Objection_Nov18 · MCU18/0015

Page 2

Objection Summary

DP MCU18/0015 disregards a fundamental issue: Noosa Hill is a sensitive and
significant heritage site that was zoned to protect the integrity of the hillside, the
native flora and fauna and locality planning integrity.

I object to any allowances made to change zoning, lot size and lot definition.

The proposed land use change to Multiple Dwellings treats the lot as an ‘infill’ project by
adding at least 39.6 new residents, at least 33 additional vehicles, increasing water
consumption, compromising the wildlife corridor values and stripping vegetation from
61% of the site. These actions do not meet the spirit of the Noosa Plan to retain open
space, protect local wildlife, fauna and their habitats and maintain 8m building heights.

The proposed change contradicts decades of clear intention for this block to retain Open
Conservation (green) space with minimal building footprints and protect a wildlife corridor.

The ‘gifting’ of an “environmental reserve” merely fulfills a developer’s requirement to
accommodate existing wildlife corridor(s). But many benefits of a wildlife corridor are
eliminated by including a road inside the corridor calculations and situating it adjacent to
high density residential dwellings with inevitable public usage. No further detail or analysis
is provided (such as public access, recreation opportunities or usage conditions). As such,
the conditions of a wildlife corridor are questionable at best.

Cursory recent ecological assessment has barely been made so currently active native fauna
are not accurately reflected. The assessment applies ‘lowest ecological value’ for areas of
existing remnant habitat and disregards the Biodiversity overlay code and ‘Of concern’
regional ecosystems. This cursory and aged data then forms the basis of significant
proposed buildings and locations. Inadequate detail does not allow thorough public
comment on current data. See public need for relevant, current data stated loudly captured
in Peter Gardiner’s Noosa News article, Attachment 2.

Inadequate detail does not allow thorough public comment in key reports which all cite the
need for deeper on-site analysis: Earthworks, Ecological site assessment, Bushfire site
hazard, risk and assessment, Vegetation removal, full Elevations for Lot 2 and Lot 3. The
cursory Traffic Impact review fails to consider incremental impact of (at least) 31
incremental new vehicles with existing neighborhood traffic conditions.

Best practice landscape opportunities have been missed with no allowance for rainwater
capture from 12 of the 14 dwellings and potentially water hungry gardens and designs.

These half-baked plans ignore the fundamentals: Noosa Hill is a sensitive and
significant heritage site, carefully zoned to protect the area and integrity of the
hillside. I object to any allowances made to change zoning, lot size and usage.

Page 3

Erroneous and Misleading Public Signs

The public notice signs contains misleading statements + data. See Attachment 4
sign artwork. The implied meaning would assume all proposed Lots meet these standards,
however this is not so:

A. Front Setbacks are shown as Front 7m (min)

- only Lot 1 achieves Front 7m – and this should be revised to 10m
10m is compliant with Noosa Council plan for Multiple housing Type 4 Conventional for 3+
storeys is 10m, not 6 or 7 m.1
Lot 1 features 12 such dwellings, so adjustment to the setback to 10m would seem
reasonable.
- Lot 2 actual Front setback shows 6m and is misrepresented by signage
- Lot 3 actual front setback is not shown and is misrepresented by signage


B. Rear setback are shown as 50m (min)
- Lot 1 only achieves Rear setback of 50 m2 by incorporating a neighbouring boundry and
wildlife corridor. If a true measurement to the Lot#27 boundary was applied then NONE
of the 12 units achieve the stated Rear setback of 50 m2. This is significantly
misrepresented by signage

- Lot 2 does not achieve Rear setback of 50 m2, it is closer to 2m to boundary line – this is
significantly misrepresented by signage
- Lot 3 does not achieve Rear setback of 50 m2, it is closer to 2m to boundary line – this is
significantly misrepresented by signage


C. Site coverage states > 15%
At a quick glance this statistic implies building area on each Lots. This implies a smaller
footprint than is actually true for the total site and each lot. Minimum site cover is 31%
building area on Lot 1.

Misrepresented by signage ‘Site Coverage’
- Total Floor area is = 53% for 3 lots (9,507 m, divided by total Lot27 area 18020.57m)
- Lot 1 area per proposed lot size is 31.43%
- Lot 2 area per proposed lot size is 34.74%
- Lot 3 per proposed lot size is 51.87%


1
 Noosa Plan, S1-8, SCHEDULE 1—MINIMUM BOUNDARY SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS AND
OTHER STRUCTURES Multiple housing Type 4 Conventional Frontage—6m for 2 storey buildings or
for 3 storey or 4 storey buildings—6m for the first 2 storeys and 10m for any storey thereafter

Page 4

Objection Summary
In addition to my objections to the Development Proposal detailed below, I add new
concerns:


   1. Lot size
      Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are monstorously oversized and not in keeping with the
      surrounding zoning legacy of Attunga Heights.

