All recent comments on applications from Noosa Shire Council, QLD

It is great to see the positive changes in this home after years of neglect. The owners have refreshed the home and given it a modern look, including planting native vegetation. The 2 patio roofs are no different to the existing patio roofs that has been on this home for decades. It doesn't interfere with any neighbour and doesn't encroach onto the street.

As per previous submission in May -

I don't believe Council should allow the Material Change Of Use on this application. This business was run from premises in the Noosaville Industrial estate for over a decade. Rural land was purchased, and the business along with staff moved to the property. Now the request for the property to have a zone change some 2 years after the move. There is no benefit to the business being moved. It seemed only that the proprietor wished to work from home on a rural property. The neighboring properties should not have to deal with noise from the business or traffic from staff, when it is perfectly suited to a factory in the industrial estate.

It is widely documented across the state, the country & the world, how STAs are destroying residential amenity, communities, & businesses. It is both shocking and incredibly dissapointing Noosa Coucil, who assured residents no more STAs in low density would be approved.

This decision by council is incredibly disappointing. I agree with all the comments made so far, This approval makes a mockery of assurances given to me by both staffers and councillors that there would be no further approvals of SSL in low density residential areas. The Noosa we knew and loved is being eroded by greed and over tourism and I implore Noosa Council to reconsider the approval of any further SSL.

I live in Nairana Rest and it’s terrible to see so many residential houses used for short term lettings in this lower section of the street. Clearly council needs to go back to the drawing board and define domestic/tourist zones, surely there is a common sense calculation that alerts council that 8 yes EIGHT houses in 100 mt section of a street is too many.

The past failures of relocating the precious flora & fauna to the old dump site is proof positive that the “offsets” don’t work.

The recent media storm over bogus offsets, including the recent heavily researched documents collected by Lisa Cox, are fresh in the media’s focus.

The recent new council approval where the asbestos cap provisions will allow for the tree transplantations is a band aid solution as the Wallum takes generations to regrow to their glory and in the meantime this precious natural resource & home to many endangered and beautiful species is lost forever.

Has the full council including Counsellors, really covered all legal angles & appealed to Lend Lease, Blue Care, the Church etc, to avoid this important loss of the precious biodiversity?

I hope so as concerned community members are rallying to inform a widespread media frenzied legal protest to protect this important habitat.

To the council of 'Different by Nature' Noosa Shire,
Please find the following statements from your written word, found on your website:

"The vision of Noosa Council is Noosa: different by nature. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than our commitment to our environment and sustainability"
"Build strong partnerships and whole-of-community effort to protect and enhance the
environment and to conserve its resources"
"Apply the precautionary approach to environmental decision making where there is
uncertainty, to avoid or minimise harm"
"Ensure ecological sustainability is fully integrated into decision making in order to help secure
the continued availability of natural resources for present and future generations"

This development is not aligned with your statements as above and you can document all these amazing statements but in the end, your actions and your approvals demonstrate your principles. Actions speak louder than your words therefore it is time to act and we implore you to stop this destructive clearing of habitat for our flora and fauna by the Uniting Church. In addition, their paltry effort to plant an alternative habitat is a slap in the face - the size of the trees is just a joke!

Regards, Melissa Tuffley (Sunrise Beach Resident)

I completed agree with all the previous comments from Trish, Steve and Roberta.
Council should also be mindful that this address is zoned ‘Low Density Residential’
SSL is incompatible with this zoning.

Roberta Gordon

Having lived here around the corner from 27 Nairana Rest for 21years I have experienced the loss of neighbourhood and friends gradually in Nairana Rest which I walk and cycle along regularly.
Just in the lower section there are eight SSL.
I agree completely with Trish Radge and Steve Spark's comments.

I urge Council to refuse this application.

I urge Council to take action to negotiate with Blue Care/Lendlease and seek an alternative site for the residential development.

I urge Council to protect Lot 9 from clearing. I strongly oppose destruction of this habitat which threatens vulnerable species. The community expects and deserves better.

Robyn Hewitt

The fabric of Noosa Hill is being eroded by the excessive number of SSL properties already in place. Nairana Rest is densely populated by SSL which invariably stand vacant in all but weekends and peak periods. The continual removal of owner / long term rental resident occupied dwellings from the housing pool is hollowing out Noosa.

