Original source · versioned page text
DeVantier RACV ecocabin submission to Noosa Council 6Feb23
Attached to the e-mail PM Submission - Lyndon DeVantier - MCU22/0118.
Application Number: MCU22/01181 Address: 94 and 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads QL 4567 Nature of Proposed Development: Development permit for a material change of use for short-term accommodation (16 Eco-Cabins) and new lagoon pool Submission by: Lyndon DeVantier PhD, Noosaville Date: 6 February 2023 I ask that the Noosa Council refuse the development proposal (MCU22/0118) from RACV for a material change of use for short-term accommodation and new lagoon pool at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive. My main objection is that the proposed development is within core koala habitat. The site hosts koala feed trees that also provide shelter. The site also acts as part of a connection corridor between a few of the remaining areas of suitable koala habitat in the general vicinity. RACV’s amended proposal for building 16 'eco-cabins' and lagoon pool would require removal of at least 89 trees, 44 or more of which are koala feed trees. A further 20 trees including 10 feed trees may also be removed or severely impacted. The fate of other flora and fauna species on the site from the proposed development are not thoroughly addressed. The QLD State Assessment Referral Agency (SARA) notes: “The site provides an important connection between Noosa National Park to the north through to Leslie Park and larger, interconnected areas of bushland that are mapped as Koala habitat area (KHA) in a Koala Priority Area (KPA) to the southeast. Furthermore, there are 107 records of koalas within 1 km of the site, and four records of koalas on the site. SARA considers that the impacts of the proposed development may result in an unacceptable impact on KHA, particularly as it relates to connectivity, fragmentation and safe koala movement. Based on the information submitted with the application material, it is recommended the applicant consider whether development of the site is appropriate, considering the current threats facing koalas in South-East Queensland.” If the development were to proceed, will koalas be likely to use or even move through the site during construction? I am not a koala specialist, so I do not know the answer, but I do think such considerations are important in the decision, given that the development works could take months or longer. As part of its response, the applicant offered a financial offset for the koala habitat trees being removed. Offsets are not a panacea for habitat loss, as it is not possible to match ‘like with like’ – every site has unique characteristics. What is clear is that our present approach to wildlife conservation is failing our threatened species, particularly endangered species like koala, glossy black cockatoo and others that are lesser known, pushing them ever closer to extinction. South-east Queensland, and indeed the Noosa Shire, are cases in point, here despite the many decades of stalwart effort by local conservationists. Australia has national and international obligations to foster recovery of threatened species, the latter as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Noosa Shire is an IUCN Biosphere reserve, with additional obligations inherent therein. If there is any risk to threatened species from this, or indeed, any future development, then I think it incumbent on decision-makers to refuse such applications.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 1 page
Page 2
My own lived experience in the Shire dates to the late 1950s. In respect of riparian zones, the destruction of Hay’s Island for the Noosa Sound development in the early 1970s, and subsequent relocation of the rivermouth, have remained with me for half a century as disgraceful exemplars of what should not be done. Nancy Cato’s ‘The Noosa Story’ tells that woeful tale. In those cases, the corrupt Bjelke-Peterson regime was a major player. Today, we should know better. The present case may be considered ‘small change’ in as much as it is a small site, albeit riparian, with nothing like the destruction wreaked on Hay’s Island or indeed many other parts of our and neighbouring shires (eg. Peregian Springs). Nonetheless, we are now at a point in the extinction vortex for threatened species where every parcel of habitat, and particularly corridors, are crucial. Noosa’s remnant bushland is literally facing ‘death by a thousand cuts’. Instead of removing carbon-sequestering trees to facilitate tourism development, we should be conserving remnant native vegetation. Riparian vegetation and coastal wetlands play crucial roles in ameliorating storm and flood damage. It is a lot more effective, and a lot less costly, to protect remnant vegetation than planting, which if successful, would take years to establish. The applicant argues that the proposal would enhance koala habitat by the removal of frangipani vines and damaged trees, and replanting. But such good work can be done without putting in yet more tourism accommodation and car parks. Exotic species (including the frangipani vine which is not a declared invasive weed in Australia) could be brought under control, assisting recovery and regeneration of koala trees and other native vegetation. RACV, having profited from the resort for many years, could fund the weed removal efforts, as well as initiatives in providing safe passages for koala and other wildlife (eg. adequate and well maintained exclusion fences) to reduce roadkill and injuries. Such contributions should not be conditional on the approval of the current development proposal. Indeed, they would be a good example to other resorts as to what responsible developments can achieve in a Biosphere Reserve. On the ‘big picture’, climate disruption and sea level rise will increasingly impact the site, as elsewhere in the Shire, as flood maps testify. IPCC is inherently conservative and estimates of sea level rise in particular, over the coming decades, have large margins of error, the uncertainties tied to the rate of destabilization of the huge Antarctic glaciers, among other major sources. It is well past time for councils to adopt the much-lauded but rarely applied Precautionary Principle in all these matters. With thanks, Lyndon DeVantier, PhD