Council officers say reject Weyba

Noosa News | 23rd January 2014

SUNSHINE Coast Council officers have recommended that councillors reject the controversial Noosa on Weyba development proposal, which comes before them for final deliberation next week.

Mayor Mark Jamieson refused yesterday to comment when asked whether the developer would address councillors either before today’s closed agenda-review meeting or the ordinary meeting on January 30, when council would vote on the proposal.

The council officers’ report firmly advised that the negative impacts the development would have were “considered to be significant and unable to be overcome with conditions”.

A state government decision last year placed final approval or rejection of the project with the new Noosa Council, with Sunshine Coast required to consider only the 41.128ha section of the 303ha development that fell within its boundaries. That section carries a development footprint of 27.25ha.

In making the recommendation to reject the proposal, council officers noted the applicant had identified numerous grounds that might lend support to development of the site.

“Assessment of the material submitted with the proposal indicates that there may be a potential for the development of part of the site within the new Sunshine Coast Council region to a limited density, subject to further investigations,” the report to next week’s meeting states.

Public benefits the developer, Northbrook Corporation Pty Ltd, suggested would flow from the project included dedication and maintenance of extensive conservation areas and improved access to Lake Weyba.

Maintenance of an existing wildlife corridor, additional koala fencing on Walter Hay Dr, new roadways, cycle and pedestrian networks, and employment opportunities also were listed.

However, officers have found that “by its very nature” the project conflicts with the Maroochy Plan 2000, which designates the land as rural.

Their report states the site contains several “specific environmental and locational features that represent considerable constraints to the development of the site”.

“The environmental constraints include significant flora and fauna communities within and adjoining the site, waterways and wetlands within and adjoining the site, flooding and bushfire,” the report says.

It also questioned the development’s “capacity of infrastructure, limited access opportunities and additional demand upon social infrastructure.”

It also conflicted with Aboriginal cultural heritage.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top