Council should seek to influence property owners investment and asset utilisation though restricting full SSL approvals. Refusal of this application (and those like it) to increase the current 60 days to full SSL would be a significant financial incentive for the owner of properties to return these properties to the permanent rental pool.

Rest has far too many SSL

It would be incredibly disappointing for 27 Nairana Rest to have the property's status changed from restricted short term accomodation (up to 60 days) to permanent short term accomodation. Nairana Rest is a beautiful street that should be a neighbourhood full of permanent residents. The houses are large enough for permanent rental to families or as shared accomodation and are within walking or cycling distance of schools at Sunshine Beach.

Instead Nairana Rest and The Quarterdeck (parallel) have far too many short term holiday properties meaning the area is devoid of a permanent community. Refusing this application may see one more property available to the long term rental market, something we desperately need.

Thank you for your consideration.

Absolutely a resounding NO from me! Please stop this development and any further plans for allowing such devastating action. The abuse of precious ecosystems must stop with us. Our future generations deserve better!

The only benefit this horrific plan has is lining the pockets of greedy executives who claim to care about the lives of animals, yet apparently have no shame in destroying the habitat of an endangered species. It is not just the Glossy Black Cockatoos that will be affected, but echidnas, bandicoots and many other animals that rely on that acre of land to live. Please, please hear our pleas. Even if the off site selected was suitable, the trees will take too long to mature to be of any benefit to the glossies. It is likely they will not even be around by then if this development goes through. Enough damage has been done already. It is not too late to put an end to this cruelty.

This is a disgrace. Lot 9 - Plan should not be going ahead. Congestion & traffic along this road is not suitable to the area, for safety of the children going to school & the emergency services needed for this facility. No change will make a difference. Over 70,000 signatures against this. Stop it now before it’s too late.

Dear Noosa Council,

I strongly request that Noosa Council rejects this application. There are so many community members who are absolutely against the continual clearing and development of land in our region. When does it end? It seems council will continue to creep further and further into vulnerable natural habitat whenever it suits. This is just not sustainable. We need to reach a point where council actually stands firm in protecting the natural beauty of this area which is one of the main reasons people want to live here.

Our own wellbeing as humans is dependent on nature itself, have we come so far that we've forgotten this? The diversity of wildlife that inhabits these areas brings people joy and awe on any given day. How sad to think if we keep this short sighted behavior going we will reach a point where there is nothing left but infrastructure. Please do NOT approve this application.

Please consider the habitat and it’s flora and fauna. We as humans need to be sensitive to our natural heritage and do all we can to preserve it, not destroy it in the name of ‘progress’. Please don’t approve this application.

Dear Noosa Shire Council,
Please refuse this application. There are thousands of concerned citizens in the community and around Australia that are pleading with you to protect this parcel of precious bushland. This is an opportunity to show leadership for our natural environment and protect an irreplaceable and precious habitat.

A healthy environment means healthy humans. We are losing so much native flora and fauna around us, it is essential to retain these green corridors. Our wildlife such as the Glossy Black Cockatoo is perilously close to extinction and the loss of critical habitat such as this bushland, brings them even closer.
Please listen to the voice of younger generations as they plead for the protection of this land. It is their future in your hands. They will miss out on the joy of seeing nature in their urban environment.

Please stand up for the bush, our wildlife and young humans.
Please refuse this application.

PLEASE, this application must definitely be REFUSED.

This 5 hectare property is an irreplaceable, vital habitat. It contains unique wildlife that needs this habitat to survive. Reports indicate that the destruction of other lots has already affected local flora and fauna.

The Sunshine Coast is beautiful and needs to be protected and its habitats preserved.

Please do the right thing and save this valuable habitat for the future. Refuse this application.

Dear Council,
Please strongly consider the concerns of the community around this proposed development of 1 Grasstree Crt Sunrise (Lot 9).
This area is a know habitat for a range of wildlife, most notably the Black Glossy Cockatoo. With species becoming extinct at a terrifying rate, an opportunity exists here to help protect the glossies and their very unique environment.
It is heartbreaking to think that the protection of this species is within your power and may yet be ignored simply in favour of short term financial gain for the Uniting Church. Please use your power to invest in our future and protect this sacred space.
Regards,
Madilein Butt

Prior to the State Govt. automatically extending all D>A's , last year , our elected Councillors were about to put a vote to Council , to reject the Lot 9 plan , on many grounds , one of the main ones being fire evacuation risk . This should have been considered by the new managers within the Council planning and Environment departments , and made notice of the proposed changes available to the community , then vote on it in Council . Also , the Developer should be obliged to put up a public notice on the site , advising of the proposed development of Lot 9 , and the time frame .

