07/1259 - Referral Agency Response (Concurrence) - EPA [As Published] · 132007.1259

Page 2

Postal address: PO Box 2771, BRISBANE QLD 4001

Telephone: 3224 5644 Fax: 3247 3278

E-mail: [email protected]

EPA no.: AMA 7550
Application no.: 2007/1259
Property Description: Lot no.: 8 Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lot no.: 9 Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lot no.: 10 Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lotno.:76 Registered Pian no.: MCH2969
Property Location: 215, 215A, 217 & 219 David Low Way, PEREGIAN BEACH
Signed
Scot’ Robi

Operations Manager
Waste & Contaminated Land Unit

Ce:

The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council

PO Box 141

TEWANTIN QLD 4565

‘Attention: Kerri Coyle

IDAS covering letter (concurrence agency)

Page 2 of 2

Page 3

Applicant: Scanlon Property Group

Description: Material Change of Use

2087

here:

Oo

|

2

IDAS C-6

Concurrence agency response
Integrated Planning Act 1997 ss3.3.16 and 3.3.18

   

C/- PMM Group Pty Ltd

PO Box 1559
FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 [: 4 RECEIVED

Application no.: 2007/1259 fo o- 1 AUG 2007

Date received by EPA: 17 July 2007 ee HOOSA

Jurisdiction: Environmental Protection Act 1994 A Sante COUNCIL
‘Role: Concurrence 4

215, 215A, 217 & 219 David Low Way, PEREGIAN BEACH

Lot no.: 8 ‘Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lot no.: 9 Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lotno.:10 Registered Plan no.: RP9315
Lot no.: 76 Registered Plan no.: MCH2969

Type of development
Material change of use
Reconfiguration of a Lot

the existing use of the land is, or if the land is vacant land with no existing use the most
recent use of the land was, for a notifiable activity under the Environmental Protection Act
1994, :

the proposed use of the land is for child care, educational, recreational, residential or
similar purposes and the existing use of the land is, or if the land is vacant land with no
existing use the most recent use of the land was, for an industrial activity.

the land is on the Environmental Management Register or Contaminated Land Register
under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

the land is wholly or partly within an area for which an Area Management Advice for
industrial activity or natural mineralisation has been issued and the proposed use of the
land is for child care, educational, recreational, residential or similar purposes.

the land is wholly or partly in an area for which an Area Management Advice for
unexploded ordnance (UXO) has been issued.

Response to development application

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting as a concurrence agency under the /ntegrated
Planning Act 1997, provides the following response to the application detailed above -

OOoOoOg

3

conditions must attach to any approval of the development
any approval must be for part only of the development
any approval must be a preliminary approval only

there are no concurrence agency requirements

the application must be refused

Reasons for including condition(s) or refusal

The site (the subject lot/s) is part of an area of land within which the Department of Defence
(Defence) has assessed a ‘substantial’ risk of residual UXO contamination exists. Visit the Defence

website ht

//www.defence.gov.au/uxo for details.

 

VER2

Page 4

IDAS C-6

Defence advises that development or land use rezoning proposals for land within a ‘substantial’ zone
should only proceed following the conduct of UXO investigation and clearance activities. Defence
maintains a list of commercial UXO investigation and remedial search contractors that it accredits to
carry out this work.

Defence also recommends that owners or occupiers of potentially affected land and workers and
contractors employed on the land need to be aware of the procedure if a suspect object is found.

As the EPA has no record of the site being further investigated or remediated, itis considered that
there remains a possibility of UXO being found on it.

4 Conditions
The following concurrence agency conditions are to be attached to any approval:

4.1 Prior to the commencement of any excavation, earthworks or soil disturbance related to this
development, that part of the site to be so worked is to be subjected to investigation and,
where necessary, appropriate remedial action.

4.2 Any person employed to work on any part of the site where Condition 4.1 has not been
satisfied is to be forewarned in writing by the applicant.

