Andrew Savage, Rosemary Baker, Bradley Simpson

1:32 Andrew Savage: My name is Andrew Savage. I'm joined by Rosemary Simpson. Sorry, Rosemary Baker and Bradley Simpson. We represent the Noosa Hinterland Environmental Protection Association Incorporated and a group of over 200 residents in the areas surrounding the 20 hectares on Holtz Road proposed to be rezoned from rural to medium impact industrial. I've lived with my family on a rural block overlooking the proposed site for 46 years. So it came as a huge shock to me that the adjacent rural land right in the middle of the water supply buffer area has become a proposed industrial site, especially after being told by council for over 20 years that subdivision of this type was prohibited in rural zoning, especially in the water catchment. We fully support council's aim to facilitate economic development in the Shire. However, we are convinced the proposed site is not suitable. And we especially challenge the adequacy of the appraisals leading to its selection. The 23 SEQ regional plan moved the urban boundary and so was a catalyst for this proposal.

2:47 However, the SEQ plan did not consider any site specific issues in detail. Put simply, all the SEQ plan says is that we need industrial land and this site is a possibility. As a side note, the site's proximity to the much smaller six hectare Taylor Court estate needs to be put into context. That estate is zoned low impact industrial, meaning that disruptive polluting activities are not permitted there. By contrast, those activities will be permitted in the new and scaled up 20 hectare medium impact site. Despite it being in a sensitive water supply buffer zone, and despite it being bordered by creeks that flow directly to our water supply, Lake MacDonald. Although the 23 SEQ plan was the catalyst for this proposal, our local state member, Marty Hunt, has assured our action group that Noosa Council will continue to support this proposal. Noosa Council, and not the state government, is the driving force behind this proposal. Council's support for this proposal seems to be driven by the Council Commission Bullenbear report entitled Noosa Employment Land Review.

4:04 As with the SEQ plan, this review does not address any site specific issues. Bullenbear's identification of the Holtz Road site is simply a cut and paste directly from the SEQ regional plan. There has been no traffic study, no hydrological study, no environmental impact studies, no study on the impact on local residents. In fact, to our knowledge, no detailed site specific studies whatsoever have been done. And we expect such studies would likely deem this site unsuitable. In discussions with Council's Street Strategic Planning staff, we've been told all the site specific issues are to be dealt with when the site is developed. It seems we have been told, trust us, we will make sure the developers address the site specific issues. Excuse my cynicism, but trust and developers in the same sentence don't sit very well together. We assert that proceeding without any proper site specific studies is putting the cart before the horse and seems reckless. From our discussions with Council planning staff, it also seems that little effort has been devoted to identifying alternative sites.

5:22 For example, Council owns an undeveloped 10 hectare site in Carpenter Road, Cooroy, already zoned industrial. It borders an existing medium impact industrial estate. Council has stated its intention to develop this industrial site and this site would satisfy the five hectares industrial land need to 2041 as projected in Council's Bull and Bear report. Why not properly consider this site first? Additionally, it seems that Council has not undertaken a detailed investigation into other potential greenfield sites. The Holt's Road proposal looks to us like a choice of convenience rather than a properly considered choice. In summary, we assert this Council initiated proposed site is unsuitable and Council has not conducted site specific studies to adequately support its suitability, nor has it adequately explored other options. I'll now hand over to Rosemary.

6:32 Rosemary Baker: Good morning, Mayor Wilkie. Good morning, Councils. One of the most pertinent reasons for this proposal to be adopted is that it is not

6:41 totally within the Water Resource Catchment and Water Supply Buffer Zone. The proposed rezoning site sits directly within a critical ecological footprint where industrial runoff poses a direct threat to the water quality of Lake Macdonald. The Cooroy Local Plan Code states that the protection of water quality within Lake Macdonald and the waterways that draw water from Lake Macdonald and the waterways that draw water rain into it is a paramount factor in consideration of development within the water supply catchment. That is an overarching statement, but the finer details and relevant sections are to be found in the Council's planning documents.

7:27 Council's own words against the Gem Life development said, It is not the Council's case that the additional concentration of pollutant and runoff can cause an unacceptable impact on water quality in Lake Macdonald. Rather, that the introduction of any urban development within the catchment inevitably increases the pollutant load and is contrary to good catchment planning and therefore good town planning. This statement from Council pertains to a residential development about half the size of what is proposed in Hots Row. The impact from a hard stand development which introduces medium impact industrial activities into this sensitive zone creates an unacceptable risk of chemical spills, heavy metal contamination and toxic stormwater runoff entering our primary drinking water source. The proposal says runoff must be captured and treated on site. But personal observations of this land over 40 years have noted the huge amount of runoff during regular rainfall events.

