11C Church St Pomona QLD 4568

This is a low lying area subject to flooding (hasn't anyone noticed at the moment).
Not suitable for multiple dwellings.
It is (or was perhaps) a favoured spot for families of kangaroos to linger.
Does wildlife protection no longer feature in Pomona's development plans?

Not only is this area already over-developed, it should be a preserved as a drainage catchment & flood mitigation area, it's part of the thoroughfare for the kangaroos to make their way through to the tracks into the bush behind Mountain Street.

What happened to the much flaunted Noosa Biosphere? or does that end at the Timbeerwah Range?

Will the drainage on Church Street be fixed by council as part of this development?
Will the gully crossing be widened on Church Street by council as part of this development?
Will council consider the parking shortage on Church Street as part of this development?
Has council considered the wildlife corridor that runs through this development?
Has council considered the aesthetics of our small country town as part of this development?

If this goes ahead it will be an absolute disgrace and a blight on our small community. Shame on Noosa Council for even considering this application.

I think if you have a look at the plans, you'll see there's many town-houses with single car garages (Let's be honest 18m2 is nothing) - I think at minimum the council needs to lower the number of town-houses and have them put in more car parking on the premise... the street is going to become a parking lot otherwise - most families have 2 cars now days, not to mention the fact that there's inadequate drainage in the street on the west side of Church St going down the hill towards towards the creek (another thing the council needs to push the developer to fix since although ZACCALE is a new entity, if you do a check on ASIC they appear to be related and they should be responsible for the original development they failed to properly install street drainage on when changing the road/adding the footpath in if they are the same group of developers). If we have another massive downpour like the one a couple of weeks ago any cars that were on the street that are not big 4x4's will be flooded/damaged based on fact there's no drainage whatsoever with the existing development that was done.

"R2111_Church St Flooding.pdf" also appears to use flood data from 2017? - I don't think it takes into consideration the recent record flooding we had... Units 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 would all have inundation of some sort based on the recent record rainfall (Hopefully someone else who reads this can upload some photos as proof, I don't have any handy but there was water over the road where the culvert for the creek is, and there was a LOT of runoff/movement through the creek area)

Also, given the area is zoned as a "Koala Priority Area" (and Koala's are on the verge of being extinct, there should be additional consideration around allowing such a large number of premises (cats, dogs etc specifically which will inevitably come with 20 units) on such a small block, as I believer there are gumtrees in/near the area (RP66341, MCH591) and other nearby blocks .... According to QLD Gov "Koala priority areas that provide the best habitat for sustaining koala populations in the long term." - I don't see how 20 odd units in an area that's near suitable trees for Koalas is going to help the Koala Population long-term. - Check out the 'koala habitat area' map published in 2019 by Noosa Council this part of Pomona is adjacent to what's recorded as the "Habitat Known" area from what I can tell (unfortunately they don't have the individual streets on the map) ... https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/1919/2019-12-11-sm-agenda-item-1-attachment-22-schedule-2-5-other-maps-koala-airport-lgpa

Hopefully someone else who reads this can chime in with more details, about the above points & if there are any which I'm sure there will be now is the time to voice them - Our family is new the the community, so we don't know that area that well yet.

This proposed development is a disgrace and is not suitable for Pomona.

This high density development will have a very negative impact on Pomona, both socially and environmentally. Pomona does not have adequate public transport servicing this area, many of these households are likely to require 2 cars each. Where will they park?

The street is incredibly narrow at the current bridge. In a downpour, stormwater crosses from the western side of the street to enter the creek on the eastern side of the street. The Stage 2 development (11 Church Street) had no underground collection points for the torrent of kerb-side stormwater that collects from the very top of the hill (6 houses plus road surface). It is an incredibly dangerous narrow section for two cars to pass each other, particularly in a downpour.

Has a footbridge been proposed, or will pedestrians need to walk on the road beside passing cars?

The creek itself needs to be protected from this over-development. High density on the riparian buffer zone is not acceptable. Please consider the flood risk of this site, the impact it may have on our insurances, and reject this application.

