Council archive · source document
PM Submission - Thomas Kearney - MCU18/0015
NOOSA COUNCIL Notice of Submission
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2 be in writing
3.
be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6. be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Planning Act 2016,
all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website
and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not
they are properly made.
1. Application details
File No.
MCU 18/0015
Postal address of Land (as advertised)
27Atturtga Heights Noosa Heads
Nature of Proposed Development
Development of multiple residences
ubmitter details
Full name of Submitter THOMAS KEARNEY
Email address (preferable) [email protected]
Postal address Unit 3 /34 Edgar Bennett Ave v
Suburb N sa Heads State Qld Postcode
Signature(s)
4567
N.BThis form h e convenience o
use this form. blic, and any persons wishing to lodge a submission are not obliged to
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
-Mat the council fake into account its poor history of tree protectioil in the NboSa
-evidenced in the accompany rig
to the Ptirkedge
development-the C-04111£41-1314Cifl't even know-thatthe-law-Iffad-laeeri-brokenAillItion-
s viewss.anJaesilatabaed_with a cheque book This has been going on since
the 90s. The Burnley method calculates the value of the tree not the benefits in
view enhancement and limitation of design costs.-Q*Q-
I approached the planning department regarding the Parkedge clearance and w s
at the tree feller would-al-so be held responsible. On a second meetint I
versions--We dant---kn-ow-wfv-Ile-is-arrel-we-kfrow-who-he-is- but It w
led in the-6-070-0-0-ctollars_paici by the-developer.- What ajoke. If this
_application is approved every tree on this 1.8 ha site should be assigne a N
value before any work starts.
(if necessary, use separate sheet of paper and attached)
<<"
VIFC`
C>
Privacy >,
4)
% e
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Cou Cj A\
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 aUthOreW
*k
and other Local Government Acts. Your personal inform • .' lv cces
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy.
c,
www.000sa.q1d.qov.au mailnoosa.q1d.qov.au T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565
ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 1
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 44 pages
Page 2
Notice of Submission
NOOSA COUNCIL
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2 be in writing
3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6. be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Planning Act 2016, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website
and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not
they are properly made.
1. Application details
File No. MCU 18/0015
Postal address of Land (as advertised) 27Attunga Heights Noosa Heads
Nature of Proposed Development Development of multiple residences
2. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter THOMAS KEARNEY
Email address (preferable) [email protected]
Postal address Unit 3 /34 Edgar Bennett Ave
Suburb Noosa Heads State Qld Postcode 4567
Signature(s)
N.BThis form has been de,'ignec' lc the -.r,uf of the public, and any p .shing to lodge a submission are not obliged to
use this form.
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
This is a submission against the approval of Noosa Council MCU18/0015
7 Attunga Heights development. This development is zoned mainly for Open
pace conservation and is overlayed by Biodiversity (environmental
protection) ,Natural hazards (landslide). The allowable building footprint is small ip
-elation_r_tothengreen_z_on_e"
Approval would reverse this relationship. The development extends substantially
beyond the developable areas identified in the Noosa Plan zone map and is largely
located in the part of the site designated as Open Space Conservation and
designated high risk of landslide zone. This site contains remnant vegetation and-is
designated-a-s-a- biosphere of-concern (- < 30-% remains in bioregion). [REG1-0-NAL
ECOSYSTEM STATUS]. Copy enclosed.
Approval would also remove the social amenity this green zone provides
(if necessary, use separate sheet of paper and attached)
Including visual amenity and the enjoyment of birds and other fauna. 27 Attunga
Privacy
Heights is listed in the Noosa Shire Koala habitat conservation plan Map 1
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy.
www.noosa.gld.gov.au mailnoosa.gld.gov.au T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Old 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 1
Page 3
Menu Search Q j,Login No sa news DEVELOPING STORY CYCLONE OWEN COMPARED TO 2013 DISASTER More NEWS Trees removed lawfully: counci by Amber Macpherson 16th Feb 2018 5:00 AM A DEVELOPER has defended its actions of lopping a number of well-established trees on a Noosa Heads construction site following uproar from nearby residents. ReSidents initially believed the actions of Altum Constructions were negligent as they had "verbal confirmation" the trees were part of a koala corridor, however the Noosa Shire Council has since stated the trees were removed lawfully. Altum Property Group director Alex Rigby said the company was following correct procedures. "We ensure that any tree clearing is undertaken with the full approval of the Noosa council," Mr Rigby said. "We've done this very professionally with all the correct environmental reports. We've been working with council for years on this. "It's been signed off by council and they're very happy." Mr Rigby said council officers have since visited the site and approved the clearing. "We've had council out again today (Wednesday), and they've confirmed all approvals were in place," he said. "The project is all online, everything's very transparent." The project, Parkridge Noosa, has approval to construct 182 dwellings, including units, retail space and a gym.
Page 4
Mu Search Q j•Login
Noosa news
DEVELOPING STORY CYCLONE OWEN COMPARED TO 2013 DISASTER More
D rath
Areas far propo
Subject Site
Girraween
Developer to cough up $60,000
by Alan Lander
15th Jun 2018 5:01 AM
A DEVELOPER has been slammed with a $60,000-plus fine for illegally removing five trees from a
site in Resort Drive, Noosa Heads, in the Noosa Springs Resort.
Noosa councillors were happy to receive a report at Tuesdays Planning and Environment Committee meeting to see the
unnamed developer contribute $6o,8o6 to council to offset the loss of the trees.
The report said the amount was determined by the Burnley Method which places a monetary value on trees.
"The financial contribution comprises $58,806 toward the value of the removed trees and $2000 towards council's
administrative costs associated with the investigation."
The develoPer also has to provide in-kind assistance to undertake the rehabilitation of a part of Girraween Nature
Refuge, including maintenance, temporary irrigation, provision of clean topsoil, mulch and weed management, and to
prepare plans to reinstate koala food trees.
CXD
Noosai
—7 2 6 /4 66,Lit4,e,-
C'
Page 5
SELECT LANGUAGE Y cONTACT COUNCIL Po- A-^
[Search...
ABOUT COUNCIL ••• COMMUNITY v SERVICES S, FACILITIES v ENVIRONMENT &WASTE BUSINESS v PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT v
About Council Media Releases
View our media releases by year or use the Search Media Releases tool below to find a specific news article,
Councillors & Meetings
Governance
Media Releases 2017 Media Releases 2016
Employment Media Releases 2015 Media Releases 2014
Principles, Plans & Strategies
Search All Media Releases
Rates& Levies ISearch...
Fees and Charges Register $20,000 fine as Council sounds warning over illegal « Back
News & Publications tree clearing
The Illegal removal of five mature trees has cost a Noosa Heads prope4 owner and a local contractor more than $20,000 in
Media Releases fines.
Noosa Council says the hefty prosecution serves as a warning to anyone considering removing trees without permission to
eNewsletters
expect a similar penalty.
Contact Council "This has been a costly mistake for the property owner and their contractor and it's a salient reminder to the community that
Council takes illegal tree-clearing offences very seriously," says Development Assessment Manager Kern! Coyle.
In addition to the fines, Council has ordered the Allambi Rise property owner to replant the cleared area with mature
replacement trees.
"Council won't hesitate to take legal action to protect trees and other vegetation, which contribute significantly to the unique
character arid biodiversity of the shire," Ms Coyle said,
On this occasion the removal of five large eucalypts at the rear of the Allambi Rise property has created a break in the green
backdrop of Noosa Hill, which the Noosa Plan seeks to preserve.
"The trees were also helping to stabilise sloping land, which is subject to slippage."
Ms Coyle said landowners should check with Council on (07) 5329 6500 before removing trees.
