PM Submission Object ADDITIONAL - Cass Renee Casaubon - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

Page 2

Mr Patrick Murphy,
The Assessment Officer,
Noosa Shire Council
[email protected]

Dear Mr Murphy,

                            Objection to the Development Application
                                  MCU 16/0153 & REC16/0041

The DA makes no mention of any creek or watercourse in the plans. I object to the DA on the
basis that it does not take into account damage to the environment that has already occurred,
nor future negative impacts on the environment. Please review the information below that
supports my concerns. However, from the attached photographs taken on Sunday 16 April
2017, you will see that a creek or watercourse runs through the site.




The building on the left is the IGA Supermarket and the fence is where the proposed access road will enter
the site. The slope behind the IGA is where the Hotel is proposed to be built with the access road passing in
front on the right.
Much of the ground in the foreground is very “springy” from being waterlogged and covered in mulch.

Page 3

                                                                                                       2




This photo again shows the creek or watercourse to the right of the above photo and some of the many
trees which have been chopped down despite the lapsed approval requiring them to be retained “except
where required to be removed due to building operations”. There have been no building operations.


The following Google Earth aerial photo clearly shows the creek/watercourse running through
the site behind the IGA supermarket where the developer plans to build the Hotel and the
access road to the housing development is proposed to go farther to the west where the
creek/watercourse runs.

Page 4

                                                                                          3




Division 14 – Overall outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality at 7.10 states:-
       “Environment and cultural heritage values
       O10 There are no significant adverse effects on biodiversity, natural vegetation
       etc…including those related to-
       a) changes to natural drainage;

Page 5

                                                                                                     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,

Cass Renee Casaubon

2/28 Gannet Street, Peregian Beach, Queensland 4573