This is simply not acceptable. Pomona should not be considered for high density development - let alone in this street! Drainage is already dodgy as is, street is too narrow as number of vehicles will multiply (2nd vehicle, visitors etc). I will not discuss wildlife protection - which hopefully the developers have thought about????

That's sheer madness and hope the council will reject this application.

This site is completely unsuitable for a material change of use to higher density living to be granted.
It is a drainage area required for and known to flooding. Granting this application would not only be irresponsible considering the increased rainfall events experienced in Pomona (over 1400mm in less than 36hrs during the most recent event), but would also negatively impact existing dwellings and the use and amenities of current residents in the area.

I believe this development application is heading in a wrong direction for Pomona, and has many clear objectionable points.
Pomona is a small, low rise heritage timber town and the encroachment of multiple dwelling/high rise/ townhouses undermine these values, especially when considered in the more central, heritage area.
I definitely oppose this development and will continue to oppose similar proposals.

Pomona is a heritage town with low rise housing, and this development would encourage undesirable high density housing. This is completely out of character for the area, and I totally oppose this. Looking at the hideous urban sprawl created by developers in other areas, and how hard so many of us have worked to be able to live in this quiet piece of Queensland, I find it hard to remain calm about this. Please stop this now.

Pomona is a heritage town with low rise housing, and this development would encourage undesirable high density housing. This is completely out of character for the area, and I totally oppose this. Looking at the hideous urban sprawl created by developers in other areas, and how hard so many of us have worked to be able to live in this quiet piece of Queensland, I find it hard to remain calm about this. Please stop this now.

Area is in a flood zone,we should be building away from flood zones and keeping the area for the environment.As far as I'm aware it is already a koala priority area.
I understand that we need housing but not in this area

More affordable housing is definitely needed in the local area.

The proposal to regenerate the degraded ecosystem at the existing site is excellent.

The issue that arises is the amount of units on the small area. With 20 units (47 rooms) in such a small area, with only 38 car parks (including garages and visitors spots) the parking pressure will negatively effect the development and local area/ residents.

Although the planning limit and outcome is met (2 bedroom unit = 1 space, 3 bedroom unit = 2 space, 1 visitor space for every 4 units) for the local area of Pomona, this is inadequate.

Pomona has poor transport links and limited employment. This results in people needing private cars to access services and work.

The additional car pressure on the development will likely result in multiple excess cars been forced to park on surrounding streets. Church street is already narrow, has limited parking and suffers significant pressure during market days currently.

A smaller development with a bigger focus on parking and harmony with the local community wound be more appropriate.

The lack of outdoor shared area, such as a garden or BBQ area also adds additional stress to existing infrastructure. The gardens and 'outdoor areas' are inadequate for family's or people with children.

Some units should be removed and replaced with an open green area with communal amenities. This would create a better environment for the families there and be more harmonious with the Pomona culture of enjoyment of the great outdoors.

The lack of private gardens in some unites and lack of gardnes of an adequate size in others, will increase the amount of children using church street for recreation. Church street is often used as a cut through to avoid traffic in town, multiple kangaroos have been killed in recent times by speeding drivers. Having children possibly using this road could result in fatalities.

Anither negative impact of the current plan is the negative impact of exisitmg surrounding residents.
The access road ending near unit 13 is directly facing and opposite 11B church street (18+/- meters). At night the headlights of cars will cause a nuisance and negative impact on health and enjoyment of the occupants of this property. Especially the master bedroom, lounge and kitchen which will be overlooked in the day by unit 13 and then impacted by headlights in the night from cars entering units 13,14,15,16,17 and guest using the 3 visitors parks.

There is no provision for screening or fencing (only open 'pool fencing') and with the removal of invasive species on the creek, which currently form a partial natural screen, this issue will only be exacerbated.

Construction noise has been almost consistently on going since the development of the original 11 church street block. Stage one and stage two have been ongoing for over three years, and the further development of this site will have negative impacts on the surrounding residents. Having such a large development, been created in multiple stages, will further prolong the disturbance.