   2. Dwelling locations and mitigation
      With exception of Lot 3, 13 dwellings are located on slope-sensitive locations
      deemed ‘lowest ecological value’ which does not mean it is a suitable building
      location. Original zoning was established in keeping with the wildlife conservation
      and zoning legacy of the Attunga Heights street and area.

   3. Building heights
      Proposed 12m roof heights are not compliant Noosa industry standard 8m. This is a
      direct contradiction to careful planning to keep all rooflines consistent and below
      tree height.

   4. Native fauna
      Native animals sighted on the site have not been addressed in the Ecological
      Assessment. Small wallabies and Echidna have both been seen on the block of Lot
      27 RP 89506 throughout 2018 by local residents. In addition, a koala has been
      sighted by a local resident at the top of the wildlife corridor at Viewland drive above
      Alma Way within the last two years. Statutory declarations can be provided to verify
      sightings. See Attachment 3 for dates and contact details.

   5. Lot 2 Full elevations
      Are not provided except one conceptual elevation in the Architectural images, page
      8. Full public assessment and comment of this proposed site and impact cannot be
      achieved.

   6. Biodiversity overlay code
      No acknowledgement or analysis is made of the Biodiversity overlay code covering
      the site or essential habitat protection or rehabilitation for the skink or koalas with
      exception of the Bushfire

Page 5

Objection Summary cont


   7. ‘Of concern’ regional ecosystems
      No acknowledgement or analysis is made of the site’s ‘Environment Enhance or
      Protect status or ‘Of concern regional ecosystems’ for vegetation rehabilitation2 see
      Bushfire report pg 14

   8. Water usage
      Water consumption for the 12 units is not addressed. This is an additional burden
      arising from this site for resident usage (by at least 39.6 residents) and landscape
      watering (rooftop, fern gardens). No provision for rainwater tanks for the 12 units is
      addressed, only for the 2 dwellings. This does not seem to be in keeping with best
      practice and drought awareness.

   9. 61% vegetation removal
      Vegetation removal is understated. Significantly, 61% of the total site vegetation IS
      affected by the proposal for buildings, infrastructure and fire setbacks.

   10. Landscape plans
       a. Fern gardens are a recommended plant palate for units 1-12. However the
       Ecological Assessment does not identify ferns as natural habitat in this vegitation
       ‘zone’. This indicates an inappropriate recommendation for site water usage and
       plant survival and ‘authentic’ native habitat.

          b. Vertical fern gardens are detailed as vertical ‘waterfalls’ between units 1-12. This is
          in direct contradiction to the Bushfire Report, page 20 which states:
          ‘7.2 Asset Protection Zones and Landscaping Plant arrangement is just as important as low
          combustibility. Plants should be placed so as to minimize either vertical or horizontal connectedness of
          plant material’

   11. Night light pollution is not addressed nor its impact on wildlife passing near or
       through the wildlife corridor.




2 Refer   Bushfire report pg 14Figure 9 shows the proposed development location in relation to vegetation
mapped by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy as “Of Concern” and “Of Least
Concern” Regional Ecosystems.

Page 6

Proposed Development ‘benefits’

The development “benefits” outlined are either non-existent or a poor second alternative
to the existing ‘Open Conservation Space’.

The existing site already conserves ‘Open Conservation Space’ in order to ensure the
protection of habitat, flora and fauna in perpetuity and retain the green visual character of
the hill.
No further detail on the “environmental reserve” is provided (such as outlining public
access or recreation opportunities, residents compliance for dog-walking or usage
conditions) to preserve a wildlife corridor so it can only be assumed that “all care and no
responsibility” for the Reserve / Corridor is passed on to either Noosa Council or the
public.

Proposed ‘benefits’
a) Dedication of 50% of the site to Council as environmental reserve which will secure
   the land in public ownership.

Objection: The development is already required to maintain the wildlife corridor,
the ‘gifting’ is a smokescreen.
In effect the developer is “donating” an ‘environmental reserve’ INSTEAD of a wildlife
corridor. The presence of people, lighting at night, domestic pets (contained or otherwise),
more vehicle emissions and noise will travel directly out over the “Reserve” / Corridor
which will undoubtably have a negative impact over existing Corridor conditions.


b) Prior to the environmental reserve being dedicated to Council, rehabilitation works will
   be undertaken (at the developers cost) to remove weed species and replant native
   species to ensure the function of the reserve is enhanced and it will function as an
   environmental and fauna movement corridor.

