Original source · versioned page text
MCU22/0118 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 94 & 142 NOOSA DR, NOOSA HEADS (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 7 November 2023 - Item 5.1) · ATTACHMENT 1 – OFFICER’S REPORT
Very large file (13.9 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
reduction in total suspended solids, 60%
reduction in total phosphorous, 45% reduction
in total nitrogen and 90% reduction in gross
pollutants >5mm).
Assessment
The subject site is mapped as being an MSES high ecological significance wetland and MSES
declared High Ecological Value (HEV) waters (wetland) under the Biodiversity, Waterways and
Wetlands Overlay. The application material has not addressed these aspects of the site in
relation to stormwater management, nor how the development will prevent any direct or indirect
impacts to this ecologically important area. Development should protect the physical and
ecological integrity and biodiversity of the ecologically important areas through protection of
terrestrial habitat and existing riparian, waterway and wetland habitat areas.
The Stormwater Management Plan (SMMP) provided with the application material proposes to
achieve AO6.1 and AO6.2 by the provision of a rainwater tank for each cabin, plus the provision
of a bioretention basin (ie stormwater treatment device), which would receive runoff from the
carpark and also the rainwater tank overflows from the cabins. Council’s stormwater
management consultant has raised concerns with the methodology used in the SMP to
demonstrate compliance with the AO’s. Council’s stormwater consultant has rerun the modelling
and estimates that the bioretention basin would be required to triple in size to that which is
currently proposed, in order to achieve the required stormwater treatment targets, stating:
The revised model also shows increased pollutant loads compared to pre-development
conditions, and also the minimum pollutant load reductions required will not be achieved.
This demonstrates quantitatively that developing a forested land parcel adjacent to a HEV
waterway is unsustainable and will result in a worsening of off-site water quality, even
when fairly extreme measures, which go well beyond normal practice, are employed. As
such, PO6 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code is not achieved.
It is considered that the stormwater quality issues are not able to be conditioned to achieve
compliance with the scheme.
Stormwater treatment is critical for the protection of downstream receiving waters and without a
finalised design that Council can be sure meets the water quality reduction targets, sufficient
evidence has not been provided to confirm that the development can achieve the protection of
biodiversity areas on and adjacent to the site as required under the planning scheme. The
proposal therefore has not provided evidence of compliance with PO6.
Additionally, it is noted that the requirement to triple the size of the bioretention basin has the
potential to increase the total number of native trees/koala habitat required to be removed.
Without knowing the total area and location required for this device, the total number of additional
trees to be removed cannot be accurately quantified.
BUSHFIRE HAZARD OVERLAY
The subject site is mapped as containing High Potential Bushfire Intensity and Potential Impact
Buffer under the Bushfire Hazard Overlay (refer to Figure 19). The area of mapped high potential
bushfire intensity coincides with the mapped area of biodiversity significance under the
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay.
Page 22 of 38
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.