Further information about tree clearing, plus details on exempted and protected vegetation, is also available from Council's
venite„
12 February 2018
Il'111Rt I T I
12/02/18
POPULAR SEARCHES GETTING AROUND LATEST NEWS COUNCIL NOOSA COUNCIL
Animals & Pets Parking Media Releases Councillors POSTAL ADDRESS:
Property Searches Public Transport e Newsletter Subscription Meeting Schedule PO Box 141
Rates Meeting Minutes TEWANTIN OLD 4565
PLACES TO VISIT SOCIAL MEDIA
The Noose Plan Contact Council
PHONE: (07) 5329 6500
Tree & Vegetation Noose Regional Gallery Noosa Council Facebook Customer Requests
FAX: ((17) 5329 6501
Waste & Recycling Libraries Noosa Council Instagrain Employment
EMAIL: [email protected]
Sport & Leisure Noosa Council Twitter Tenders
WEBSITE: www.noosa.q1d.gov.au
Noose Regional Gallery Council sitemap
The .1
ABN: 97 969 214 121
Facebook Terms of use
Parks & Facilities ADMIN: User Login
Noosa Libraries Facebook
The 3 Facebook
Online Chat
Page 6
Putting adollar value on trees
News Words Sian Johnson
Lemon-scented gums lining Fraser Avenue in King's Park in Perth. Image'
Creative commons
An inner-city Perth councillor wants to assign trees with a dollar value that must
be taken into account in planning decisions, Weighted according to the trees
economic, environmental and health benefits.
City of Bayswater councillor Chris Cornish says that
suburban Perth trees could be valued from io,000 up
to around $50,000 to deter attitudes among councils
and developers causing the loss of established trees. If a
tree still needs to be knocked down, he believes it should
be treated as an assett and paid for by the developer.
Cornish, who has a background in financial planning,
said that he was frustrated by the number of trees being
I,
lost through development when he was elected
to council.
Councillor Chris Cornish wants
"It's just too easy to say that we'll plant another one,
to assign all trees with a dollar
that one tree doesn't make any difference to the value that must be taken into
environment — and they're right, one tree doesn't," account when planning
he said. decisions are being
made. Image: Courtesy of
"But when you've got thousands of people saying the Chris Cornish
same thing then that does make a difference, and the
only way around that is applying a dollar value."
"People out there are deaf to the environmental benefits because they've heard it and
beard it. So unfortunately what people seem to care about are dollars, and there are
lots of economic benefits to trees," he said.
Cornish listed the economic benefits of trees as increased property values, an
extension of the life of bitumen shaded by trees, the cooling effect that occurs
through evaporative transpiration, and the economic boost to neighbourhoods with
improved walkability.
"I ran for council to increase financial responsibility and sustainability, not trees.
became educated along the way and now see trees as a critical issue," he said.
FOLLOW US SHARE THIS PAGE
Page 7
A report released earlier this year estimated that the Perth and Peel regions, an area
stretching 150 kilometres wide, will have a population of 3.5 million by 2050 that will
require more than 800,000 new dwellings.
A follow-up interim report from the Environmental Protection Agency warned
against further urban sprawl, saying that the number of beat-related deaths in the
city is expected to double due to the effects of climate change. Protection of native
vegetation and tree planting Were recommended to mitigate the urban heat
island effect.
Cornish believes the Burnley Method should be used as a basis for calculating the
dollar value of Perth's trees. The method is widely used across Australia for
compensation, insurance and litigation purposes, drawing on information such as
tree size, useful life expectancy, form and vigour and location to generate a tree's
monetary worth.
Words Sian Johnson
Images Creative commons
Posted 7 Sep 2015
Tags Sustainability
More news More
Newcastle's brutalist civic Anthony Gill Architects to Australian Space Agency Hobart planning
centre to become luxury design food hall in Kerigo HQ planned for former committee adopts most
hotel Kuma's Darling Royal Adelaide Hospital of architect's height limit
Exchange site scheme
'Shopping trolley MONA Junya Ishigami's Cloud Australian first Power and passion: 2019
hotel development heads Arch shelved skyscraper turns 80 National Architecture
for planning assessment Conference to harness
'collective agency'
Most read
Queensland building 'Shopping trolley MONA Former CODA Studio NSW government
designer convicted of hotel development heads directors leave Cox greenlights demolition of
masquerading as an for planning assessment Sydney Football Stadium
architect
'Explorative and special': Recessive yet bold: Australia's first Architect and start-up
One Room Tower Outside In House skyscraper turns 60 founder Simon Cookes
changing the landscape
of site surveys
FOLLOW US SHAFReligifi PAGE
Page 8
Noo,ea
CLASSIFIEDS
ILIST IN NEWS SPORT WHAT'S ON LIFESTYLE JOBS MOTORING REAL ESTATE
ft
AAI C FA I Lu/L:1-
49 , 000 4--/ I iLLLA4-. ottiLt
•
Trees to be protected under lift application
by Alan Lander 0 Oi
13th Jul 2018 8:35 AM
NOOSA Council will likely give approval to a development application for a Park Road, Little Cove
householder to install an outside lift from the bottom of his property to the large home, despite
some councillor concerns.
But it will involve strict conditions on how the work affects a large tree and under-storey, which forms part of the canopy
along the east side of Noosa Main Beach, and is a key to land stability at the location.
Planning and Environment Committee chair Cr Brian Stockwell on Tuesday described the view of the beach as "worth
millions of dollars".
"It's not a situation that warms my heart," he said.
"I've seen landslips before (on Park Road), resulting in the road closing for months.
"This is inconsiderate and inappropriate."
0
Noosai.
7/1/19, 9:37 am
-to-be-protected-under-lift-app lication/3466048/
hups:// www.noosanews,com.au/news/trees Page 1 of 2
Page 9
Noo ica
IUST IN NEWS SPORT WHAT'S ON LIFESTYLE JOBS MOTORING REAL ESTATE OBITUARIES CLAW
NEWS
$40,000 fine in Park Rd
by Alan Lander
22nd Jun 2018 10:01 AM
00®
THE word "iconic" is a tad over-used these days.
But the vista of Noosa Main Beach looking east toward the national park can arguably lay claim to the title, given it's one
of the nation's most photographed places.
And that surely places an onerous responsibility upon residents of properties along Park Rd, which runs central to the
view, to ensure the foliage screening the houses is not compromised in any way.
So we would all hope.
But that has been one of Noosa Council's concerns in dealing with an application from a Park Rd resident to build a
retaining wall and un-roofed deck on his property.
"It was subject to a condition that the deck be set back a minimum of two metres from the property boundary," council's
development assessment manager Kerni Coyle said.
"Council required this setback to ensure vegetation within the property would screen the works and maintain the
vegetated appearance of Noosa Hill."
But the resident subsequently lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.
During the appeal process however, the applicant amended plans for the deck, increasing the setback and and replacing
the proposed concrete slab and pillars with a timber platform and posts, giving the deck a thinner profile, also to ensure
the piers were clear of significant-tree roots.
https://wwwmoosanews.com.au/news/40000-fine-in-Park-rd/3447900/ 7/1/19, 9:36 am
Page 1 of 2
Page 10
The applicant also made changes to the design to ensure all of the piers were located clear of significant trees' roots.
"Council agreed to settle the appeal, but required the applicant to implement a detailed tree protection plan and
construction management plan for the works, and to cover the cost of having an arborist's visit the site periodically site
during construction to inspect the works and ensure compliance," Ms Coyle said.
"In April, council officers became aware the owners had started building the deck, but also an unapproved access tunnel
from the deck, through the hillside, to a proposed lift shaft adjacent the house, further up the sloping block. This was
contrary to the current development approval conditions for the site.
"After inspecting the site, officers directed the builder to cease all unapproved works and stabilise the site."
Council issued both the owner and builder with infringement notices totalling about $40,000 for breaching the
development approval conditions.
"Council officers were particularly concerned that earthworks had been carried out within the protection zone for a
significant tree on the site," Ms Coyle said.
,C)
Noosa
) Sunshine Coast Newspaper Company Pty Ltd 2019. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited under the laws of Australia and by
0.0-ft.r. Australia fc.-
international treaty.
