PM Submission Object - Mark Sullivan MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

                                                                                                                  4


                     b) …
                     c) disturbance of the …wetland system;
                     d) …

            The Covey Associates Pty Ltd Engineering Services Report of March 2017 states:
            “The interface with the western boundary to the Council reserve will require approximately 2.0m
            of fill to be placed. It is proposed that a rock filled gabion wall is constructed along this boundary
            to retain the fill material. The proposed retaining structure would be subject to Geotechnical
            investigation and advice to determine an appropriate design. The photograph below (Figure 6),
            illustrates the ‘swampy’ nature of the lower area of the site in the vicinity of the proposed gabion
            wall.
            Along the southern boundary with the Noosa National Park, a ‘fill’ wall of approximately 2.0m
            will be required. These walls will most likely be of a concrete sleeper, or similar, construction. This
            would continue the existing wall in-situ.
            Along the northern boundary, ‘fill’ walls of approximately 1.5m height will be required. These
            walls will most likely be of a concrete sleeper, or similar, construction.”

            While the Report speaks of the ‘Swampy’ nature of the area it does not refer to the creek or
            watercourse. Likewise, it does not refer to the fact that the gabion wall will be on the bank of or
            in the bed of the creek requiring footings to suit.
            The development will result in changes to the natural drainage of the site and disturbance of
            the wetland system contrary to the Noosa Plan. I submit that Noosa Council should refuse
            approval to develop under these circumstances.

            The developer should now be requested to provide a detailed survey of the site showing the
            location of the creek/watercourse in relation to the site boundaries and the proposed location
            of the Wallum Houses numbers 10 to 13. The developer should also be required to provide
            plans and appropriate expert advice on what is proposed in regard to the creek/watercourse.

            Perusal of the latest version of the DA shows that the applicant did not tick the box (Item 7)
            indicating that there is a watercourse in the site. There is a watercourse on the site and this is
            plainly misleading. Noosa Council must clarify why the applicant did not indicate the true
            situation and cannot grant approval for the DA until this question has been answered and the
            implications of the fact that there is a watercourse have been fully resolved. The DA covers a
            site that abuts directly onto a Noosa National Parks National Park and this is a serious issue.

            Until this information is provided neither the Council nor the community are in a position to
            assess the development and can only oppose it.

            Kind regards,

            Mark Sullivan
            4 Tern St
            Peregian Beach
            4573 QLD




Document Set ID: 20306256
Version: 1, Version Date: 21/04/2017