The consultant’s report states there would be “no adverse impacts on flood levels and flows for surrounding properties for local and regional flood events” and adds Noosa on Weyba would “reduce the 100-year ARI (average recurrence interval) event of the peak flood level around Lake Entrance Boulevard due to flow attenuation being proposed within the site”.
“To provide attenuation of peak flows, a culvert crossing of the Eenie Creek tributary will be located within the easement at the northern end of the site.”
The developer has proposed that the council upgrades Hollett Rd west to a 10-year flood “immunity” standard and charges the cost to the Noosa on Weyba project.
Sunshine Coast Council staff are assessing the Noosa on Weyba project.
The applicant says during construction, Noosa on Weyba would inject about $250 million into the local economy over an eight-year construction period, and create more than 2000 jobs.
“Once completed, Noosa on Weyba will create 328 ongoing positions on and off site in body corporate and environmental management, aged care, retail and home based businesses and other sectors,” it says.
The applicant says Noosa on Weyba would generate a household retail spend in the shire of $22.6m per annum and would inject $661,000 of additional annual rates income for the council.
Friends of Lake Weyba’s list of reasons the development should be rejected include:
Its site drains into Keyser Creek and Lake Weyba.
It is non-compliant with the SEQ Plan, the Maroochy 2000 Plan and the Noosa Plan.
A Sunshine Coast Council report rejected the biodiversity offset proposal as providing no net gain.
The proposed development would fill wetland that is home to vulnerable wallum froglet and wallum sedge frog.
The proposed buffer is 40m with only existing vegetation.
There is no provision for revegetated, 100m buffer zone between development and Lake Weyba as previously required.
It would create high-density land use in a high-value conservation rural area.There would be 70% of urban density located on 14% of total landholding and it would isolate national park and nature refuges.