A smaller amount of units (or better yet larger duplexes) and more outdoor space will lead to an better outcome for new inhabitants of the development and existing surrounding residents..

Additional housing is a fantastic addition to our rural townshio. But there must be a balance between quality housing with positive outcomes rather than higher density units for the sake of financial gain.

I have specific concerns related to Stage 1 and Stage 2 of this development that I think need to be addressed prior to, or as part of Stage 3. Rectification work should be carried out by either Noosa Council, otherwise, by the developer of 11C who appears to have ties with the original developer.

Issue related to STAGE 1: A spoon drain on council property was installed many years ago to help mitigate the risk of flash flood inundation of the house at 9 Church. Stage 1 earthworks completely removed this spoon drain and there was no provisions for surface water to be collected on the northern side of the shared driveway that services 19 Memorial. Instead, the positioning and shaping of the driveway itself was designed to direct water away from 9 Church. However, due to the positioning of the driveway, in comparison to the positioning of the spoon drain (the new driveway is now higher up the hill than the old spoon drain was), the Stage 1 development has only increased the catchment area above 9 Church in torrential downpours. Surface water that's collected along the southern fence line of 9 Church now has no collection point, or diversion away from the house, so it flows into the yards of 9 Church and 19 Memorial. This adds an unacceptable risk to these houses. Due to the sloping nature of the land, rectification works to address this issue that's been caused by Stage 1 may prove difficult. Ideally, an underground collection point would need to be installed and connected to existing Stage 1 stormwater system, which unfortunately is positioned on the southern side of the shared driveway. Alternatively, if an underground collection point was added to reduce the volume of kerbside water on the western side of Church Street (also related to Stage 2 development, detailed later), it may not go deep enough to collect surface water runoff from the lowest point of the southern fence line of 9 Church.

Issue related to STAGE 2: A torrent of stormwater collects in the kerb and channeling and this water then crosses the road surface to enter the creek on the opposite side of the road - at the bridge. This has been reported to Noosa Council at least twice (RM2020/04383 March 2020 and RM2020/07725 May 2020). Rectification works by Council has not successfully addressed this issue and it still is occurring in 2022. In a torrential downpour, this presents a risk to drivers who may need to pass each other on the narrowest section of the street - at the bridge. A fast flowing volume of water also crosses the new pedestrian crossing on the western side of the street, which was installed as part of Stage 2. This presents a risk for wheelchairs or prams that may use the walkway in a torrential downpour. Ideally, an underground collection point to collect water from the kerb needs to be installed above the pedestrian crossing. Depending on the depth, consideration could be given to if this could also service the surface water issue along the 9 Church fence line, detailed above. Ideally, the 90 degree kerb and channeling work installed as part of Stage 2 should be reconsidered. At the point that the kerb begins to curve and the street begins to narrow, a lot of the stormwater jumps the kerb at that point and it crosses the grass then flows across the concrete pathway. An underground collection point, rather than a curve in the kerb, could help address this particular issue. Ideally, the number of existing underground collection points on the eastern side of the street should be replicated on the western side of the street as part of this development of 11 Church. The safety of both pedestrians and drivers needs to be considered around the bridge and pedestrian crossings. Rectification work to address the ongoing drainage issues that have presented since the development of Stage 1 and Stage 2 need to be factored in to any plans that are considered for Stage 3. Approval of 20 units (which is an unacceptable number in my opinion, in terms of the number of cars related to that amount of units) will only compound the effects of the issues I've detailed above. Please reject this Stage 3 application for 20 units and consider the rectification works needed to address the drainage issues that have presented from Stage 1 and 2 for the sake of property owners.

This proposed development will be detrimental to our town through more traffic in this area negativity impacting quality of life in this part of Pomona and endangering local kangaroos / other native wildlife. It will also result in increased flooding risks. During the recent flood event, storm water was already backed up to the driveway of the Pomona IGA. The increased flow from these units into the water course running from Pottery Street to Railway Parade will only make this problem worse. Please do not allow this to proceed.

