MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Scott Cowley

                                    The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation to
                                    young children, we address possible risks where scientific
                                    understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful. In the
                                    absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not harmful,
                                    the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the Developer and the
                                    Property Owner. The Appiicant provides no such evidence or assurance
                                    and in all the circumstances the Development must be rejected.


Conclusion
The Noosa Biosphere Reserve is sought after and special because of its natural beauty, range of plants
and animals, the committed         groups who look after it - and the community        that strives towards
becoming a healthy community in a healthy environment that can be enjoyed for generations.


As parents we have chosen this environment        in which to raise and school our children because of the
specific nature and life-style the Noosa Biosphere has to offer. It ill behoves a Developer, from outside
of our community, with very different values, to pillage our prized neighbourhood and strip our children
of the clean, green, safe privilege we have sought out for them.


A petrol station does not belong adjacent to our school.


Indeed our children have raised concerns for the frogmouth        owls, possums, grey egrets, whistiing tree
frogs, rosella, plovers, green tree snakes, ducks and lizards that frequent the Good Shepherd Lutheran
College's grounds, should there be an increase in traffic and a hazardous increase in air pollution and
poisonous fumes.


For all these reasons the proposed development appiication is NOT Compatible with other uses and
works. It:

    a.   DOESNOT Maintain the safety of people, specifically children and works;

    b.   DOESNOT Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
         specifically children, including acoustic and health and well being quaiities;

    c.   DOESNOT Avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native habitat
         removal, fragmentation and attrition and

    d.   DOESNOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the
         users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open-space
         Recreations Zones.


I/We urge you, the Assessment Manager, and/or the elected representatives to reject the Development
as it conflicts with the interests of the public and its obiigation to protect the health and safety of our
school children. From the assessment above, the following contrary conclusions are able to be drawn:

    1. The proposed use is an inappropriate       and unreasonable form of development       within the area
         in which it is located.



                                                                                                            26