MCU12/0012 re Noise Impact Study from Juliet Peters

Subject: MCU12/0012 Noise Impact Study (correction of spelling errors)
From: Juliet Peters
Date: 2012-04-10T03:39:30+00:00
To: Internet Mailbox Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Jack Lewis

I am completely in support of this email from Steve and Layla Fowler

 

It concerns me grateful that this application contravenes the Noosa Plan in so many respects, that it amazes me that this application hasn’t by now been rejected on its illegality.   

 

My concern is that you may, for some unknown reason, consider that a few supporters somehow overrides the law.  As I understand it the number of supporters is not documented in any law as being relevant.  Nor can it be assumed by yourself that because all people who could be effected by this have not written an objection, therefore do not object to this application.  I have spoken to many people who assume this DA Application cannot be approved in its current form because it contravenes the law.  People are busy, they rightly expect that the laws made in the public interest will adequately serve their interests.    If your decision ignors laws, and made by a simple pro versus against contest, than the public need to know that.  If that is the contest then people will readily sign a petition against.  

 

However according to procedures and laws this is not the issue on which DA applications are considered.  If I am wrong in this then please let me know.  This DA cannot be approved because it contravenes the Noosa Plan on many fronts.  Most importantly the noise will be “audible beyond site boundary”.  Any Noise Impact Statement will need to provide the evidence that no noise will be audible beyond the site boundary.  Which is impossible.   People’s live will be impacted adversely by this business.   People cannot be punished because they have been misinformed by the applicant.  The applicant has made promises.   Promises that cannot be followed through.  There will be substantial impact to neighbours.  If they don’t know that yet, they will do later.  This DA cannot be approved on promises.  Only on facts and law. 

 

Another great concern of mine is that some authority within our Council is allowing public parking at the Cooran Rec Club for this private, commercial use.  I would like an answer in writing as to the name of the person within Council who gave such permission.  As this will effect the amount of public parking available to the public, has there been a notice displayed in that parking area to notify local people of a material change of use?  Standard procedure.  Secondly, I would like to know how this effects Precedent Law.  If Council considers that public facilities can be handed over to private enterprise, then this sets a precedent that any business operating within this area can rightly expect the public to give up their facilities to that private operation, with of course substantial loss of amenity.   As anyone knows who has been to court, as I have, a Council cannot allow rights by one private enterprise that are not equally rights for all private enterprise.   In my experience Councils rightly expect private enterprise to provide, at their own expense, parking to adequately cater for the parking demand of that business.  It is my opinion that this is a serious error by the person who has given approval to allow such use.  An approval made without seeking objections from those effected by the loss of parking amenity and without a report that answers the question as to the precedent this will set.  Public facilities are paid by the public for their use, not the use of private enterprise.   Once the precedent is set the implication in law are enormous and it will NOT be supported by the public.  This Council could not make any case that would satisfy the public that it is operating within the reasonable expectations of the public.  This is a serious matter.

 

If this application is approved I will be requiring some answers from the General Manager of this Council.  There is an expectation of the public that laws will be upheld.  In fact Councils have been dismissed in NSW for not upholding the laws made by elected councillors.  It is corruption.  The public do not consider that they have to check every application going through Council to ensure that staff are upholding Council laws.  It is taken for granted that this is happening.  The General Manager of the Council should have procedures in place where staff must ensure that before any application is considered for its merits or otherwise, that it meets ALL legalities.   This DA is unlawful.   For this development to be lawful on this issue (and there are many illegalities) you, Jack, would need to explain to us that the noise from 12 bikes revving their engines would not be audible beyond the boundary.  Are you willing to make that assurance to us?  Common sense alone would say the no.  Of course it will be heard across boundary fences.  Not just immediate neighbours but the whole valley.  Any noise impact study needs to explain how far the noise will travel, in all weather conditions.  It will be many kilometres.  It will effect people who will not know anything about this application.  

 

If this approval is given the go-ahead should the public rightly seek an explanation as to what is going on where common sense and the law is seriously been ignored to the detrimental effects of the lifestyle of people who live here, and to the serious detrimental effect of future businesses opportunity that would allow the beauty of this area to be preserved.  Noise is uglification of an environment.  It kills tourism opportunity as it kills quality of life.  It creates a stressful lifestyle for large numbers of people which causes health issues like depression.  

 

Do not for one minute think that approving any application isn’t incredibly important.  You have an important role.  You ensure that all laws are being upheld.  Those laws are made for the public for good reason.  Health, wellbeing and eco tourism business opportunity.  Businesses that provide enjoyment of a beautiful environment.  Electric bikes would be appropriate.   Hurting the environment will be defended by the majority of the public and the laws that have been made show that.  It is the job for Council staff to upheld those laws that preserve the beauty of our environment, support appropriate business opportunities, and protect the lifestyle that leads to happy communities.  We are looking to you Jack to protect us through our laws.   Rejecting this application will be doing your job.  Approving it will raise questions for the public as to why our laws are being ignored by this Council’s staff.  We will want answers.  Our wellbeing is at stake here.   We are a democracy.  Under a democracy the greater good of the public is ensured through laws so we work as a team to build our country in the interests of us all.   Your role is to ensure those laws are upheld.   

 

Juliet Peters