The proposed development application will negatively impact our local town of Pomona. This area is a natural corridor for wildlife and the area is prone to flooding as recently experience in the floods in Feb 2022. The increased storm water flowed from Pottery Street to Railway Parade. Flooding occurred outside Pomona IGA, Railway Parade and Park. Adding new units to Church Street will only add to the problem regarding drainage.

Also parking will become an issue in Church Street if this development is to go ahead. I agree with the other comments on here and hope Council takes note.

I have lived at 12 Church Street, Pomona since 2009.
I moved to Pomona from elsewhere in the Shire for the quite, peaceful and friendly nature of the small village lifestyle. I have lived in the Noosa Shire since 1990 after relocating from Brisbane.
Pomona is well known for its abundance of wildlife, many species inhabit Church St as a refuge. This was significantly altered by the subdivision in Memorial Lane and across from us at 11 Church St. where the natural watercourse was destroyed and has turned it into a stagnating quagmire.
My issues with the proposed development of 20 houses at 11C Church St are:
1. An increase in population density will lead to substantial increases in traffic flow on Church & Red Sts., with additional parking problems in the village’s centre. Often there are no available parking spaces anywhere around the town.
2. The nature of high density occupation with 20 houses side by side is noise. This results in a decline in liveability for the existing residents due to neighbourhood issues from more barking dogs, rubbish collection, noisy vehicles and loss of wildlife due to habitat destruction.
3. Pomona has very limited public transport. The bus services are infrequent and the train only stops 3 times a day. Increases in population will lead to increased traffic. Many roads in the area are already congested, the T intersection at Elm & Tewantin Rd., Cooroy is a nightmare for those of us returning from Noosa.
Many of the areas roads are already falling apart due to the increased traffic volumes.
4. Essential services are at breaking point already. Pomona only has 2 Doctors Practices. They are not taking any more patients. Where are the 40-50 new residents at the proposed subdivision supposed to be treated?
Other medical services such as pathology, hospital, X-Ray, Dental and Optometry are over booked. None of these services are available in Pomona, that means more congestion for Cooroy or Noosa.
5. Jobs. Pomona has very little prospects for worthwhile employment.
6. Schools are struggling already, another 20 houses won’t help the situation.
7. The Shire has issues with water security during prolonged droughts. Additional residents further exacerbate the issue.
I urge you to consider the facts and reject the proposed application for 20 additional houses in Church St.
Regards,
Alex KALNOKY.

I have lived in the street for nearly 60 years at one stage my parents owned all this land. This land was our play ground for all the town children, now to see this land being cut up into smaller lots, putting 20 units into such a small area will impact all of the other Home Owners who have come to this beautiful hinterland town for relaxation and a sense of belonging. To have a family of 15 kangaroos, two pair of nesting plovers, bush pheasant, many species of frogs, family’s of whip birds, storm birds, owls you can just go on and on. We need this to be seriously looked at to make sure we keep our native animals. On another note our little street could not handle any more vehicles on it we do not have enough safe parking on the road now. The road itself couldn’t handle more traffic and our quality of live would be effected, our mental health, the stress, being waken every morning for months is no joke. We are NOT in favour of this proposal at all.

This is not the right place to put 20 dwellings. The area is flood prone and as our weather patterns and building corridors are changing the flooding is becoming worse. We have beautiful wild life in that area that are gradually being pushed out from their homes. Parking will be a nightmare considering most families have two cars as public transport is very scarce in the area.
Please don't go ahead with this application.

Moved away from busy noosaville for the tranquility of Pomona.
Have walked along Church Street and seen so many kangaroo families., which would be impacted by this development, not to mention the drainage and infrustructure issues this would lead to.
High Density just does not fit in with the character of Pomona.

Moved away from busy noosaville for the tranquility of Pomona.
Have walked along Church Street and seen so many kangaroo families., which would be impacted by this development, not to mention the drainage and infrustructure issues this would lead to.
High Density just does not fit in with the character of Pomona.