Soo disappointing reading all the comments obviously falling on the deaf ears of our elected council we trusted to preserve the environment for the wildlife and especially our magnificent black glossy cockatoos which we are privileged to have roaming our bushland areas suited to their feeding needs.

I absolutely reject any destruction of the site at 1 Grasstree Crt Sunrise with this unique habitat of mature trees for the glossies. The glossies are such a joy to watch flying and feeding around this and surrounding bushland which sadly is shrinking.

Dear Noosa Council,

I am writing in regards to the planning application number OPW18/0342.02 for 1 Grasstree Ct Sunrise Beach QLD 4567. I am writing to express my opposition to this proposal.

The proposed age-care facility on this site of significant environmental value would undoubtedly have a catastrophic effect on the local wildlife, in particular the vulnerable glossy black cockatoo and its habitat. The loss of such wildlife cannot be replaced, and this natural beauty must be protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy.

I urge the Council to consider the environmental impact of this proposal and the long-term consequences of destroying this critical habitat. There are better places to build the proposed age-care facility that do not jeopardize the survival of wildlife in the area. This proposal threatens the balance and stability of the ecosystem in the area which can have far-reaching, unsustainable consequences.

As a responsible Council and a protector of nature, I implore you to reconsider this proposal and to protect the lives that inhabit the land across Noosa Shire, preserving the beauty of the environment for all to enjoy for years to come.

The recent application does not alleviate the concerns previously raised by the community.

The application states:
"The purpose of the amended (2023) EMP is to update the rehabilitation strategy associated with the rehabilitation (receiver) site to accommodate works already completed for Stage 1 and 2, incorporate a capping exercise to the landfill area and address the balance rehabilitation for Stage 2."

The plans set out to use seeds from active feed trees for future propagation. However, it is not known whether feed tree seeds will provide future feed trees - there is likely a complex fungal network supporting the whole ecosystem that makes feed trees successful and attractive to glossy black-cockatoo - one that we do not yet know enough about but that is clearly supporting the birds at Lot 9. Moving the topsoil after it has been mulched by machinery will destroy these fungal networks and reduce any chance for successful establishment of a supportive ecosystem elsewhere. Replanting from seed will take 15+ years to produce trees of an age for next-generation feeding. Therefore this falls short of protecting the birds. It leaves a huge window of time where a critical feeding ecosystem will be absent, and this will likely have detrimental impact on the species in this region.

The plans indicate that 2.8 hectares will be "spread on site for temproaty stabilisation, reused in landscape areas, or removed off site" and that "2.2 Ha to be relocated to the second stage of the rehabilitation site". The idea of offsets is to ensure no net loss of ecological health. The planned restoration will likely take tens of years to become functional (self establishing and resilient) and even then will fall short of the current habitat functionality (all research studies I have seen to date support this), while the loss of ecological health at Lot 9 is enormous. Mastication of the ecosystem (mulching of trees and soils) to remove it will kill it. There is clearly little room on site for reuse and the ecosystem will be destroyed given machinery will remove all trees then rebuild. This is insufficient to protect the wildlife.

Section 2.2 states that "clearing of a protected plant under this section must be conducted within two years after the flora survey..." and notes that the surveys took place up to January 2021. The goalposts are then moved as later, the report states the applicants can clear the work within 3 years after survey to avoid the need for new surveys. This seems unjust.

The report notes the high number of she-oaks planted on T1 but many of these have not survived. Similarly, the other native species introduced have limited survival. I did not see mention of their health in the submission even though the restoration efforts began over a year ago. It should be possible to see at the site how the 'restored' ecosystem is progressing. This would surely need to be going well to even consider the continuation of this plan. The high numbers are misleading, the tree / species health is key and the establishment of root systems in the offset site is limited by the underlying landfill cap. The cited change does not alleviate this challenge at all. The depth of soils for roots to support healthy mature trees is missing.

That is the long response. The short response is that, globally, we no longer have the luxury to consider the destruction of any forest ecosystem to have a good outcome, we have to re-evaluate how vital these systems are to all life on Earth and protect them accordingly. This project is unnecessary for community well-being. Please do not proceed with Lot 9 deforestation. Please protect the ecosystem instead.