Objection: The Ecological assessment and Geotechnical Investigation Reports contradicts
this ‘benefit’ by stating that vegetation clearing will be limited to building and driveway
sites. This affects 61% of the site.


c) The environmental reserve proposed on the subject site will secure an important
   ecological link in public ownership between the site, the adjoining Peppers resort and
   the Noosa National Park to the south-east.

Objection: The ‘ecological link” already exists with Open Conservation Space’
consideration. Secondly, if the “Reserve” passes to Public ownership then it cannot be truly
considered a legitimate Wildlife corridor.

Page 7

Proposed ‘benefits’ cont
d) The retention of over 50% of the site for environmental reserve purposes in public
   ownership will ensure the predominant ‘treed’ and green visual character of the Noosa
   Hill will be protected in perpetuity. 3D renders have been provided to demonstrate the
   visual presentation of the proposed development from various important public
   viewpoints.

Objection: The existing site is already preserves ‘Open Conservation Space’ to ensure the
protection of habitat, flora and fauna in perpetuity and retain the green visual character of
the hill.


Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Submission preface:3

Preface, pg 1 - “…efforts that have been made by the applicant to commission up to date
technical information and assessments that comprehensively respond to the matters
identified …”


Objection: Some critical assessments and analysis are NOT up to date
A. Ecological assessment is not comprehensive.
Current field data collection is extremely limited with one person conducting one study for
4 hours in one season. Given the biodiversity of fauna and flora in Noosa and complxities
of climate change on weather patterns this appears to be extremely limited. Outdated
reports and databases reference old data from up to 15 years old (2001 fauna assessment,
JWA surveys conducted in 2003) and use them as primary reference sources.


B. Multiple reports do not provide critical detailed plans and instead defer to plans
to be created during Operational Works application (Vegetation Rehabilitation,
Engineering Working platform assessment for heavy machinery, Erosion Control) . Full
decision-making should be open for public opinion and full consideration during this
current Consultation phase.

3 Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response

Page 8

Preface, pg 2 – Statement “… development is proposed in a slightly different
configuration to the zonings on Council’s planning scheme zoning map”


Objection 1: Proposed development for multiple dwellings is significantly different
zoning configuration. I object that an oversized building envelope which appears to
trump ecological and geological imperatives for this sensitive site.

The proposed Lot 2 of 1050 m2 is almost 50% larger than any lot on Attunga Heights and
the Lot 2 proposed dwelling site has been re-located from an existing structure to an area
identified for decades as slide hazard on loose sand. The 12 units are also located on slope-
sensitive locations deemed ‘lowest ecological value’ which does not mean it is a suitable
building location.


The Noosa Council Interactive maps identify the two Dwelling locations most suitable for
the site conditions to minimise impact on the delicate slope, the surrounding habitat and to
maximise building stability.

History has shown an ongoing issue with stability on this site. Attachment 1 shows
documented history of Noosa Hill as a delicate sandy slope. Plus local observation and
photographs document rainfall erosion and slope denegration at the top Southern edge of
the site fronting Attunga Heights on the shared council easement.

The developer asserts the “high level of amenity … When compared to existing
development along Attunga Heights and Edgar Bennett Avenue as well as the adjoining
Viridian development, the site is considered to be a superior outcome in terms of the ratio
of building footprint to retained environmental open space.”4

I object that an oversized building envelope “designed to maximize outlooks and
vistas …” which should not trump ecological and geological imperatives for a
historically sensitive site.




4 Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response, Page 13

Page 9

Preface, pg 2 Statement - “Dedication of 50% of the site to Council as
environmental reserve” 5

Objection: An Environmental Reserve is referenced multiple times as a community benefit
but no details are supplied to cover public recreation use, boundaries, impact on the
existing corridor.


Item 8, page 4 “Full details as to how the sewer is to be constructed on such steep
slopes”

Response – “… Bamser Engineering who are experts in underground engineering …
provided advice that the sewer is likely to be able to be constructed by using horizontal
directional drilling which will minimise the extent of vegetation clearing required.

>> Objection: No detail for any equipment other than Sewer is shown, this is the sketch
diagram referenced below.

Response – The sketch diagram provided at Appendix I shows the areas required to
accommodate construction machinery which aligns with the proposed development
footprint.

>> Objection: Details only supplied for the Sewer machinery for Drill and Pipe


Item 14, Page 6 Response to “Update the ecological assessment over the site by
providing recent field data, using current mapping and database records and addressing
current statutory requirements.