7/1/19, 9:36 am
https://www.noo5anews.com.au/new5/40000-f0-park-rd/3447900/ Page 2 of 2
Page 11
THE BURNLEY METHOD
The Burnley method has as its focus two simple elements. The first is the establishment of tree size.
Initially, this was determined using the formula for a cylinder (or2h), which requires the simple
measurements of height and canopy spread. The second element of the method involved establishing a
dollar base value for the tree. This was achieved by obtaining the retail price from appropriate
nurseries for purchasing a specimen with a volume greater than 1m3, using the formula for a cylinder.
The base value calculation was expressed as $/M3. The calculation was done by determining an
average value for at least three specimens from different nurseries.
In developing the Burnley method, it was intended that by multiplying the size and value components
together a basic tree value would be established, which would then be modified to allow for the
peculiarities of the tree and its location. The modifiers to be used were:
I. TREE SIZE (V) : With large trees, the values determined by the formula were
unrealistically high. Accordingly, a modifier was developed (Table 1) to reduce the
value.
2. USEFUL LIFE EXPECTANCY (E) : This modifier took into account the projected
useful life expectancy of the specimen (Table 2).
3. FORM AND VIGOUR (FV) : This factor was used to assess the form and vigour of
the tree (Table 3).
4. LOCATION (L) : This modifier was used to assess the tree's suitability for its
particular location (Table 4).
The modifier tables were used to minimise the risk of significant discrepancies in tree values made for
the same tree by different arborists. The value of an amenity tree was then determined using the
formula:
VALUE ($) = TREE VOLUME x BASE VALUE x (E) x (V) x (FV) x (L)
The formula developed is consistent with the mathematical principles proposed by Helliwell (1967)
where related variables are multiplied.
MODIFICATION OF THE BURNLEY METHOD
Following the use of the Burnley method, particularly in Victoria, criticism was made of the volume
modifier in particular, which was seen by many arborists as little more than a fudge-factor that
adjusted values without reason (Wycherley, 1991). This criticism was to be expected because the
rationale for use of the modifier had not been clearly identified in the original paper.
For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet © The University of Melbourne
Page 12
AMENITY TREE EVALUATION: A REVISED METHOD G M Moore ABSTRACT Amenity tree evaluation system have been widely used, not only in Australia but around the world. They place a monetary value on trees, usually for the purposes of insurance, compensation and litigation. However, the major significance of placing such a value on trees is that they are then recognised as assets. The recognition of trees as assets has major implications, not only for their management, but also for the decision making processes that involve trees. No method has received widespread support or acceptance in Australia and the Burnley Method was developed in 1988 to meet local needs. This method was intended to be easily used and to minimise operator error. Criticism of the original method has led to a modification that has resolved most of these criticisms. INTRODUCTION In 1988 a method of placing a monetary value on amenity trees was developed at the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture Limited, Burnley Campus (McGarry and Moore, 1988). The method was developed in response to a perceived need by those involved in Australian arboriculture and those responsible for managing trees in public open space (Moore, 1991) for matters relating to compensation and litigation, insurance, and policy and decision-making. Although other methods have been tried in Australia, none has received universal support. Furthermore, when valuations were placed before courts of law, the massive discrepancies in values placed on trees placed the whole concept and acceptance of tree valuation at risk. Accordingly, a method was developed which was designed for use in the Australian context, and which attempted to deal with further concerns, such as placing a realistic dollar base value on the specimens and allowing for rapid rates of inflation, which required a constant updating of values if they were to be of any relevance. The various evaluation techniques available from overseas (Helliwell, 1967; Anon, 1974) for valuing trees were often tried in Australia, but often failed because of species limitations, historical components or inappropriate growth rate data for the Australian environment. It is worth noting that these overseas methods are widely used and are routinely recognised by courts, and in some instances, have statutory or regulatory status. It is unfortunate that in Australia, despite the hope that the Australian Institute of Horticulture Method (Anon, 1974) would be widely accepted, methods have not achieved appropriate recognition. It is to be hoped that in the not too distant future a method will be accepted by Australian arborists and open space managers. Failure to do so will continue the situation where trees are not recognised as assets, are not valued and not recognised in the decision making process. Sadly, the real currency of decision making is money and until trees are given an appropriate monetary value, they will not be managed properly and may receive harsh treatment in the expediency of decision making. For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet C The University of Melbourne
Page 13
TABLE 1 VOLUME MODIFIER (V) TO BE USED FOR A GIVEN VOLUME OF TREE
Volume (M3) Volume Modifier Value
of Tree (V)
0-99 1.0
100 - 249 0.9
250 - 499 0.8
500 - 749 0.7
750 - 999 0.6
1000 - 1499 0.5
1500 - 1999 0.4
2000 -2999 0.3
3000 -3999 0.2
>4000 0.1
TABLE 2: VALUES FOR THE LIFE EXPECTANCY (E) MODIFIER
USEFUL LIFE MODIFIER VALUE (E)
EXPECTANCY
RANGES
50 Years 1.0
40 - 49 Years 0.9
30 - 39 Years 0.8
20 - 29 Years 0.7
10 - 19 Years 0.6
<10 Years 0.5
For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet C The University of Melbourne
Page 14
TABLE 3: VALUES AND DESCRIPTORS FOR THE FORM AND VIGOUR
MODIFIER
FORM AND VIGOUR DESCRIPTORS MODIFIERS (FV)
Perfect form and excellent vigour 1.00
Slight imperfections in form 0.90
Slightly reduced vigour 0.90
Slight imperfections & slightly reduced vigour 0.80
Good form with good vigour 0.75
Good form with average vigour 0.70
Good vigour with average form 0.70
Good form with poor vigour 0.65
Good vigour with poor form 0.65
Bifurcation of trunk & excellent vigour 0.60
Bifurcation of trunk & good vigour 0.55
Bifurcation of trunk & average vigour 0.50
Bifurcation of trunk & poor vigour 0.40
Poor form with average vigour 0.30
Poor vigour with average form 0.30
Poor form and poor vigour 0.20
Excessive deadwood, cavities & poor form 0.10
Dead 0.00
TABLE 4: VALUES AND DESCRIPTORS FOR THE LOCATION (L) MODIFIER
LOCATION DESCRIPTORS MODIFIERS (L)
Perfect suitability 1.0
Could be better located but no problems 0.9
Minor problems, e.g. lifting paving 0.8
Species unsuited or causes problems 0.7
Species unsuited and causes problems 0.6
Species unsuited and causes major problems 0.5
Species unsuitable 0.4
Accordingly, in 1991 the method was modified by using the formula for a cone (1/3 or2h) to calculate
tree volume and the use of the volume modifier (V) was discontinued. In the modified method, tree
value can be determined using the formula:
VALUE ($) -- TREE VOLUME x BASE VALUE x (E) x (FV) x (L)
For consistency, when determining the base value under the modified method, the formula for a cone
should be used. The modified method tends to give a lower value for smaller, short-lived or inferior
quality specimens.
For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet © The University of Melbourne
Page 15
CONCLUSION
The modified Burnley method of tree valuation is self-indexing for inflation, will operate in any
country, and is sensitive to changes in the value of trees due to changes in consumer preference. The
calculations and modifiers allow precise, objective and simple use, which minimises the serious
operator errors that befall many of the other techniques.
The Burnley method has been successfully used by open space managers to value their trees, thereby
recognising them as assets. It has been tested in the courts and has been accepted as a realistic and
well based method of evaluation for use in the Australian context. There is still one remaining
criticism of the technique. Many arborists (Yau, 1990; Kenyon, 1990) find the establishment of the
initial base value time-consuming and tedious.
The modified Burnley method applies to amenity trees in both urban and rural contexts. It does not
attempt to deal with. subjective components of tree valuation, such as historical or environmental
significance, which have led to the abandonment of other techniques. Whether the method achieves
widespread use in Australia remains to be seen. Time alone and the choice of practising arborists
and possibly the courts will finally settle the matter.