I moved to Pomona to escape this kind of high density housing. So many solid objections from fellow Pomonians have already been posted so I wont repeat:
Flood prone
Wildlife habitat protection
Traffic conjestion
Etc.

Noone seems to mention the social impact of this hideous proposal. That impact is hard to evaluate in the short term but when we all get to evaluate negatives with the benefit of hindsight I fear it will be too late. Over crowding does lead to trouble.

From what I have read so far, no-one in Pomona wants this development to proceed. Expect strong opposition.

This amount of units in such a small close area to the same already roads (Pioneer Road, Reserve Street, etc) is unacceptable to current residents who are already getting out of control quarry truck volumes along with an influx of growth in the area which has brought higher traffic and speed.

Residents purchased property outside of city limits to not have this roaring past their door step day on a continuous basis and have every right to have some peace and safety coming and going from their driveways.

How are all of the building transport trucks and supplies going to come into Pomona and out? Same roads that are already being hammered? This is getting ridiculous now.

Which roads are 30-40 cars (most families have two cars, especially out here with lack of transport) on top of what we already have going on, going to use? This is a major issue and needs to be addressed urgently as you can not expect current local residents to be impacted who have the right to not have such traffic to be considered and upgraded more to what they have already.

How are you going to address the roads to accommodate such an increase? Simple answer is you can't, hence why this can't be approved.

Noosa Council planning should already know the ramifications and have a real good look at what has happened to current affected quarry routes. By approving this, you are going to tip it over the edge and will be a whole new saga. We are currently in court to limit current road usage as communities can't take it and this is being looked at for consideration? 20 units in same impacted area, really?

In agreement from our Mayor Clare, the quarry would not be approved today because of community impact and they are trying to make right from wrong years ago. Please don't let history repeat itself.

There is absolutely no way this can be approved and bring upon an already impacted community. Safety on our roads is paramount and there is no place for this volume in such area.

Our roads are not designed for this amount of influx in such a small close area with one way in and out of Pomona to what these residents would use.

With recent floods, this is also an area that was inadited with floods which was witnessed to be disastrous. Why would one approve such a site knowing this information and good 2017? 2022 says it all. You will increase house insurances on next flood as everyone knows what happened there. Train station fence is still down and exposed to all children to walk on the tracks. Roads still need clearing and cleaning. How is Noosa Council going to keep on top of all this with extra load on community when it can't address it currently?

Employment, schools, supermarket? Thoughts? Doctors are not seeing any new patients as already busy?

This Lot is zoned medium density residential for a reason and many answers have been expressed. Pomona community is asking for this to please not be approved for valued reasons and needs to be respected.

Are these the same developers as last failed attempt? What is going on here with the shady hiding behind sated 1 and 2? This town does not cater for such actions speak volumes.

11C Church Street, Pomona
Development Application – Material Change of Use and Operational Works
Flood modelling

As noted in the Noosa Plan 2020 (the Noosa Plan), ‘the extent and severity of flooding and inundation is likely to increase over time as a result of sea levels rising and more extreme weather with a changing climate. Development is to be compatible with the flood and storm-tide hazard and is required to be designed and sited to not place people, property and natural ecosystems at risk.’

The Medium Density Residential Zone Code (the Medium Density Code), at 6.3.2.2(2)(m) requires development that responds to land constraints including topography, bushfire and flood. The Medium Density Code Performance Outcome (PO) PO2 requires that a dual occupancy or multiple dwellings occur only on land that is suited to the development and occupation of residential buildings avoiding risk to people or property from natural disaster.

In a time when governments around the world are grappling with how to manage the effects of climate change, and when governments in south-east Queensland in particular are considering whether to ‘build back better’ or to not rebuild at all in the wake of the recent floods, to approve this development would be unconscionable.

The flood modelling for this proposed development must be re-done to take into account the 2022 floods as well as projected effects of climate change on future flood events. Proposing to build 20 medium density dwellings alongside a recognised riparian zone in this day and age is madness.

