PM Submission - Phil Dauphin - MCU22/0118

Subject: MCU22/0118 RACV eco cabins at 94 & 142 Noosa Drive
From: Phil Dauphin
Date: 2023-02-05T04:31:54+00:00
To: Mailbox Council Mail

CAUTION: This email originated outside of Council. Do not open links or attachments if the email is unexpected or unusual.

For the attention of T NORLEY.


Please record this email as my objection to the proposed development of Short-Term Accommodation (16 Eco Cabins) by the RACV hotel at 94 & 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads.

This development is unacceptable for the following reasons:



The number of people and vehicles.

Noosa is already struggling to handle the numbers of visitors and vehicles that are here in peak season. Potentially the development will allow for another 64 visitors and 18 vehicles to add to the visitor and vehicle numbers.

There are no bus stops within easy reach of the development, and the provision of alternative modes of transport including a shuttle bus, electric car hire (2 new Nissan Leaf electric vehicles) and bicycles for hire by the existing RACV facility is no balance for the additional vehicle journeys that will occur.

Until Noosa Council has an effective traffic and parking management scheme in place to avoid the long queues of vehicles heading into Hastings Street in peak season, most of whom are unable to find parking spaces, and the increasing traffic densities in other parts of Noosa e.g. the Junction, Noosaville) there should be a moratorium on any approvals for additional visitor accommodation. Noosa must consider and manage the worst-case traffic and parking scenario so that visitors and residents alike can continue to access and enjoy Noosa throughout the year. To do anything else will discourage visitors from coming to Noosa.



Impact on wildlife and the environment

The proposed development is variously reported as core koala habitat and connecting habitat, but due consideration must be given to the other forms of wildlife that reside there currently and, potentially, in the future. The report by Gondwana identified over 75 species of fauna. This is clearly a rich area for wildlife which would be significantly impacted by this development.

Once again, we are presented with a proposal with strong commercial outcomes for the applicant, but at the cost of continuing removal and degradation of the natural environment and the fauna that it supports. There is no upside for the local community.

Of the 375 trees surveyed, 99 are proposed to be removed. Given Noosa’s focus on its environment this is unacceptable. When commercial developments that require tree removal are planned, there should be an equal or better number of new trees planted. These new trees do not need to be planted within the development site, although there is no reason why that should not be considered.

Consideration should be given to these replacement trees being suitable for koalas and black cockatoos and any other wildlife, in an effort to extend the habitats that would support the wildlife. It is not acceptable to allow an ongoing reduction in our trees as a result of commercial development.

Whilst there is a suggestion that some canopy tree specimens could be introduced into the area outside of the Bushfire Protection Area where there are existing gaps in the canopy or particular trees are in a very poor condition, this will still be an overall reduction in the number of trees.

It is hard to envisage how the flora and fauna will not be seriously affected by the site preparation and construction activities. The fauna will migrate away from the noise and disturbance created by the works to the point where it will not matter whether the vine is effectively removed (and this will apparently take years to eradicate) and the remaining trees are brought back to good health because the fauna will be long gone.



Historic Landowner Performance

The supporting letter from the Resort Manager states “RACV also understands the importance of being sustainable and actively caring for the environment”. However the list of initiatives relates to solar and renewable energy, electric & hydrogen vehicles, and sustainability – nowhere is there any evidence that the RACV have a focus on managing land for the benefit of the local fauna.

Whilst the RACV advocates strongly for approval of this DA based its environmental credentials, it has clearly failed miserably in its management of the proposed development site. This site is clearly very significant for our koala population – why has the landowner allowed the site to degrade?

The report by Consult Arborist states “The site is currently an unused area on the southern side of the resort which over the years has been overrun with an invasive exotic climbing plant that is threatening the existing mature trees on the site and their usability by local fauna, including koalas”. This is hardly an endorsement for the RACV in looking after our natural environment.

It would seem that the RACV is only interested in demonstrating its focus on the koala population in order to get this DA approved by Council and to make a profit.

As koalas are now listed as endangered under national and state environmental law, the development should not be allowed to proceed and the RACV should be taken to task in their maintenance of the site. The site should be cleared of invasive weed and where possible additional koala feed/habitat trees should be planted to supplement those remaining after the clear up.


Regards
Phil Dauphin