REFERENCES
Anon (1974), "Tree Valuation " Aust. Parks, Vol. 11, No. 1, 72-73, August.
Helliwell, D. R. (1967), "The Amenity Value of Trees and Woodlands", Scottish Forestry, Vol. 21,
109-112.
Kenyon, P. (1990), Personal Communication from P Kenyon, Arborist, VCAH Limited, Burnley.
McGarry, P. J. and Moore, G. M. (1988), "The Burnley Method of Amenity Tree Evaluation
Australian Journal of Arboriculture, 19-26.
Moore, G. M. (1 99 1), "Tree Management and Hazard Reduction ", in Trees : Management Issues
for Urban Australia, Royal Aust. Inst. Parks and Rec., Proc. Nat. Sem., Canberra, 7-25.
Wycherley, P. R. (1976), "Towards a National Method of Valuing Trees", Aust. Parks and Rec.,
41-43, May.
Wycherley, P. R. (1991), "Tree Valuation", Poster Presented at National Seminar of Royal
Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation, National Seminar, Canberra.
Yau, P. (1990), Personal Communication from P Yau, Arborist, Melbourne City Council, Town
Hall, Melbourne, 3000, Australia.
For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet 0 The University of Melbourne
Page 16
Notice of Submission
NOOSA COUNCIL
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2 be in writing
3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6. be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Planning Act 2016, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website
and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not
they are properly made.
1. Application details
File No. MCU 18/0015
Postal address of Land (as advertised) 27Attunga Heights—Noosa Heads
Nature of Proposed Development
npvpInnmpnt of nmiltinlp rpsiciPnees_
2. Submitter details
1._Full
. name of Submitter THOMAS KEARNEY
Email address (preferable) [email protected]
-Postal address Unit 3 /34 Edgar Bennett Ave
Suburb Noosa Heads State Qld Postcode 4567
Signature(s)
N.BThis form has b igned for the conven e public, a persons wishing to lodge a submission are not obliged to
use this form.
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
I have read the submitted ecological report 2/11/16 written by Phoebe
-Chapman. Nowh- ere in thiSTe-p-dil is there reference to her qualifications to
submit this report. This report should be rejected outright.
Core Consultants and the consulted arborist list their qualifications to mak
theiLassessment
a •
".0 r/Z 0 et L.L.L4.-47
\/ 42-4—e-eZ
#64 a-Le-41' ,estes
exa.. 0 7141) -e 0
747 .Agt-4'-txe-1-7 Ace/ ,LeAsa-jf
(if necessary, use sep rate sheet of paper and attached) ae
tr, --1"e t tat$Le4--le
f6C4t-Ce ,GLI.61.Z.
Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy.
www.noosa.gld.gov.au mailnoosa.gld.gov.au T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 1
Page 17
/1- c>re Ai9 /4z N(et 6•4-z-,c;Atif
TOrt
/1\16/\
61 Secsil. 1:r
•
LEGEND
gn Proposed impact areas - Development footprint
Proposed impact areas - APZ
Riparian buffer area
Environmental protection
, Environmental enhancement
----- Watercourses and drainage lines
EJ Subject Site
H
SOURCE: The Noose Plan (27/ 1117) 0M6.1; CLIENT TITLE
Novato Group IMPACT ON
0 25m Ton Ditchtield Architects - Site Pan DO 05-P2I FIGURE 13
Bushtire Risk Reducers - Draft BMP 03.05.18 PROJECT
SCALE: 1 : 1000 @ A3 Ecological Assessment NOOSA HEADS
1 : 1 000 PREPARED EN
Lot 27 on RP89506 BIODIVERSITY
JWA PTY LTD 27 Attunga Heights, Noon Hill OLD DATE: 31 October 2011
Ecological Consultants OVERLAY
Noose Shire Council LGA FILE: CI 2038...impact BlOOM cc
Page 18
Ecological Assessment - Attunga Heights
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
JWA Pty Ltd have en engaged by Nov o Group to comp an ecological ass *ssment of
land propose or development at unga Heights, No.:. Hill.
The a ssment has involve e following:
• determining t suite of Commonw h and State listed thr tened and regionally
or locally gnificant flora and auna species that oc r in the locality from
literat and database reco ,
• g nd truthing vegetat" communities and deter ning their conservatio status
n accordance with Queensland Departme of Natural Resources nd Mines
(DNRM) Regional system Framework (Veg: ation Management Act MA, 1999]);
• assessing the elihood of occurrence of reatened flora and fa a species on the
subject si ,
• searc g for and recording thre ned and regionally o °catty significant flora
an auna species;
sassing habitat provided • the site in the contex if the surrounding are j,
• assessing the corridor v es of the site at a loc and regional scale; /
• assessing the poten L impacts of the prop ed development on ec ogical values
and determining propriate mitigation asures;
• addressing rel ant statutory requir ents regarding impa to flora, fauna and
ecological munities; and
• addressi compliance with re ant development a ssment codes and polic s.
The curre certified Regional Ec ystem mapping of t site shows a combined Concern
RE 12. 1 / 12.2.5 on the su ct site. Site surv revealed the occurre of two (2)
bro vegetation communi s within the subje site, including:
• Community 1: LI dry open forest 2.2.5); and
• Community Tall wet open fo16t (12.2.1).
Parts of these ommunities do meet remnant criteri n terms of height canopy
cover and ve been catego d as regrowth. The re *nder is considered o represent
remnant egetation.
No s ificant flora sp cies were recorded on th site. The flora surve ailed to not dtect
a EVNT plants in e clearing impact area clearing permit fro • IEHP is ther9Ore not
uired. Howe r, as the protected plan flora survey trigger apping showsjdle site as
mapped as a igh-Risk area, an exem clearing notifica io ust be sub ted to DEHP
within one (1) year of the survey being undertaken and at least one (1) week prior to the
clearing commencing.
JWA Pty Ltd 58
Job No: Q12038/RW3
Page 19
Unesco SuBMIss(onwd dpcunet 2006.
Page 20
NOOSA COUNCIL Notice of Submission
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2 be in writing
3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6, be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Planning Act 2016, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website
and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not
they are properly made.
1. Application details
File No. MCU 18/0015
Postal address of Land (as advertised) 27Attunga Heights Noosa Heads
Nature of Proposed Development Development of multiple residences
2. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter THOMAS KEARNE4J2'
Email address (preferable) [email protected]
Postal address Unit 3 /34 Edgar Bennett Ave 0 7-TAN7:0T9
Suburb Noosa Heads tate ø Id Postcode 4567
Signature(s)
N.BThis form has been designed fort con and any perions wish' e a submission are not obliged to
use this form.
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
I wish to make the following submission of objection to the above
Application for material change of use.
-1-object-to-th a , a i-- - - W
•0 AV AW a - .ing-approvecl-laij ' . a ;
-Noncfon-thebasis that this-devolopmentis-inesignatecl-slip
zone( Noosa Natural Hazzards Landslide and Flooding overlay Map 0M6.3)
Please note that the landslide hazard area practically covers the entire proposed
development site. It involves the entire eastern boundary of
V allawa 34 Edgar Bennett Ave. 11111
- - . • - ••can - • • - • • • • - - - . - ; • hich are significant
trees-and-a-Fe-anAmportant part of the noosalandscape) located-at-the-front and
side_oflAallawa_ Approval of this application may endanger the structural integrit
of existin• buildings including Mallawa ,situated on the western boundary of
(if necessary, use separate sheet of paper and attached)
27Attunga Heights.
Approval may also endanger the survival ot these trees in any landslip.
Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy.
www.noosa.q1d.qov.au mailnoosa.old.qov.au T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Old 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 1
Page 21
The Great Gold Coast Cyclone - February 1954 - ABC
E mergency :1
11 -1 2,
----0- 7
-(. /4--- Q41 r'- k 144‘11
ctu,Let.,- Cu,
www.abc.net.au
s-c,,...t( ce /4z-xa
Sterf-R
(,Lk-ti 1,61 LE-21
It was
was an unnamed cyclone that hit Queensland in 1954, but the scale of damage and
loss of life earned it the title 'the Great Gold Coast Cyclone'.
The tropical cyclone crossed the south-east Queensland coast at Coolangatta about
10pm on Saturday, February 20, 1954.
The storm's widespread damaging effects were felt from the Sunshine Coast to Sydney,
with heavy rainfall as far south as Tasmania.
The Bureau of Meteorology reports between 26 to 30 people died as a result of the
flooding, severe winds and storm surges.
The Great Gold Coast Cyclone
Facts about the Gold Coast Cyclone
• Crossed the coast on Saturday, February 20, 1954
• Estimated 26-30 deaths
• Millions of pounds in damage
• Category-three cyclone
• Impact felt from Sunshine Coast to Sydney
The TC moved from the Coral Sea and hit Queensland with a pressure reading of 973
hPa, but some reports in the area put it at 962 hPa.
Brisbane was buffeted by wind-gusts of more than 100km/h.
Page 22
A record 900mm of rain was recorded at Springbrook, near the southern border, in the 24
hours leading up to landfall.
The resulting floods combined with storm surge on the Nerang River caused massive
flooding and evacuations at Macintosh Island.
"The Great Cyclone - as they are calling last weekend's hurricane - will not be
the last to strike."
David Berry, Sunday Mail, February 28, 1954.
Police and members of the Surfers Paradise Surf Lifesaving Club mounted a daring
rescue effort, but were unable to rescue about 30 people, including small children and a
man with a badly injured leg, stranded on a rooftop on the island during the day.
A team of local surf lifesavers mounted a dramatic rescue during the eye of the storm
that night.
Widespread trail of damage
Cars were picked up by 2m of water brought up by waves onto the highway at Kirra.
The Moreton Bay tide gauge measured a storm surge of 0.64m and boats were left
stranded in treetops at Beachmere.
At Cudgen in northern NSW, houses were blown apart and trees bigger than one metre in
diameter were twisted out of the ground.
The Bureau of Meteorology cyclone tracking map shows the path of the 1954 Great Gold
Coast Cyclone from the Coral Sea down past Port Macquarie in New South Wales.
(Bureau of Meteorology)
Share
Page 23
The Bureau of Meteorology cyclone tracking map shows the path of the 1954 Great Gold
Coast Cyclone from the Coral Sea down past Port Macquarie in New South Wales.
Bureau of Meteorology
The NSW town of Kyogle was also devastated by what locals described as a "wall of
water" that claimed the lives of 10 people.
The entire Byron Bay fishing fleet of 22 boats and the outer section of the jetty were
swept away.
A wall of water moving down the Richmond River hit Lismore in the early evening,
causing the river to swell up to 11km wide in one place.
A seven-year-old boy was swept away at Lismore, one man drowned during a rescue in a
record flood at Murwillumbah.
During an attempted rescue at Casino, two men drowned when their motor boat hit a
tree.
A 21-month-old baby went missing and four people drowned after a car was washed into
a flooded creek at Armidale.
Record flooding was recorded in the Coffs Harbour region, with up to 809mm recorded at
Dorrigo Myrtle Street in the 24 hours to 9am on February 21.
'The Great Gold Coast Cyclone'
The Gold Coast cyclone fell into the period when weather systems went unnamed, as the
convention did not begin until 1964.
"The flamboyant Clement Wragge, Government meteorologist in Queensland
from 1887 until 1902, initiated the practice by naming weather systems after
Page 24
anything from mythological creatures to politicians who may have annoyed
him."
(Bureau of Meteorology)
An unofficial naming tradition was started much earlier, by Queensland Government
Meteorologist Clement Wragge, but was no longer in use by 1954.
The flamboyant Clement Wragge, Government meteorologist in Queensland from 1887
until 1902, initiated the practice by naming weather systems after anything from
mythological creatures to politicians who may have annoyed him," the Bureau of
Meteorology website said.
The widespread disaster prompted calls from the Sunday Mail newspaper for better
preventative measures against future "terror from the tropics".
Writer David Berry recommended the then Robert Menzies-led Commonwealth
Government establish a 'Cyclone Fighting Organisation'.
"The Great Cyclone - as they are calling last weekend's hurricane - will not be the last to
strike," he said.
He suggested a 24-hour coast watch with cyclone charting assisted by the RAAF,
emergency back-up communications including a ham radio network and a rescue and
relief force at the ready.
The great cyclone cleared the Gold Coast overnight, with locals reporting sunshine
across the region on the Sunday morning.
Page 25
Deluge causes havoc in region m.noosanews.com.au Noosa Hill was on the slide again after taking a battering from a rain-sodden trough which dumped more than 250mm in just one night. The heavy rain caused the hillside to slip along Noosa Drive down near the Noosa Heads Lions Park on Saturday, forcing a road closure for hours until work crews removed the sand and debris. More heavy rain bucketed down on Sunday, sparking more problems at the slip site, but traffic was flowing freely yesterday morning. The Noosa Coast Guard Sea Lions crew was kept busy on Saturday morning, refloating five sunken vessels from Munna Point, Harbour Town, in Noosa Waters and upstream from the Noosa Yacht Club. "In some cases the sheer volume of rain either overwhelmed the bilge pumps and the batteries were flattened or the vessels weren't covered or fitted with an automatic bilge pump," Sea Lions skipper Pat Odore said. "A couple of boats tied to fixed jetties capsized when the jetties went under water. The water inside the vessel from the rain helped push their gunnels under water when they were held down by the jetty. The rescue at Munna Point next to the Coast Guard base was particularly tricky as the crew battled a strong incoming tide against strong south easterly winds. "The boat was upside down and was being pushed by the tide under its pontoon. We were very concerned that on the outgoing tide the boat would have been trapped under the pontoon with the potential of major damage to the vessel and the pontoon," Mr Odore said. "With this jetty close to ours there was little room to manoeuvre our vessels and we had to resort to manpower to do the job." With more rain forecast, Coast Guard Noosa commander Tony Taylor urged all boaties to check their vessels. Emergency staff were kept busy checking the roadways in Noosa with Doonan Bridge Road still closed on Monday after the deluge. At Eumundi, Eumundi Noosa Road was closed during the weekend but water levels had subsided by yesterday.
Page 26
BREAKING NEWS
titlEcKillEtED, FIVE INJURED IN HORRIFICLIEPn-CittkiWlillSIPM mote (/riews/summeriand;.•viay-closed-
II tfl.1l v1
(/s4flefi4841:1061111516atatIfiiti/3615416/)
Home (/) Just In (/just-in/) News (Mews!) Classifieds (Iclassifieds/)
LOCAL
713mm of rain in 24 hours!
24th Aug 2007 11:30 AM
Around 80mm of rain fell in Noosa in just one hour overnight as
several areas of the Coast received their biggest drenching on
record.
In the 24 hours to 9am today, Rainbow Beach, Noosa, Eumundi and Tewantin
all recorded their heaviest rainfalls in any 24-hour period since records began.
The biggest fall was at Rainbow Beach, which recorded a staggering 713mm -
more than three times the previous total of 216mm for the whole month of
August set in 1998.
Mt Bilewilam, near Double Island Point, received 678mm, while Noosa Heads
recorded 415mm.
Boreen Point received 334mm, Tewantin 307mm, Eumundi and Yandina Creek
306mm, Cooroy 276mm, Cooran 212mm, Maleny 176mm, Kenilworth 106mm
and Moy Pocket 109mm.
The Bureau of Meteorology said that during today and tomorrow, the Noosa
River would reach levels similar to the February 1992 flood (see full bureau
flood warning) (http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/q1d).