Character, amenity, lifestyle

While recognising that this proposal attempts to align with the aim to provide small dwelling stock, in accord with the Noosa Plan 2020, there are major shortcomings that are not in line with the plan. In particular:

The Hinterland Villages Local Plan Code (the Hinterland Villages Code) at 7.2.1.2 2(b)
requires that development within each village is consistent with the identified character and of that particular community.

The design of the dwellings falls under the style of terraced housing (a.k.a. row housing), with the characteristic feature of rows of attached dwellings sharing side walls (a.k.a. party wall, common wall). It is a style that is common and sometimes celebrated in many cities around the world. It is not consistent with the identified character of the Noosa Hinterland villages.

The Hinterland Villages Code at 7.2.1.2 2 (f) requires that development maintain the rural amenity, lifestyle and level of accessibility enjoyed by residents and visitors of the villages.

There is major concern with the underwhelming architectural design principles of the
dwellings 2, 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19 which fall way below the benchmark of the present rural amenity. The dwellings share the feature of having about 66% of the dwelling boundary as common walls, walls that do not have any windows or doorways.
The negative impacts of this design include:

Inhibiting the penetration of natural light into the premises. Where is the rural amenity
in a kitchen with no natural light?
Inhibiting the penetration of cooling breezes into the premises. Where is the rural
amenity in having to run the air conditioning a on a windy day?
Promoting the exposure to noise from adjoining properties. Each of the dwellings 2,
3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19 is only 7.45 metres in width, with about 15 metres of common
wall on each side. Besides suffering the noise of adjoining neighbours living
spaces, most of these dwellings have one of the bedrooms sharing a common wall
with a neighbour's garage. Where is the rural amenity in being woken by a
neighbour's car that is literally only metres away?

It is universally recognised in contemporary architecture that access to natural light, access to natural air flow, and buffering from external noise are fundamental to promote the wellbeing and mental health of the occupants. A small selection of the vast literature available includes these commentaries:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/covid-lockdown-mental-health-and-anxiety-depends-on-housing/100369398

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170605-the-psychology-behind-your-citys-design

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/16/bad-buildings-damage-mental-health-research-anxiety-depression

https://www.ovga.vic.gov.au/case-good-design-healthcare-guide-government

https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/neuro-architecture-how-do-buildings-affect-mental-health/

While we can understand the desire of council to increase the stock of small dwellings, we cannot understand the acceptance that many of these dwellings will be subjected to a lower expectation of amenity compared to other dwellings in the local community. By resorting to a terraced housing framework, this design presents second class housing options for a rural environment.

The goal is to provide diverse housing options. Is the outcome to encourage a class conflict or to promote egalitarianism?

Not only is the design not suitable for 21st century living in the Noosa Hinterland, it is also not complete with no floor plans provided for dwellings 17 - 20.

Parking

Sufficient carparks for residents and visitors is essential for the proposed development,
given that it is recognised in the Noosa Plan (7.2.1.2(2)(m)(iii)) that residents of Pomona rely on larger centre such as Cooroy and Tewantin to meet higher order needs. It is very likely that every adult living in the proposed development (potentially 40 people or more) will require their own car. Only 32 resident carparks are provided for. This will exacerbate parking problems on Church Street and negatively impact on residents in surrounding properties.

The Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code PO4 requires development to minimise noise carrying between dwelling units or accommodation units by locating noise sensitive spaces such as bedrooms away from noise generating areas of the development such as car parking areas. The Acceptable Outcome (AO) for this matter are that bedroom windows are at least 3 metres away from shared driveways, car parking areas, mechanical plant, refuse and recycling areas, vents and exhausts.