>> Objection: Ecological assessment is not comprehensive nor current and does
not reflect current native wildlife sighted by locals.
a. The “updated” field data collection is extremely limited with one person conducting one
study for 4 hours in one day in one season. How can this single exercise account for species
movement and migration through varying cycles such as feeding, breeding, nesting or
resting. Hence the developer’s unbelieveable conclusion of ‘limited ecological significance’6.

b. Despite referencing the earlier 2006 report against Regional Vegetation Management
Code (page 10), the assessment omits reference to the essential habitat onsite for the skink
Ophioscincus truncates nor is there assessment into how this habitat has evolved or survived.

5 Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response, Page 1
6 Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response, Page 6, paragraph 2

Page 10

Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Response to Items (Geotechnical, Slope Stability, Ecological, Constraints Analysis)
cont


Item 15 Response – Provide a rehabilitation plan which documents the management of
the land to ecologically restore areas outside the development footprint.

>> Objection: No vegetation rehabilitation plan provided, no public comment
possible.
Applicant defers to Operational Works.


Item 17, Page 7 Response to “Provide an amended layout which demonstrates the
development maintains a wildlife corridor of a minimum vegetated width of 50m

>> Objection: Wildlife corridor width is mis-stated and incorporates a road and
possibly excludes setbacks for bushfire Asset Protection Zones7

a. Wildlife corridor measurements in the Environmental Connectivity Plan include a
road – Alma Way. Wildlife corridors separate animals and fauna from human activities and
structures such as roads, then the building edges should measure to closest road kerb edge.
When proposed building edge is measured to closest road kerb then 8 of the dwellings –
more than half, 57% - do not maintain minimum 50m.
New measurements would be shorter than those stated and fall within 50 m minimum
requirement. Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, maximum distance to kerb is from approx 20m to 48
mLot 2 creates the tightest pinchpoint at approx 20 m from building edge to Alma Way
kerb.

b. Multiple measurements provided are not measured between the two closest building
edge points - refer Lot 2, Unit 3

c. No reference or solution is made to how this wildlife corridor also functions or is
replaced by an ‘environment reserve’. the tightest point is 41m.




7
    Bushfire Hazard Assessment, pg 20

Page 11

Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Response to Items (Geotechnical, Slope Stability, Ecological, Constraints Analysis)
cont

Item 19 Page 7 Response to “Clear detail of all of the areas where vegetation is to be
removed and disturbed as a result of the proposed development and associated
infrastructure. “

Response states: Vegetation clearing associated with the proposed development will be
limited to the building envelopes nominated for the two dwelling houses and the building
footprint nominated for the units

>> Objection: Vegetation removal is understated and minimized in the submission.
The total affected area of vegetation removal is 61% of the site (0.57 buildings,
infrastructure and 0.52 bushfire (see ) which is significant. Offsets to compensate for native
plant removal are considered by the developer to ‘not require the provision of offsets’. This
seems erroneous giving the sensitivity of the site and habitats.
Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Response to Items (Geotechnical, Slope Stability, Ecological, Constraints Analysis) cont


Item 20 Page 8 Response to Amended Site Comparison Plan to 2006 Proposal detailing
the vegetation removal/disturbance as per point 19.

>> Objection: No reference is made in 2018 from the 2006 Previous Vegetation
Clearing approval to protect the essential habitat and ‘Of Concern Regional Ecosystem
(RE’s) identified on the lot for the endanged skink Ophioscinus Truncatus refer Previous
Vegetation Clearing approval, pg 10 PR P8 ‘Essential Habitat’


Item 21 Page 8 Response – Copy of operational works approval issued by the state for
vegetation removal including detail of the offset arrangements

>> Objection: Offsets arrangements are disregarded as the developer considers the
proposed development does not require the provision of offsets. This would seem to be a
decision for Noosa Council to decide, not the developer.

Page 12

Item 23 Page 9 Response – Provide a Bushfire Hazard Assessment which documents to
likely future risk bushfire will present to the proposed development …

>> Objection: Developer states the Bushfire Hazard Assessment “is not likely”
contradicts the Assessment and does not address Noosa Councils’s stated “likely future
risk” bushfire will present to the proposed development.

     Page 15 - 4.1 Fire History and Frequency
     This study found no indicators of prior fire. Occurrence of fire at some time has to be
     regarded as possible although unlikely, potentially coinciding with maximum fuel
     accumulation and worst case fire weather conditions.

     Page 17 - 6.2 Anticipated direction of bushfire attack
     The probability of unplanned “wildfire” attack is currently regarded as possible, or
     even likely. The potential directions of attack are from the east or north, as indicated
     in Figure 5.