On Saturday, February 1992, Tewantin received 732mm of rain, Yandina
668mm, Mapleton 513mm, Maleny 490mm, Palmwoods 480mm, Eumundi
467mm, Cooroy 421mm, Pomona 381mm, Gympie 336mm and Kandanga
300mm, smashing previous records.
Page 27
ADVERTISEMENT
Today's heavy rainfall has caused fast river rises and areas of moderate to
major flooding in the tributaries of the Maroochy River and minor to moderate
flooding in the Noosa River.
A number of roads and schools across the Coast have been closed as a result of
the flooding, and emergency services have rescues dozens of people trapped by
the rising waters.
The SES warned people to avoid entering floodwaters, either by foot or by car;
to ensure children stay well away from floodwaters, and not to use electrical
appliances which may have been affected by floodwaters.
The rain is expected to ease later today.
Related stories:
Flood peak to hit tonight (http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/aug/24/flood-
peak-hit-tonight)
Mum tells of flood terror (with photo gallery)
(http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/aug/24/ses-flat-out-repairing-storm-
damage)
Rising river adds weight to dam claims
(http://http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/aug/24/fast-flowing-mary-adds-
weight-dam-claim)
Accidents keep coming in the wet
(http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/aug/24/accidents-keep-coming-wet)
Sunshine
Coast Daily (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/)
Page 28
Subscribe
(A
(/subscriptions/packages/) CeastDaily
DEVELOPING STORY
HORRIFIC DETAILS OF ESCAPE ROOM DEATHS REVEALED more (Mews/five-girls-locked-in-
homebased-escape-room-died-fr/3615908/)
LOCAL
Councils cant guarantee stability of steeply
sloping land
3rd Aug 2005 8:00 AM
MAROOCHY Shire Council cannot guarantee the stability of steeply sloping
blocks approved by private certifiers between 1998 and 2000.
And Noosa council officers have grave concerns about the recent approval of a
major development on Noosa Hill, which they said was too steep to build on.
The admissions come in the wake of the massive slip which has left at least
eight homes at Currumbin on the Gold Coast uninhabitable and in danger of
collapse.
Maroochy Shire has identified large portions of the Blackall Range and parts of
Buderim and Coolum as high risk for slippage.
Planning and Environment manager Julie Edwards said there was a two-year
gap in which council wasnt overseeing all the building approvals of homes on
those steep slopes.
In 1998 the law was changed which allowed private certifiers to approve
buildings without council approval.
Page 29
ADVERTISEMENT
Maroochy Plan 2000 gave more stringent regulations and said council approval
would have to be obtained if the slope was over 15 degrees and if the building
was bigger than 40 square metres, she said.
Noosa Councils Director of Environment and Planning Raul Weychardt said
council had just approved a 30-unit development on land on Noosa Hill that
had a 35 degree slope.
We advised council we thought the land was too steep and was outside our
planning scheme, but council decided to approve it, Mr Weychardt said.
Councillor Vivien Griffin was one of only two councillors to oppose the
application and plans to call on the State Government to overturn the decision.
Slippage has already been a cause of disaster on the Sunshine Coast with heavy
rains in 1976 causing the demolition of homes in Buderim-Mooloolaba Road.
In February, 1971, Montville-Maleny Road also experienced a major landslip.
Noosa had a land slip in 1977 when land in Natasha Avenue was washed away
and narrowly missed a block of units.
While councils approve subdivisions which allow land to be built on, there was
still no clarity as to who would be responsible in the event of a landslide.
Even on the Gold Coast, where the council was found largely responsible for
the catastrophic landslip, councillor Chris Robbins said it would be up to a
judge to determine who was liable.
A leading Sunshine Coast conveyancer said contracts of sale in Queensland
were not in favour of the buyer.
Sunshine
Coastl>aily (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/)
Page 30
I enclose two assessments of the Core Geotechnical reports available on the Noosa Council website.The reports are written by a senior geotechnical engineer and by a senior structural engineer. Both express grave reservations about the geotechnical foundations of this development. In particular note Item 14 in both reports. Please take this submission also as a Notice of Concern. In regard to the Core Consultants Limitations declaration Paragraph 3: "Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the document." In view that this development may destabilise the entire ridge and buildings on the western side of the development this alone should be grounds for refusal of this application. Paragraph 4: "Given the LIMITED nature of the enquiry additional studies may be required. THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT GIVE APPROVAL. LIMITED enquiry risks serious damage to Mallawa and neighbouring buildings. The Core Geotechnical report is incomplete and as such this application should be rejected. The Golder geotechnical report 2003 description of the site is enclosed. "The majority of the site is a moderately to steeply sloping sand dune slope. Etc.". "possible slip with in the dune". "a number of mature trees were observed to have bent trunks indicative of previous ground movement." Approval of this application will endanger properties adjacent to the western border of this development to severe dangers of land slip. Approval of this application will endanger from land slip the significant stand of hoop pines adjacent to the development. This development of the 12 units is for a few millionaires and will expose owners nearby properties To Structural and financial risks. I enclose the Australian article on the recent financial history of project development in Noosa. This will be a very very expensive project if approved. I don't wish as a ratepayer to be left holding their baby. Submitted by Dr Thomas Kearney on behalf of Narelle and Thomas Kearney Unit 3 I. 34 Edgar Bennett Ave Noosa Heads Old 4567
Page 31
See Inset
Int a SA, - efs,.
grr
411111
4=14
` IIIii bilb
Noosa Heads
Itoreen Porm 1.1,1 C.11,01.
Cooro.M1
3 Cooray lake Macdonald
4 Eastern .adves
Locality
5 thoy River Catchment
hleasa Heads Natural Hazard: Landslide & Boundaries
—— Noosa Shire Boundary
Naos° North A.te nr----' Railway Line
Noesavine
0 Tewanim Flooding Overlay Property — Major Road Network
(Map 0M6.3) Boundaries Streams, Rivers and
Now Landslide Drainage Lines
IIIMMIM Hazard Area Inset
r
'Otis map identifies areas that may eapetionce Went..
The Noosa Plan hlzards_ II does not mean thai Oto area Pod.. vellt [re-
Melded by the parecurar s.ern
f.• . a•
Flood Hazard Area
OW. 2018
• arremdmentsCommenotelOdoher2016
',Wailed assessment may to metered as part ol .
dweloprnent assessment emcees to determine whether
0% 2 ER to year 2100]
. area is atteded or not.
rrhs map is a rep.uploo from Councins
GIS..s a sc.Ot accorticy of 1.25250. al- Areas ral rood 'laza. tnclicated on this map
Rouen data on whs.Ots based wae RatRered are onarineficati. of hydrautic mode.
at mostly I.ner scree& Predee Wended. told by Cool. The map does not repregent
May need to Redefined by SOS survey. comphrte Ytundation potential and other areas
, Coonci Coproht Rase.. OtOybSSdtOdttsaat&hptonflaI32on
mown. neer levee and 54e0 kreels can ...rained
from Council.
ce NAGIS‘Rrojerte0131023_The_Noosa_PrarnMaptatateNcpreyed_Arnendrnents, 201.1aps‘F.ddeandan_FlooeSitia_Nooeohleads..r
Page 32
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The real property description of the site is Lot 27 on RP 89506, Parish of Weyba and covers an area of about 1.8 hectares. Attunga Heights and Pif.,tup.:,. Point Cre,eent terminate adjacent to the southern and western site boundaries respectively. Th site is bounded by residential properties to the south and west, Halse Lodge (north) and the Viridian Noosa site (east). Figure 1 shows the proposed development layout o'vet1.3in on the site plan, which includes ground surface contours and the positions of trees. The base plan for Figure 1 is derived from JMA Architects Drawing No. 973 DA0001 Rev. B, dated 2 October 2003. The majority of the site is a moderately to steeply sloping sand dune slope (with an easterly to north-easterly aspect), intersected by a meandering creek, which runs from the south towards the north adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The dune slope has a maximum elevation of about RL 58 m in the south-western corner of the site, with a minimum recorded elevation of about RL 10 m in the bed of the creek adjacent to the northern boundary. Ground slopes across the dune typically range between about 20° and 30°, as shown in Photograph 1, with steeper slopes of up to 40° occurring adjacent to the banks of the creek. Boulders of diorite up to 800 mm across are exposed in the western bank of the creek in the northern part of the site. A massive outcrop of diorite is exposed in the bed of the creek adjacent to the middle of the eastern site boundary. There is also an approximately 1 m deep outcrop of colluvium (clay and rock), shown in Photograph 2, exposed beneath about 1 m of sand in the bank of the creek adjacent to the northern site boundary. This outcrop is located on a relatively sharp bend in the creek below a possible landslip within the dune sand. The approximate extent of the possible landslip is defined by ground sloping at about 40°, across which a number of mature trees were observed to have bent trunks indicative of previous ground movement.
