Response to amended plans - John Cochrane - MCU21/0110

                                            the current actual or proposed
                                            patterns of usage.
 Evacuation during a significant         1. The application does not address
 bushfire event                             the exacerbation of risk in an
                                            evacuation due to bushfire posed
                                            by the development.

 The proposed bar and dining             1. the whole issue of function use and
 facilities will be used by the public      intensification of use has not been
 and for functions causing adverse          dealt with satisfactorily anywhere
 impacts                                    in the application. The proposal
                                            has a facility capable of
                                            accommodating 500 guests in a
                                            function mode - this is not dealt
                                            with in any way. The developer is
                                            at liberty to sell the facility to any
                                            operator or to alter their business
                                            model at any time to conduct
                                            functions on site
                                         2. the whole justification for the use
                                            of the open space recreation use for
                                            tourist accommodation is that it
                                            supports the existing use - so
                                            existing users get to use the
                                            facilities they already use. This is
                                            not a justification for ignoring a
                                            properly made zoning overlay.

 A lack of integration with the          1. the facility can be independently
 existing facilities on the site            owned and operated - it can be
                                            slod, its business model altered at
                                            any time - this is a meaningless
                                            statement. The proposal has been
                                            designed as a full service, free-
                                            standing hotel complete with bar,
                                            restaurant and function facilities.
                                         2. the building is not integrated into
                                            the site and its bulk and scale are
                                            so gross that the notion of any
                                            continuity of design language is
                                            laughable. The only true statement
                                            here is a nod to the Frank Lloyd
                                            Wright adage " a doctor can bury
                                            his mistakes; an architect can only
                                            advise his clients to plant trees".

 The allowable site cover being          1. I dispute the application and
 exceeded for the site                      numeric derivation of the site cover
                                            calculations. These would need to



JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A             4                                     22 June-22


[OCR of page images]
 

the current actual or proposed
patterns of usage.

 

Evacuation during a significant
bushfire event

The application does not address
the exacerbation of risk in an
evacuation due to bushfire posed
by the development.

 

The proposed bar and dining
facilities will be used by the public
and for functions causing adverse
impacts

the whole issue of function use and
intensification of use has not been
dealt with satisfactorily anywhere
in the application. The proposal
has a facility capable of
accommodating 500 guests in a
function mode - this is not dealt
with in any way. The developer is
at liberty to sell the facility to any
operator or to alter their business
model at any time to conduct
functions on site

the whole justification for the use
of the open space recreation use for
tourist accommodation is that it
supports the existing use - so
existing users get to use the
facilities they already use. This is
not a justification for ignoring a
properly made zoning overlay.

 

A lack of integration with the
existing facilities on the site

the facility can be independently
owned and operated - it can be
slod, its business model altered at
any time - this is a meaningless
statement. The proposal has been
designed as a full service, free-
standing hotel complete with bar,
restaurant and function facilities.
the building is not integrated into
the site and its bulk and scale are
so gross that the notion of any
continuity of design language is
laughable. The only true statement
here is a nod to the Frank Lloyd
Wright adage " a doctor can bury
his mistakes; an architect can only
advise his clients to plant trees".

 

The allowable site cover being
exceeded for the site

 

 

I dispute the application and
numeric derivation of the site cover
calculations. These would need to

 

JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A

22 June-22