Properly made submission (object) Brett Kennedy MCU13/0171

          The changes to the profile of the property across the road may not have been

considered and the damming effects of the road may also not have been considered.

Otherwise, enough information has not been sourced to make a properly informed decision.
Any resident who has either of the two arms of this creek in their property has been made
painfully aware on a number of occasions of the extent and frequency of flooding that can
and does occur around these watercourses. They would have, like me, had to adjust the

usages of their properties in accordance to the levels of the floods and have quite possibly
learnt from painful experience like myself. As the bulk of my property is or has been made

prone to flooding, truly "useful," "safe" land is minimal.


          Floodwater has been within meters of my house on a number of occasions and the

bulk of my property has been under flood waters, most worryingly so in 2012. At a

conservative estimate, at least 90% of my property has been under flood waters in the time

that I have owned it. Worried neighbours have telephoned me at work to tell me that

floodwater is near my house. A swift water rescue of a woman has been executed on the

proposed new factory side of the road (successfully thankfully) after she became trapped in
flood waters between our properties. Flooding of the road regularly blocks Lake Macdonald

Drive and I have regularly seen people putting their lives at risk by driving through

floodwaters in their desperation to get through. As I have said, the modifications to the soil

levels on the Wimmers property side of the road and the poor provision for floodwater

under/through Lake Macdonald Drive clearly appear add to the severity of the road’s
flooding.

          The Adams and Sparks prepared proposal for the new factory includes a figure

(Figure 18) that, in their words "illustrates that the subject site contains identified Streams &
Rivers and Drainage Lines, the subject site is not affected by flood hazard and therefore is

not required to address the applicable provisions of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code." This

is such a dangerously incorrect statement. As already stated, my property is clearly shown

on this   figure. No sign of flooding is indicated on this figure for my property when flooding is
in fact a too regular event. This is so stunningly wrong. An absolute and complete overhaul

of the Noosa Plan’s flood level hazard overlay is clearly critically and immediately required.

Flood waters have all but entered the building that is proposed to be the site of the

proposed new factory. The driveway to this building has been under water. All the land at
gates 3 and 4 are have flooded on numerous occasions. The site very much is subject to
flooding and most certainly therefore does need to address the applicable provisions of the
Natural Hazards Overlay Code.


          I believe that the Adams and Sparks reliance on the flood hazard schematics from

the Noosa Plan has been demonstrated to be a flawed process because the information on

that plan is in fact flawed. This sole reliance on a single piece of information could be seen

to be a dangerous practice. I would suggest that they contact long term residents in the

future to be able to confirm or improve on the information that is contained in the Noosa