Page 33
FW: Attunga Heights Comments based on Reading of Core report.
1 message
Gavin Simpson <[email protected]> Sat, 15 Dec. 2018 at 14:01
To: Tom Kearney <[email protected]>
Tom, have a look at this, Rod is Oz's nol Geotech, fact !
he is obviously very wary of it, I read more into it than his report he is a very
cautious gentleman and Paul has made similar comment verbally, his report to
follow shortly.
Certainly your perceptions were on track.
I am available anytime Tom.
Best r's Gavin
From: Jan and Rod <jeffchatabigoorici.corn>
Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2018 4:41 PM
To: 'Gavin Simpson' <[email protected]>
Cc: choias7fpyahoo.com
Subject: FW: Attunga Heights Comments based on Reading of Core report.
Hi Gavin , My summarised thoughts below.
1. The report at first glance seems well documented and presented but on reading many statements / comments
/ recommendations are in general form and should be more site specific.
2. There is an absence of exactly what is proposed . The figure 1 is in plan form only. I consider a series of
sections and / or definition of cut and fill structures is essential . This is a very challenging construction on a
marginally stable slope based on my assessment and indeed quoted as ' close to equilibrium'in the Core
report. The marginal stability is due to the very loose or loose sand overlay.
3. From figure 1 contours the RL change over length of building near Core BH 8 is about 10 metres which is
extremely challenging .Other buildings have big differential Ws.
4. The stability Qualative assessment in report is only for a 5m high retaining wall which appears too low for site
RL:s or alternatively the cut bench with 5m walls for both cut uphill and fill downhill should be analysed.
5. Some of the somewhat generalised or motherhood statements as to design / precaution are mutually
inconsistent.
6. Often the word CONSIDERED is used whereas a clear recommendation should apply.
7. The fact the council Landslip Risk map indicates a questionable site gives clear warning as to caution / risks.
8. The recorded council questions suggests the council is taking a balanced cautious engineering approach.
9. The site investigation is only by hand operated equipment. A few deeper mechanical boreholes would help
analysis of options In particular where is rock and of what quality.
10. The design parameters are on the optimistic side given the limited investigation.
11. If development were to be OK'd then virtually continuous geotechnical engineering supervision of earthworks,
retaining walls, piling etc is necessary given risks if errors are made and of course the builder and subbies
often do not understand or appreciate the risks involved and caution necessary.
12. My input needs to be considered in context that I have not been to site , I have not seen past reports especially
that of Golders , I am not engineering wise familiar with the local geotechnical issues but from recollection am
Page 34
Point 3. See comments for Point 2. Points 4 to 9 incl. The report should be revised to address all of the issues raised by Rod Jeffery. Point 10. The report is insufficiently stringent in its analysis of the site risks. Point 11. As previously advised, I also am firmly of the same opinion — only the most thorough and comprehensive quality control measures (including by a supervising Geotech. engineer) would need to be put in place and the owner of 34 Edgar Bennet Avenue would be best advised to have his own certifying agent in place to independently verify the works. Business-as-usual construction would be potentially disastrous for such a project, both for the project itself and in terms of its potential impact on 34 Edgar Bennet Avenue. Point 12. Noted Point 13. Noted Point 14. 34 Edgar Bennet Avenue is uphill from and immediately adjacent to the proposed development at 27 Attunga Heights and therefore warrants submission of concern. I trust the above comments capture the issues. Any queries, don't hesitate to call or email. Kind regards Paul
Page 35
FW: 27 Attunga Heights - Review of Core Geotech. Report by Rod Jeffery 1 message Gavin Simpson <[email protected]> Mon, 17 Dec. 2018 at 9:50 am To: Tom Kearney <[email protected]> Hi Tom. Further report from Paul Nicholas, Senior Structural Engineer with huge experience overseas in major earthworks etc Will give a call tonight Best regards Gavin From: Paul Nicholas <paul.nicholas7@-)yahoo.com.au> Sent: Monday, 17 December 2018 10:46 AM To: Gavin Simpson <benzak@bigponci,com> Cc: Jan and Rod <[email protected]> Subject: 27 Attunga Heights - Review of Core Geotech. Report by Rod Jeffery Hi Gavin, I've received all emails complete with attachments etc. including Dr. Tom's email with his address (34 Edgar Bennett Avenue). I Googled that and from the aerial plus street views and of course some info from the report itself, his property is perched on a ridge adjoining to and higher than the development site at the east. Rod's review of the Geotech report is extremely thorough and throws up several major concerns. I draw your particular attention to the following points:- Point 1. Generally, inadequate to properly identify issues Point 2. Marginally stable slope conditions. - Ref Core Geotech Report Section 7.0 in which they give a factor of safety of 1.0 for the existing slope stability and explain/qualify that further by identifying the surface stability provided by the existing vegetation, particularly its root systems. Nb The site photos indicate that larger older trees probably existed here in earlier times and have been likely chopped down some time ago (several years probably). This factor basically defines the slope as marginally stable. Any removal of vegetation automatically compromises that stability. So there is no inherent "spare" factor of safety on such a site against soil slippage and all new structures will require strict retaining measures together with compaction of all bearing surfaces. (And please note they rule out any use of vibratory compaction of the ground or any piling involving impact driving). As Rod Jeffery has pointed out, the system of storey heights and secure achievement of the substantially different relative levels necessary will be complex and substantial. These two issues, coupled together, produce the need for the most stringent approach to the development of this site.
Page 36
not surprised it is classified as a stability risk area. Also from a professional side Queensland requires
specific state registration of engineers to work there; I never had need to register to date.
13. The 2 parties who signed the report are well qualified.
14. I am unaware of location of Tom's house / unit relative to DA site , IF adjacent and uphill of driveway then
compelling reason to make a submission of concern to council,
15. Regards ,Rod.
J-1-1
-; au:ki Jf
F a-
Page 37
I ast http ilwww theaustrali an. corn au/business/property/the-holidaysover...for...noosa..property... 1226050072796 SAVAGELY discounted prices fetched by receivers for apartments previously owned by former Sunshine Coast tourism boss Phillip Harding has sent shock waves through Noosa with some estimating the state of the market is now as bad as the Gold Coast. Over the past few weeks receivers have sold 27 of Mr Harding's units in the Noosa Blue complex for about $4.5 million, implying a price of about $166,000 each Fifteen years ago, the same properties sold for about $320,000, sources said. Analysts estimate Noosa's property values have fallen by 40 per cent since the peak of the market. In the latest deal, Mr Harding was part of a syndicate that emerged as the underbidder for the parcel of the 65-dwelling Noosa Blue Resort apartments.
