NOOSA PLAN 2020 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 - POST PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL APPROVAL · Attachment 1 Table of submissions

 Your Say     ECM         Submitter comments                                                                                             Response                                                                                                          Recommendation
 Reference    reference
                          • Increased flooding risk. As a resident of Marblewood Court we already experience issues with water
                            run off on our land due to the clay bottom of the area we live ( former brickworks) especially in Summer
                            as it is hard for water run off to be naturally absorbed in the land. The construction of the proposed
                            development at this site is likely to make this matter considerably worse resulting in water run off on a
                            far more concentrated level and even less ability for the already poor soil to absorb water resulting in
                            potential flooding issues for residents of the low lying blocks of land adjacent to 62 Lake Macdonald.
                            What infrastructure planning and considerations have been made by Council in relation this?
                          • The land is sloping and so much water comes off that hill when it rains. With a development there it
                            would create a massive flooding river going into the existing drainage that floods regularly now without
                            much rain and in turn would put the homes along there in more danger of being flooded.
                          • There will be increased water run off from an overly developed land on the high side of land.
                          • Storm water issues are a major problem from the cemetery, an actual “water fall” forms from the cliff
                            edge onto Lake McDonald Drive.




                          Inconsistency
                          • One of the reasons there is a shortage of housing is that there are legitimate considerations in proper      Other significant multi-residential proposals at Cooroy have been refused for various reasons including
                            planning to maintain standards of living for existing ratepayers, and environmental considerations, that     location outside of the Urban Boundary, location in the water supply catchment, proximity to industry,
                            take time to manage. Cutting red tape is usually a recipe for short term gain and long term pain.            location outside the priority infrastructure area, bushfire hazard, flood hazard.
                          • Noosa Shire’s connection to nature and desire to stay small was what sets Noosa apart from the rest          There has not been a comprehensive assessment of the use of multiple dwellings on this site nor are
                            of the country. While everyone else is building up and destroying the natural skylines of their cities,      there proposed plans submitted to Council. Any plans for multiple dwellings would still be subject to
                            Noosa stays true to its core and upholds its beauty. This amendment is so far away from the Noosa            assessment by Council ensuring the development complies with the Noosa Plan 2020. The operational
                            shire that we came to love. It seems as though something else is influencing the desire to create pockets    works and building works are subject to assessment.
                            of ‘affordable housing’ rather than the love for the shire’s previous beauty.                                Vegetation has been addressed above. Plantation timber has always been able to be harvested.
                          • The medium / high density proposed development appears to be in contradiction of other aspects of
                            the Noosa Council policy. I specifically refer to your policy documented online in regard to Tree
                            Management and Trees on public land. Noosa Council already runs a "land for Wildlife" program
                            specifically aimed at areas with over one hectare of land. This is two hectares of land being potentially
                            wilfully destroyed to make way for a high density development that on the surface appears to be
                            completely not in keeping with the local area and also appears to be in contradiction of other stated
                            policies. So I am rather bemused as to how such a change can be made when it is clearly in direct
                            contradiction with other stated policy.
                          • It seems to be getting harder to keep everyone happy in Australia. But there are no shortcuts to
                            anywhere worth going. You might find as we have that in the case of 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, the
                            current housing proposal would not pass muster against Noosa Council’s code assessment on material
                            grounds.
                          • You fought to stop Gem life and now propose high density building which in time will create a slum
                            situation.


   20.2. Cooroy - other
 Your Say     ECM         Submitter comments                                                                                             Response                                                                                                          Recommendation
 Reference    reference
 5805099                  Opposed to rezone of 3 Ruby Street, Cooroy to Medium Density Residential                                       3 Ruby Street is currently in the District Centre Zone, (as is the submitter’s property). The next 5 properties   That no change be made to the
                          This is “a significant” amendment. It may benefit someone in the future, however at the expense of long        up Ruby Street (numbers 5-23) are in the Medium Density Residential zone, as are those to the north of            proposed    amendments     as
                          term existing ratepayers and residents. Why are you prioritising new people and trying to attract more         Opal Lane.                                                                                                        advertised as a result of this
                          people to an already under serviced built up area. This encourages multiple residences most likely being       3 Ruby Street had approval for 4 dwellings in the early 1990’s before a rezoning from Residential Low             submission.
                          occupied during our business hours for a use inconsistent with its very close neighbour(s). Nothing will       Density to Village Business and the construction of a commercial shed in the mid 90’s.
                          stop these new extra residents encroaching on our property. Our property together with 24 Cedar Street         The site takes access from a residential street without main street frontage and is more suited to
                          are already half the size of the other properties in Ruby Street, so there is already a significant built up   residential rather than commercial development.
                          area here. A medium density structure next door would significantly impact our amenity on our East side,
                          including privacy, morning sun and the value of our property. We are a narrow block running north-south.       The site is unlikely to accommodate many dwellings and should not cause a security threat or hardship
                          At the very least you are attempting to fix one problem while creating more. A medium density                  to the neighbouring properties.
                          development also takes time to build and will impact on us for a significant period. I know that a
                          development can happen at any time, however please do not encourage one in the short term as
                          construction will also significantly disrupt and disadvantage our business for a year or two. It is already
                          hard enough. I believe that Council should address current issues and plan infrastructure first before
                          attracting more people to already overwhelmed services. Our west side near the bridge crossing over the
                          railway line has long needed an upgrade. If / when that happens it will only encroach towards us and with

                                                                                                                                          105
Table of Submissions made regarding Noosa Plan 2020 Proposed Amendment No. 2, 2024