MCU180015 Submission Scott Kachad · MCU18/0015

My name is Scott Kachad and I am a resident at 11 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads and have been for many years. I have reservations and issues with the proposed change of use and development Application Reference MCU18/0015 for Lot 27 RP89506 address 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads. My submission is as follows:

I understand and appreciate that owners may make changes to their property, however, they must follow the rules, regulations, and laws. Based on the poor ecological condition of the site and the current dwelling and dwelling access, one may begin to question the integrity of both the Applicant and the Noosa Council.

Please find my opposition points for your consideration and comment:

The proposed development and change of use site is adjacent to a public pathway. In walking the pathway the significant overgrowth of noxious weeds is self-evident. The Ecological Report submitted by the Applicant makes reference to the poor environmental condition of the site. The Report states “The areas of the subject site proposed for development generally support areas of limited ecological significance. Vegetation communities are highly disturbed, have a high proportion of weeds, are low in diversity, small in size and have low connective values. ” . Further, I note on the Queensland Government Website https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing-forestry/agriculture/land-management/health-pests-weeds-diseases/weeds-diseases/controlling-weeds/laws which states: “Landowners are responsible for taking all reasonable and practical steps to minimise the risks associated with invasive plants under their control. This is known as the general biosecurity obligation (GBO). Your local government and Biosecurity Queensland provide invasive plant control support services but may also enforce landowner responsibilities if necessary.”
QUESTION: Why has the current landowner not taken any reasonable or practical steps to manage the invasive and noxious weeds on the property? Surely, with the premeditated intent of asking the Noosa Council to consider a change of use and to trust the Applicant to manage the proposed development in a compliant and lawful manner, the site would be appropriately maintained and managed as a demonstration of the skill, wherewithal, and true intensions and mannerisms of the Applicant?
QUESTION: What, if anything, has Noosa Council done to mitigate the risk that this site represents? After all, it is very close to the Noosa Park.

One only needs to walk the public access path adjacent to the current property to immediately witness the dilapidated state of the driveway, which is certainly a major public liability.
QUESTION: What is the owner of the property doing to ensure the safety of the children residing next door to the property (on both sides)?
QUESTION: What is the Noosa Council doing to ensure the safety of the children residing next door to the property (on both sides)?

The proposed site is considered by the Noosa Council to be in a Biodiversity zone, a Natural Hazards zone, and a Koala Habitat. I personally have seen Koala, grey headed flying foxes, a family of Crying Baby birds (sorry I don’t know their proper name), wallabies and multiple types of snakes, lizards, echidnas, eels, frogs and other wildlife. In this regard I do not believe the proposed change of use, number and size of the dwellings, and actual minimums of various proposed dwellings to the creek support the current classifications of the site.

I note the Applicants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT for the site recommends major earthworks, including but not limited to the following “Strip the surface of vegetation, organic matter, organic rich soils (topsoils), severely root affected soils, and uncontrolled fill. Topsoil was generally encountered up to about 0.3 m, however it is anticipated that grubbing of tree stumps and tree roots will require localised stripping to greater depths. ‘Proof roll’ the stripped surface by several passes of a minimum 10 tonne smooth-drum roller (without vibration, to reduce slope stability impacts) to identify loose or soft areas. Proof rolling in areas of cut may be deferred until after bulk excavation is completed.
The site development application lacks credible detail for the erosion management on the site and how this extensive soil stripping exercise will be carried-out so as to protect the creek and the creeks run-off into Laguna Bay. Further, the site development application does not adequately address how such significant earthworks and major construction of 3,800+ meters squared with 12M heights will impact the safety and general well being of the residence of Attunga Heights. How will a 10 tonne smooth-drum roller access the site as an example? Where will the multitude of construction workers and equipment, trucks, trailers, etc. access the site and where exactly will they be parked? What are the environmental impacts to the creek, the parking, the traffic, the surrounds, and the intended use and plan for this area?

I understand that a significant portion of the site is to be in some way granted to the Noosa Council. Further, this is for the purposes of protecting the creek and its precious and fragile environment. QUESTION: Considering there are already laws and regulation protections in-place on a State and Local level, why does the Council feel it must take on the on-going management burden of maintaining and managing additional land? Does Council believe there is inadequate regulations that justify transferring the financial burden to Noosa Rate payers?

Concerning the Applicants Public Notification Boards that have been placed near the proposed site I would like to discuss herein some of the mis-information being stated on the “Did You Know?” section, specifically:
“…. Approximately 50% of the land will be dedicated to Council for environmental reserve to ensure its long term protection.” As stated above, the land is already protected by regulations and the current owner and Council are ignoring. Transfer of management of this land serves only to eliminate financial and legal obligations from the current owner to the rate payers.
“Prior to the environmental reserve being dedicated to Council, weed and pest species will be removed…” By the Applicants own admission, they are in breach of regulations concerning the environment. How then can they be trusted to uphold regulations concerning construction site management including erosion control, etc.?
“A 66m wide (average) wildlife corridor will be maintained for wildlife movement.” What is the minimum and median measurements? Again, the owner is wilfully disregarding legal requirements to manage the land today. What guarantee do the residence and Noosa Biosphere supporters have that the development will proceed in compliance to other rules, regulations, etc.? Further, the Applicant again is self-admitting that this is a wildlife corridor and worthy of protection. Therefore, the change of use request should be denied.
“The 3 iconic hoop pines on the site will be retained and protected.” The Applicant offers no plan or assurance. The Applicant’s Arborist has raised concerns in this regard and advises that care must be taken during the site development process. The Applicant has already demonstrated a lack of regard for regulations.
“Development of the site will reduce bushfire risk…” Again, the Owner of the property has legal obligations right now to manage the property. Clear-cutting of the vegetation is not a bushfire risk mitigation plan and again demonstrates the Applicants intensions and attitude.
“The parts of the site proposed for development have been determined by detailed technical assessment…” The reports submitted by the Applicant all detail the significant difficulty of the highly sloping land, the soft sandy soil- wherein even vibration from equipment may trigger a landslide.
“The previous 2006 development approval granted on this site was for 42 units….”  I fail to see how a 13 year-old approval has any relevance to the current application and proposed change of use request. This is more validation that the Applicant is not sincere in his presentation of the proposal.

I could continue, however, I believe that there is enough hard open questions, mis-information, lack of detail and disregard for the publics interest, codes, protocols, rules and requirements that the Noosa Council should not approve the application in its present form and much more comprehensive due diligence be requested and required.

In Confidence,

Scott Kachad