developed
                                          by the owner for recreational uses
                                          by the public
                                       3. The description “some of the land”
                                          when describing the intrusion of
                                          the development into the ROSZ is
                                          somewhat of an understatement.
                                          65% of the proposal floorspace is
                                          on the ROSZ.
                                       4. The conclusion that significant
                                          need and community benefit has
                                          been established is curious. this is
                                          an absolutely incredible conclusion
                                          based on no substantive planning
                                          argument. It is in the developer’s
                                          financial interest. The public
                                          interest is much broader and needs
                                          to be addressed in the context of
                                          the SEQ plan 2040 and the
                                          strategic background to the Noosa
                                          Plan 2020 - none of this has been
                                          done - this is truly the vaguest,
                                          most superficial and slight
                                          argument for a major planning
                                          decision.

 Building Height in terms of meters    1. I dispute the building height plane
 and stories being excessive for the      calculations. They cannot be
 land                                     accurately made on the bases of
                                          assumed natural ground level.
                                       2. The issue of the number of storeys
                                          is irrelevant where there are
                                          substantial undercroft areas caused
                                          by site slope. The building is of
                                          excessive bulk and scale.
                                       3. the building is not integrated into
                                          the site topography - it is a pancake
                                          which sticks out like a hernia
                                          because the concept is a resort pool
                                          with a flat pack hotel wrapped
                                          around it

 Traffic and car parking impacts       1. I disagree with the proposition that
                                          the traffic study accurately reflects



JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A           3                                     22 June-22


[OCR of page images]
 

 

The use of the ROSZ not being for
community benefit or being
accessible by the general
community.

the ownership of the land is
irrelevant to the land use zoning
the land is available for public use
and could be sensitively developed
by the owner for recreational uses
by the public

The description “some of the land”
when describing the intrusion of
the development into the ROSZ is
somewhat of an understatement.
65% of the proposal floorspace is
on the ROSZ.

The conclusion that significant
need and community benefit has
been established is curious. this is
an absolutely incredible conclusion
based on no substantive planning
argument. It is in the developer’s
financial interest. The public
interest is much broader and needs
to be addressed in the context of
the SEQ plan 2040 and the
strategic background to the Noosa
Plan 2020 - none of this has been
done - this is truly the vaguest,
most superficial and slight
argument for a major planning
decision.

 

Building Height in terms of meters
and stories being excessive for the
land

I dispute the building height plane
calculations. They cannot be
accurately made on the bases of
assumed natural ground level.

The issue of the number of storeys
is irrelevant where there are
substantial undercroft areas caused
by site slope. The building is of
excessive bulk and scale.

the building is not integrated into
the site topography - it is a pancake
which sticks out like a hernia
because the concept is a resort pool
with a flat pack hotel wrapped
around it

 

Traffic and car parking impacts

 

 

I disagree with the proposition that
the traffic study accurately reflects

 

JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A

22 June-22