Arcare MCU Submission

Without listing all ‘desired outcomes’ in Part 3 of the Noosa Planning Scheme, considering the
proposal is described in the Noosaville Biodiversity Overlay mapping as Open Space, Environment
and Conservation area, it is indisputable use of the site for urban activity conflicts with the intended
land use.

We believe the ecologically significant adjacent habitat, in conjunction with the existing vegetation
on the property must be preserved to provide connectivity for a range of threatened species,
including the Koala.

The Noosa community’s economy is sustained by an ecologically (nature) based tourism industry and
preservation of our remnant habitats and species is vital to our future prosperity.

This is outlined in the NOOSA PLANNING SCHEME POLICY 18— ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES

“Introduction - Council recognises the amenity and lifestyle enjoyed by residents and visitors is
significantly dependent upon the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and
ecological values found within the Shire.”

3. Biodiversity Offsets

The Applicant has endeavoured to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this site through
reliance on:

“Queensland Governments Offsets Policy (Version 1.1) December 2014 for 1.01 hectares of Koala
habitat.”

We note the proponent is unable to identify a physical area in the region appropriate to provide an
offset and in contrast has offered a cash payment to Council as an offset. We contend this offer only
amplifies the importance of the remnant vegetation on the site for conservation and rehabilitation.
Regardless of where Council may use monies to conduct environmental works, given the physical
constraints of the National Park and surrounding remnant vegetation, removal of this habitat
diminishes the overall environmental value of the area.

Due to already approved uses surrounding the site and the position of the road network, there are
simply no options to enlarge the area for conservation purposes.

Offsetting biodiversity impacts with cash payment or other rehabilitative works may be appropriate
in some circumstances (particularly to provide infrastructure) however in this case, the applicant has
failed to prove an overriding need for the development in the public interest.

4. Residential (Urban Activity) on protected land

The applicant considers a need exists for an expansion of aged care services within the Shire and
contends Council should set aside the planning conflicts on this basis. However there are less
environmentally significant places in the region where such a rezoning could be considered. We
suspect the applicant’s only reason to prefer this particular site is by virtue of ownership. This is not
a reason to allow a material change of use and we contend the reason the applicant is proposing this
application is for the betterment of their own interests as opposed to the publics.

                                                                                             Page 3 of 5