Objection_Nov18 · MCU18/0015

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.