John Cochrane Topic : MCU21/0110 - Noosa Springs Hotel

Would be a preamble to the slideshow so if we can just hang on to those for the moment oh that's fine we can have the title sheet up thank you. Make sure that it's all working there.

You. Thank you Councillors for the opportunity to address this meeting. My name is John Cochrane and my co-presenter is Kim Petrovic. We both live in Noosa Springs and represent some of the 450 residents who have made submissions against this proposal. The 1500 residents be negatively affected by the proposal and the Noosa-wide cohort who will potentially be affected by the likely need for upgrade of the nearby sewage treatment plant and the consequent increases in charges. We ask that Council refuse the application on the following grounds: the wide range of non-compliances with Noosa plan 2020. The wide range of impacts on the community, both local and regional. These include but are not limited to noise, traffic and congestion. The lack of an overarching strategy for bushfire evacuation and management. The divergence from the strategic objectives of the Noosa Council in terms of broadening the economic base of Noosa Shire and reducing the reliance on low paid employment in the tourism sector. Its lack of a positive response to climate change in terms of the proposals high capital carbon cost content and its reliance on highly carbon intensive recurrent systems. Its lack of any passive systems to reduce carbon emissions. Its high use of potable water required by over scale pools. Its poor solar orientation and control systems. Overwhelmingly the negative community response to the proposal evidenced by the number of submissions in opposition, the negative sentiment published in the local newspaper, letters sent to Councillors and the petition submitted to Council in opposition to the proposal. In respect of the Noosa Plan 2020, application is deficient in the following: 65% of the total of the hotel is proposed to be built on a land zone and open space for recreation, a non-compliance with Noosa Plan 2020. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Noosa Plan clause 6.6.1.2 in that the proposal is inconsistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the plan. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it provides minimal community use. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it does not increase the range and diversity of recreational opportunities available. The proposal is inconsistent with Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that the proposal is not consistent with the recreation needs of the community and supporting infrastructure. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it does not provide equitable access and comfort for all members of the community. The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan acceptable outcomes in that, A, food and drink outlets are not ancillary to any community activity. B, the food and beverage areas exceed the 150 square metre control. C, the ground floor includes a potential function area exceeding the 300 square metre control. D, the buildings and structures exceed the eight metre height control. D, the buildings exceed gross floor area control in AO 17.1. And F, the buildings exceed the wall length control in AO 17.2. The proposal's use of recreational land relies on claims that a hotel cannot be built on an existing Tourism Accommodation Zone land on the site and that the proposal supports existing Noosa Springs Resort facilities. We believe that a smaller hotel can be built on the site. We also believe that the proposal will not support the existing operations of Noosa Springs resort. The traffic generation model is derived from an example on the Gold Coast where public transport and recreation facilities are immediately adjacent. We believe that the traffic and parking strategy is flawed. The acoustic report is flawed. It incorrectly locates the loading dock. It underestimates the number of pool users, 50 persons only, for a 1,000 square metre swimming pool. It makes no assessment of live or recorded music. It makes no assessment of function use. The application seeks to construct a facility capable of accommodating 500 persons in a function setting. This facility is supported by extensive kitchen storage areas. The potential impact of this facility is not addressed. The applicant has asserted that there is no intention to use the ground flooring area of 500 square metres and its attendant kitchen and cool room facilities for function use. However, the application seeks to construct a facility which is well in excess of the normal provision of these services for a 106 room hotel. The applicant has provided a letter suggesting is appropriate for the hotel use. I have provided Councillors with five examples of buildings I have designed indicating that the facility would easily support a function use of up to 500 persons. The potential function use is significant the consequential impacts of an additional 500 persons on site is not considered in terms of traffic, parking, noise, congestion, potential nuisance and impact on existing recreational uses. We also believe that the basis on reports support the proposal are flawed. The rationale for overturning the properly made zoning overlay is flawed. The potential of the proposal to litigate Unitywater is not adequately weighted. The technical analysis of impacts is limited lack in scope and lacks rigour. Some examples of this lack of rigour are in the acoustic analysis, the failure to consider the proximity of park ridge, the lack of consideration of loading dock nuisance, the lack of consideration of impacts on the existing Noosa Springs we do not resort. Believe that the co-ownership of the hotel and golf club is a bar to consideration of impacts on existing golf club users. Specific attention should be paid to the impacts arising from the location of the STP adjacent to the site, as identified by independent third-party advice obtained by Unitywater. The most effective mitigation will be maintenance of the existing exclusion zone. Further advice from Unitywater includes any attempt to indemnify Unitywater for odour issues will be problematic. The building form of the proposal is most conducive to odour entrapment. All assessments are best case and do not account for blockages, breakdown, rainfall, heatwave, process, upset or loading events. Hence, not only is there no contingency in the STP systems, there is no capacity to absorb statistically guaranteed events. The potential impacts resulting are: higher charges due to consumers due to enforced upgrades of the STP, higher probability of odour nuisance due to increased load, Noosa Springs residents already experience odour depending on prevailing wind, damage to the Noosa brand by negative hotel experience, and a higher probability of nuisance for golf course users and walkers. Much has been made by the applicant on the proposed high quality of the facility and its synchronicity with the Noosa brand. None of this is pertinent to consideration of the proposal. It is a 106 bed tourist class hotel with a potential function room. The holiday accommodation market and the ability to manage odour that will determine the user profile. I'll now hand over to Kim.

The logo on the top left hand corner is a representation of sustainability. A balance between social, environmental and economical factors. We believe that the proposal is not balanced, it favours economic over social and environmental factors. To make our point, we've constructed a computer model, a BIM model. The accuracy and validity of the model can be sustained. On the left-hand side, you see the developer's view. On the right-hand side, what we've designated there, the neighbour's view.

No, appears not to be. I'll just call for the next slide then. Just a little bit about the balance between environment, society and economy. Next slide, please. This shows the general core planning issues, zoning, bulk and scale, impacts, habitat, bushfire and whether it's a well-made application. The model there shows the extreme imbalance in scale and proportion between the proposal and the existing Noosa Springs resort buildings. The heights can be guaranteed as effective. They're taken from the AHD levels within the application and there's some notes there on how the model's been derived. So you can see there's an extreme imbalance of bulk and scale. The hotel is built on% of the floor area is based on land zoned open space recreation. The green area is the open space recreation zone. The red area is the 30 seconds. We've got to shoot. Okay, that's the imbalance of zoning. Can we move? Next slide, please. We dispute the height plane calculations. We've done our own calculations to find a higher level exceedance. Next slide, please. Three great sources of noise and congestion: the pool area, the loading dock, and the existing entry to the hotel. One of the big problems will be the impact on park ridge. That shows the roadway. That's it. Great. Thank you very, very much.