Page 38
ot)onr rorn Demand remains weak in the Sunshine Coast holiday destination for beach properties that typically sold for between $1m and $4m at the peak of the market. One market source estimated that there was currently one buyer for every 50 properties available in Noosa, saying property values had "fallen off a cliff". "It was a special market and went up every year for 18 years or so, this is the first dramatic downturn," the source said. Noosa had withstood every other downturn since 1983, but the market was now worse than the Gold Coast, he said. Noosa Blue is among at least four resorts and residential developments that have been handed to receivers since the global financial crisis struck. Suncorp appointed receivers to the Viridian Noosa development in February, originally estimated to be worth $300m. It is a joint venture between Macquarie Group and Leighton Properties and some predict the 168 unsold units being handled by receivers would not fetch much more than $120m if sold in one line. Last year, AV Jennings purchased the Elysium Noosa development site for about $50m.
Page 39
hotcopner com au It was placed into receivership in 2009 after Consolo Group planned a $400m luxury residential development for the site. Others since the global financial crisis to have fallen into receivership include the $200m Noosa North Shore Resort and the Beach Road Holiday Homes projects by Petrac, which has 42 blocks of land. Also, the Noosa Sanctuary Hotel and residences project site was reportedly snapped up by RACV for about $60m after its original owner Resort Corp collapsed. Meanwhile, analysts speculate that Valad Property Group's Sheraton Noosa Resort and Spa, that is currently for sale, may change hands for a price of between $60m and $70m. It was purchased in 2007 for $93.7m with debt believed to be $60m to financier Suncorp. Market analyst Dean Dransfield of Dransfield Hotels and Resorts said Mr Harding only sold enough units in his Noosa Blue development to secure finance for the project. "They were originally sold on a five per cent income guarantee, and with room rates not going up over time, it got hard to maintain that. That arrangement has ultimately been renegotiated."
Page 40
hotcopper.com.au The units, all previously owned by Mr Harding before Ernst and Young secured control on behalf of the bank last year, are under contract. Propertylink, believed to be Sydney-based, is the buyer. Mr Harding, an avid art collector, was previously reported as saying he wanted to make the project "a living work of art" and agreed to lease back the units in the resort. However, he infuriated individual unit owners in the complex after they were hit with rate payments and body corporate fees that Mr Harding, who at the time was the hotel's part owner, did not pay. It is understood the management rights of Noosa Blue Resort's hotel were still in the hands of Ernst and Young and are yet to be sold. Mr Harding, who is the former head of Tourism Noosa and a former chairman of Tourism Sunshine Coast, has also lost control of a Noosa Heads development site and his farm. These have been sold by receivers at severely discounted prices. Debts of about Si 5m were owed to Bank West on his property portfolio.
Page 41
NOOSA COUNCIL Notice of Submission
To ensure your submission is properly made you must ensure that:
1. be made to the assessment manager
2 be in writing
3. be signed by each person who made the submission unless the submission is made electronically
4. state the name and residential or business address of each person who made the submission
5. state what aspects of the plan or proposed development your support or oppose and why
6, be received by Council during the formal public notification period
As required by the Planning Act 2016, all submissions, including individual details, are published on Council's website
and therefore will be accessible to internet search engines. All submissions are published, irrespective of whether or not
they are properly made.
1. Application details
File No. MCU 18/0015
Postal address of Land (as advertised) 27Attunga Heights Noosa Heads
Nature of Proposed Development Development of multiple residences
6. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter THOMAS KEARNEY
Email address (preferable) [email protected]
Postal address Unit 3 /34 Edgar Bennett Ave Q1d-
Suburb Noosa eads State Postcode 4567
Signature(s)
N.BThis form h the convenienc public, and any persons wishing to lodge a submission are not obliged to
use this form.
3. Details of Submission
I (We), make the following submission:
I object to this development on the basis :
1. that it does not comply with the building footprint
( attachments. 1,2,3)
2 that it will destoy trees plants etc within the Noosa Coservation
zone. ( attachment 4)
(if necessary, use separate sheet of paper and attached)
Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect
this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by
persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council's privacy policy.
www.noosa.uld.uov.au mail(&!noosa.cild.uov.au T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Old 4565 ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 1
Page 42
DrOh.,
The Stekoairi,
red -TRIT
SUBJECT SITE
Npasei + _
;1-17yttl
NPAW SPS -H
Roenweal
Reservo
Munn.
L.
J
, NOOSAVILLE
Keyser I
• ;Ke.,s0; 14sJand /--
Conwovenon
Peei
.9;s:nrt
4566 Narione:
Pa.-A
• useadai:
( a;re-s-owdo
A WO.,
0 500m
SOURCE: Brisbane UBD Map 9 CLIENT TITLE
David & Carol Neate
FIGURE 1
SCALE: 1 : 20 000 @ A4
PROJECT
Ecological Assessment
LOCALITY
PREPARED: BW
Lot 27 on RP89506 PLAN
JWA PlY LTD DATE: 25 October 2016
27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Hill OLD
Ecological Consultants FILE: Q12038 Locality.cdr
Noosa Shire Council [GA
Page 43
1\ifAe4-1-1'454-1
LEGEND
Detached housing
Semi-attached housing
Attached housing
Community services
Open space recreation
Open space conservation
Major water bodies
Subject Site
SOURCE: The Noosa Plan - Noosa Heads CLIENT
David & Carol Neate
(Zone Map) ZM6
PROJECT
SCALE: 1 : 2000 @ A4 Ecological Assessment PREPARED: BW
Lot 27 on RP89506
DATE: 25 October 2016
27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Hill OLD
Noosa Shire Council LGA FILE: Q12038 Zoning.cdr
Page 44
5 25,
59.000 ------. 78 000 20 \\\ 25 60 000 —, 40 000 0/
Proposed Lot 4 Proposed Lot 3 Proposed Lot 2
1,589 m2 1 200 m2 1,232m2
10 -
43.982
ArAwsgere access
• EMT
Proposed Lot 1
(Townhouses)
7.507 m2
Total Developed Area = 5.665 m` (31.4%)
unobstructed wildlife corridor, nobstructed wildlife corridor
average 50 metres wide minimum 20w. wide
LEGEND
Key Features
• Driveway Footprint
- Driveway Layout and Design to retain existing significant vegetation and minimise cut I fill
IIIndoor Area Footprint (refer engineering design documentation);
• Decks / Covered Outdoor Area
- Building Design to maximise positive solar orientation and access to prevailing breezes;
II Swimming Pool
Indicative House Building Envelope ina
diVi= Zittr."7.":„Taen:Ch.?":1;i sr:ra:riivatt, ''
design' retell
• Existing Trees lobe retained TITLE
- Layout Design to retain significant vegetation, with additional planting of endemic species SOURCE: Innovative Planning Solutions - Proposed CLIENT
David & Carol Neate
f"-- Centreline of Creek Bed to provide privacy between dwellings and increase habitat for fauna; 0 25m Lot Reconfig Plan PL.02 (D) & Env Features Plan FIGURE 4 PROPOSED
sek Creek Bank PL.04 (D) dated 30.03.16 (Ref: Plans 1 of 4.pdf) PROJECT
- Environrnental open spa. /wildlife corridor provided along creek line, including
VVildlife Corridor along creek line vegetation protection covenant 10 metres from centreline of creek. 1 : 1 000 SCALE: 1; 1000 4A3
Ecological Assessment
PREPARED: BW DEVELOPMENT
• Lot 27 on RP89505
IWA PTYLID 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Hill OLD
DATE: 04 October 2016 LAYOUT
Ecological Consultants FILE: 012038_Layout.cdr
Noosa Shire Council LGA
Page 45
LEGEND
Subject Site
SOURCE: Google Earth May 2016 Aerial CLIENT TITLE
David & Carol Neale
25m FIGURE 2
PROJECT
Ecological Assessment
AERIAL
SCALE : 1000 @ A3
1 : 1 000 Lot 27 on RP89506
PREPARED: OW
PHOTOGRAPH
_NA PTY LTD 27 Allunga Heights, Noosa Hill OLD DATE: 25 October 2016
Ecological Consultants FILE: Q12038_Aerial.cdr
Noosa Shire Council LGA
Used in these records
PM Submission - Thomas Kearney - MCU18/0015Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.0 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.