Item 26 Page 9 Response to – Provide traffic assessment by suitably qualified and
experience RPEQ of the increase in traffic and its impact on the traffic flows and safety at
the intersection of Attunga Height with Viewland Drive and the intersection of Viewland
Drive with Noosa Drive, particularly during peak hours traffic.

Response – Traffic management measures and / or roadworks improvements are not
necessitated as a result of the proposed development. Advice was sought from a traffic
engineer (Q Traffic) regarding the proposed increase in traffic associated with the proposed
development. The advice received was that 12 new units only generate 10 trips in the peak
hour, equating to 1 trip every 6 minutes which is a clear negligible impact on traffic
impacts.

Page 13

Statements from Innovative Planning Solutions, Planning Response
Response to Items (Geotechnical, Slope Stability, Ecological, Constraints Analysis)
cont

>> Objection: The cursory statement dismisses ‘traffic management measures …
are not necessitated”. However the Architectural plans identify up to 31 cars on site for
13 dwellings with a 2 car garage plus 5 visitor parks. This burden IN ADDITION to
existing traffic flow on Attunga Heights is not addressed, particularly at the intersection of
Attunga with Viewland. In addition during summer and peak holiday periods and events
(Noosa Triathlon) when large holiday vans park for extended overnight stays, there is
further impact on parking, egress and turning access which has not been addressed.


Item 27 Page 10 Response - Plans to achieve road grades below 15%.

>> Objection: The road grades and driveway do not fully achieve the requirement
to be below 15%, in some cases they MEET 15%. This is glossed-over with no mitigation
solutions.

Item 27 Page 10 Response to - Provide further details of the proposed earthworks
throughout the site including the earthworks associated with the proposed road and any
building platforms including Lots 3 + 4

>> Objection: An erroneous reference is made to Lot 4, it does not exist. Proposed
earthworks appear to be detailed for SEWER only, not for building or infrastructure.

Item 30 Page 11 Response to – Amended plans providing for a density for the Multiple
Dwellings no greater than 33.3 persons.

>> Objection: Amended plans exceed the density requirement for 33.3 with 39.6
people. The proposed plan also assumes only one person resides in each bedroom in a
three bedroom house, no couples.


Item 30 Page 11 Response to – Comply with the maximum permissible GFA for the
Multiple Dwelling aspect of the development.

>> Objection: Developer has disregarded ‘typical paramaters targeted at urban
areas’ and redefined their own GFA rules for maximum gain.

Page 14

Who’s behind this application? A tiny ‘investment’ company called Novato Group
registered in August 2016 with very limited development experience and no track record of
sensitive ecological developments, or awareness of environmental complexities. The two
small property projects - uncompleted to date - do not reflect an environmentally sensitive
track record or expertise.

Landowner David Neate is a Melbourne developer who purchased the site in 2010 for
$2.350,000. The site was sold with zoning: Open Space Conservation, Attached Housing,
Detached Housing and Semi Attached Housing.

Mr Neate has submitted DA and Operational Works applications since 2003, which
Council has refused. Novato Group optioned the site and has stepped in to commission
the latest analysis for this current Development Permit MCU18/0015 in conjunction with
Mr Neate.

Novato Group has assembled a syndicate of investors who believe the Property
Development Proposal to be worth around $20m if DA is approved. They have
commissioned some of the latest reports and analysis.

Novato Group - refer www.novatogroup.com

Stated intention on the website is to “… potentially unlock value for investors” and to “…
extract value from this well placed area.”

“Novato Group is a company focused on seeking investments and driving growth for its
owners and fellow investors. Investments include real estate and technology start ups ...”

Property Development listed on the website is:
   •   One Townhouse / Duplex Development in Peregian Springs, QLD
   •   One ‘Land Bank Project’ for a unique amalgamation of land on Samford Road, Mitchelton QLD
       that … provides a future development opportunity that will potentially unlock value for investors.
   •   Two blocks of commercial land in Minnesota USA in partnership with Otsego Lots Development
       “Novato is working with its partners to develop a suitable plan to extract value from this well
       placed area.”
Specialty services include everything except development expertise:
   •   Investment
   •   Capital Raising & Corporate Finance
   •   Corporate Strategy and Strategic Advice
   •   Operations
   •   Business Reviews, Budget, Health Checks and Report Structures
   •   Business Valuation
   •   Risk Management
   •   Technology and Innovation Consulting
   •   Growing Companies and Start-Ups
   •   Entrepreneur support, guidance and coaching
   •   Content Marketing & Public Relations and Events Management
   •   Investor Relations