2019-06-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   11 JUNE 2019


Each report concludes as follows:
   Geotechnical Peer Review:
     “The responses generally address most of the issues raised.
     The sand dune in its existing condition is potentially unstable. In this regard the site is
     similar to other areas which have been developed within the Noosa Sand Dune Stability
     Problem area.
     The proposed development on the western side of the creek does not attempt to avoid
     areas of potential instability and the proposed structures will be constructed on the
     potentially unstable slopes. There are no proposals to stabilise the land.
     It appears that the overall approach adopted by the geotechnical reports is to accept that a
     landslide will occur but design the structures to be secure in the event of a landslide. That
     is, the land may slide down the hill but the structures will be left suspended above the
     landslide on piers founded at depth below the potential zone of instability.
     Council needs to be aware that if the proposed development is approved it will be on this
     basis.”
   Ecological Peer Review:
     “While responses have been provided to each of the information request items, most of
     Council’s requests have not been met. Of greatest concern are that:
        Koalas are known to inhabit the area and the site is likely to provide an important
          avenue for movement for the species. This is not reflected within the ecology report.
        Neither the riparian buffer of 10 m from top of creek bank or wildlife corridor of a
          minimum of 50 m vegetated width are possible with the current design.
     The proposal should therefore not be approved for development according to these plans.”
   Stormwater Peer Review:
     Quantity
     “The legal point of discharge is the existing flow path within the site.
     The Rational Method has been used to show that the development will have a minor
     (+0.3%) impact to peak flows, resulting in a minor increase (1mm) in flow depth within the
     existing flow path. This will not cause any actionable nuisance to downstream properties.
     The site is located at the lower end of a larger forested catchment and development has
     been limited to the up-slope areas of the site to leave the drainage line within the site
     undeveloped. It is our opinion that providing detention measures on site would not provide
     any benefit.”
     Quality
     “Proprietary stormwater treatment devices (SPEL StormFilter and Stormsack or approved
     equivalent) and rainwater harvesting tanks are included in the model. It is noted that a
     detailed Operational Phase Maintenance Plan is to be included in future Operational Works
     applications as these assets will be privately owned and maintained.
     Based on the information available, the water quality objectives will be met by the proposed
     treatment train.”
     Conditions of approval are recommended as part of this report.




                                                                                  Page 77 of 133