Jen Drysdale submission 17 Dec 15

 

The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation to
young children, we address possible risks where scientific
understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful. In the
absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not harmful,
the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the Developer and the

Property Owner. The Applicant provides no such evidence or assurance

 

 

and in all the circumstances the Development must be rejected.

 

 

Conclusion

The Noosa Biosphere Reserve is sought after and special because of its natural beauty, range of plants
and animals, the committed groups who look after it - and the community that strives towards
becoming a healthy community in a healthy environment that can be enjoyed for generations.

As parents we have chosen this environment in which to raise and school our children because of the
specific nature and life-style the Noosa Biosphere has to offer. It ill behoves a Developer, from outside
of our community, with very different values, to pillage our prized neighbourhood and strip our children
of the clean, green, safe privilege we have sought out for them.

A petrol station does not belong adjacent to our school.

Indeed our children have raised concerns for the frogmouth owls, possums, grey egrets, whistling tree
frogs, rosella, plovers, green tree snakes, ducks and lizards that frequent the Good Shepherd Lutheran
College’s grounds, should there be an increase in traffic and a hazardous increase in air pollution and
poisonous fumes.

For all these reasons the proposed development application is NOT Compatible with other uses and
works. It:

a. DOES NOT Maintain the safety of people, specifically children and works;

b. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
specifically children, including acoustic and health and well being qualities;

c. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native habitat
removal, fragmentation and attrition and

d. DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the
users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open-space
Recreations Zones.

|/We urge you, the Assessment Manager, and/or the elected representatives to reject the Development
as it conflicts with the interests of the public and its obligation to protect the health and safety of our
school children. From the assessment above, the following contrary conclusions are able to be drawn:

1. The proposed use is an inappropriate and unreasonable form of development within the area
in which it is located.

26