8:45 This goes directly into the creeks that border this area, which of course ends up in our water supply. Recent bomb rainfall figures include 212 mm in a single day in 2026 and 368 mm in a single morning or two. The storage capacity of on-site treatment and retention tanks to contain this amount of runoff in a single morning would be the equivalent of 28 Olympic sized swimming pools. Over the years there have been many such events and Council acknowledges the need to take a precautionary approach with regard to further rainfall increases due to climate change. SEQ Water Consultation is currently occurring as part of the State Interest Review, but has not been finalised. Evidence that will affect the water resource catchment and water supply buffer must inform this amendment. If this amendment is passed, any future development applications will be assessed against the Planning Framework Council sets now.

10:00 Any ambiguity in the zoning and its uses can only lead to expensive planning assessments in the future and risks appeals against Council's decisions. It needs to explain how proper preliminary analysis informed the published Framework and Character Plan. If protection of the Lake Macdonald drinking water catchment was sufficiently important to make intensive urban development unacceptable. What technical evidence and planning rationale demonstrate that approximately 20 hectares of new medium impact industry development at Hulse Road can occur within the same water supply catchment without undermining that catchment protection objective.

10:49 Expansion of the urban footprint under the SEQ Regional Plan does not mean that the land has to be used in one specific way. Noosa Council has the power to decide what the site will be used for and is used in a way that is consistent with its core values and adheres to their planning scheme. I therefore ask you to reject amendment 4. Thank you.

11:16 Bradley Simpson: Good morning councillors.

11:22 My name is Bradley Simpson. I'm here to talk about the impact that rezoning 20 hectares of new medium impact industry development will have on the rural character of the area. We believe the proposed medium impact industry zoning is inappropriate for this location because the surrounding land uses include established rural properties and environmentally sensitive areas. Council's own medium impact industry provisions allow activities with increased risks associated with emissions, noise, odour, dust, waste, damage and pollution. [29 seconds the machine transcription could not make out; listen from 11:57]

12:34 The local residents, some of whom are here today, have either moved to the area or lived here for a long time to get away from noise, cities and industry. This area was chosen because of the beautiful countryside and natural environment, and the overall rural character of this area and Cooroy. 20 hectares, or 50 acres, nearly four times larger than the current low-impact industrial site, will significantly and irreversibly change the rural character and landscape. This change represents a significant expansion of intensive urban and industrial activity into land currently identified as rural. The impact of noise, light, air and water pollution has not been modelled. For day, evening and night operations, including reversing alarms, loading, refrigeration or plant operation, truck braking and acceleration, security lighting and cumulative light spill. Industrial zoning should not rely on future development applications to discover whether the interface was unsuitable. As I was told at the Council Community Consultation meeting, don't worry, the developers will sort that out, The Queensland Planning Act, which encompasses the precautionary principle, expressly says that the lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to delay measures preventing environmental degradation, where serious or irreversible harm is threatened.

14:12 Once rural land is rezoned and development expectations crystallized, reversing the course becomes much harder. This is where the precautionary principle is key. As a resident, the question naturally comes, is this just the start of further development that slowly eats away at the character of the area and continues to impact other rural properties? I have two questions for councillors to ponder and ask yourselves honestly. One, would you be willing to take the risk? You want a 20 hectare medium impact industrial complex built next to your family home and have each of you driven up there and seen the land and the surrounding area. We would be happy to take you around. Now councillors, we support sensible and appropriately located employment opportunities for Cooroy and the wider Noosa community. It is a choice about where development belongs, what intensity is appropriate and whether the evidence is strong enough to justify an irreversible planning change. The community is asking for the same standard council has demanded in other contested planning matters. Demonstrate site suitability. Protect the Lake MacDonald catchment. Understand traffic and environmental impacts and respect the established rural character of the area.

15:32 Our objection is to rezoning of this particular rural location with limited evidence about negative impacts and that there are no more appropriate alternatives. This evidence should be available now and not that it will be dealt with through later development applications. Here we ask council to follow your own strategic principle applied in the Gem Life case, which the court accepted that new urban developments in the catchment should be avoided and stated that the issue was determinative and alone warranted refusal of that proposed development. Thank you. Thank you, Brian.