This warning is to explain that information available to the EPA indicates a potential for
residual UXO exists on the site and work should proceed with due caution. It is to state the
procedure to be followed by any person finding an object suspected of being explosive
ordnance or component thereof:

Do not disturb the object.

Take action, where appropriate, to prevent it being disturbed by another person.
Note its approximate dimensions and general appearance.

Note the route to its location.

Advise the Police as soon as possible.

4.3 Following investigation and any remedial action taken to satisfy Condition 4.1 above, the
applicant is to submit a report, prepared in accordance with current guidelines, to the EPA for
assessment. The EPA is to subsequently advise the Noosa Council and the applicant of its
assessment in regard to Condition 4.1 being satisfied.

4.4 No gravel, rock, sand or soil is to be removed from the site without written EPA approval.

4.5 The applicant is to advise the owner and any occupier of the site of the above responsibilities.
5 Additional comments or advice

Applicants may contact the EPA’s Contaminated Land Unit on (07) 3224 5644 or visit the Defence
website http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo/ for the details of current UXO investigation and remedial
search contractors. The EPA accepts reports based on investigative and remedial work carried out

by these contractors.

Investigation and remedial action to satisfy Condition 4.1 typically involves sampling/search —
programs with detection equipment unless the use of such equipment is:

VER 2

Page 5

IDAS C-6

e considered unwarranted by a UXO contractor due to the extent of any prior excavation or
earthworks or, conversely, of any filling proposed as part of the development program; or

© prevented or made impracticable by the presence of a structure, stockpile, natural barrier or
metal waste.

In the latter case, alternative action may be appropriate to minimise the risk in the first instance. For
example, where the risk of exposure to any UXO that may exist is reduced by the presence of a
structure or natural barrier, issuance of the standard UXO waming (see Condition 4.2) may suffice
while the structure, stockpile or barrier remains in place. Where a structure is to be removed or
reduced as part of the development program, protective precautions, commensurate with any greater
risk to which workers might then be exposed, may need to be considered. Progressive assessment
will be necessary where such circumstances exist. Unless, at the completion of preliminary works,
there is evidence then available to the UXO contractor that any residual risk is negligible, the use of
detection equipment will typically be required to confirm the site’s status.

Where investigation, along with any subsequent remedial action and assessment, is to be
implemented by stages to satisfy Condition 4.1 and 4.3, a preliminary investigation report should be
submitted by the applicant to the EPA along with a management plan for the proposed work. Staged
investigation/remediation is most likely to be applicable where development of smaller, built-on lots
(which can present circumstances such as those discussed above) or broadhectare sites is proposed. In
such cases, the EPA’s assessment of the report and advice to Council in regard to approval of the
development will be dependent on agreement with the management plan.

Where Condition 4.1 is to be satisfied by a whole lot or broadhectare development stage being
subjected to investigation and any necessary remedial action, the EPA, based on the subsequent
investigation/remediation report’s findings and recommendation/s, may reassess the lot, or that portion
comprising the development stage, as being remediated or not needing remediation, and advise the
applicant and Council accordingly. Otherwise, any balance of land that has not been further
investigated will retain the risk assessment made by Defence. This is unless evidence obtained from
the investigated part/s can be used to refute Defence’s assessment in regard to all or part of the
balance. In the latter case, the EPA may reassess all of the balance or the applicable part/s as being
unaffected by UXO.

6 Additional information

This concurrence response applies only to contaminated land issues and does not remove the need to
obtain any further approval for this development which may be required by this or other legislation,
State and/or Commonwealth. Applicants are advised to check with all relevant statutory authorities.
Applicants should also comply with all relevant legislation.

The EPA has not provided a notification to native title parties for this application. The State’s
Native Title Work Procedures indicate that the responsibility for assessment of native title issues for
an IDAS application rests with the Assessment Manager. It is recommended that the Assessment
Manager determines whether native title notification is required for this application.

*End of response*
IDAS C-6 CLM

VER 2