The proposed development fails to meet this AO in relation to the proximity of the following bedrooms to both carparks and the driveway:
- Unit 1, bedroom 3
- Unit 2, bedroom 2
- Unit 3, bedroom 2
- Unit 4, bedroom 3
- Unit 5, bedroom 2
- Unit 6, bedroom 2
- Unit 7, bedrooms 1 and 2
- Unit 8, bedrooms 1, 2 and 3
- Unit 9, bedrooms 1 and 2
- Unit 10, bedroom 2
- Unit 11 bedroom 2
- Unit 12, bedrooms 2 and 3
- Unit 13, bedroom 3
- Unit 14, bedroom 1
- Unit 15, bedroom 1
- Unit 16, bedroom 1
- No plans have been provided for units 17 – 20, however it is expected that similar
issues would arise for bedrooms in those units

The Town Planning Report for the proposed development, at page 2 (page 51 of the
document) claims that PO4 has been met and that the development is designed to minimise noise carrying between dwelling units. However, there is no detail provided in relation to the numerous breaches of AO4 in relation to the placement of bedrooms close to carparks and the driveway or how this design will achieve the PO.

The very narrow driveway makes it extremely difficult for a car to exit from the carpark in unit 20, especially if a car is parked in V4. A car in V4 or R3 would need to reverse past the T intersection in order to exit the development. With 37 cars using this narrow driveway for access, this seems likely to cause congestion and exacerbate inherent difficulties with exiting from designated carparks.

Impact on adjoining properties

The Medium Density Code at 6.3.2.2(2)(j) requires that development maintains a high level of residential amenity having regard to traffic, noise, dust, odour, lighting and other locally specific impacts.

While the development may meet minimum set back requirements, it’s noted that the side setback of unit 20 is only 2 metres from the boundary of the adjoining property and units 1 to 7 have their private outdoor space crammed into a tiny area in the three metres from the boundaries of the adjoining property.

This will inevitably increase noise for the adjoining properties in Red Street, with all the residents of units 1 – 7 having to enjoy outdoor activities and socialising along the boundary lines. The traffic noises from 37 cars coming and going will have further negative effects on the residential amenity of the local area. Headlines from carparks R3 and V4 will also shine into the adjoining property, which will negatively effect the amenity of those properties.

Given that this development is out of character for Pomona and will have negative impacts on the high level of residential amenity for the town in general and for adjoining properties, it is extremely hard to understand how this can be a code assessable development, with no formal requirement for public notification or opportunity for public engagement and consultation.

Conclusion

The above issues arise from what appears to be an attempt to cram as many substandard units as possible onto the parcel of land. A more moderate proposal would provide for improved liveability and amenity for the residents of this proposed development.

This substandard application should be thrown out. The residents of Pomona deserve a better design with a better vision for the future.

Once again it is happening, an application for a development that will possibly and cleverly tick all the the boxes and allow the council officers to say it complies and the the councilors to say it complies and there is nothing we can do about it. This leaves the old residents, the new residents and the visitors to live with the results.
The council officers who possibly do no live here and move on from their job to another and will not know the disruption they leave behind.
The developer will get their profit and move on. They will not want live in the development they have created and if they did, wouldn't want their friends and visitors to navigate streets, traffic and parking problems they leave behind.
They will not be there for the clean up, when some of the units that are inundated with water from as far away as Pottery St, Mountain St, etc.
The Council will get their Fees and Charges with an extra yearly income from Rates on 20 units.
The Council will not say to the owner of the units that have been inundated, Oh, here is a full refund of all Fees, Charges and Rates paid on the property to help with repairs after the inundation, the mistake was ours in approving the development in the current form.
But what will happen after inundation, is the neighbors, residents the community and emergency services will take the clean up on and ask the seemingly useless question, "why was this allowed to go ahead". The unfortunate new residents will want to sell and a new lot of owners will be brought into this sad game.
The council still believes the best way to record flood level on suspect land, is to put a house on it. Then after a flood, it is easy, everyone can say, Oh yeah!, it goes up to the windows.
There will be some form of development on this site hopefully not this. What ever goes on this site the locals and the new residents are always the ones who live with it and with all that is written on this forum, there is a surprising amount of unseen problems.
After recent events it is time to stop building future problems, for unsuspecting people. Councils and developers do hold a moral obligation for their work.

To echo the points made by others I would like to add the following:

Parking issues - while the allotted 38 carparks does meet the minimum requirement, realistically most units will have at least 2 cars, with no driveways to park on this will force cars out onto the streets. The road is already narrow. Add to that visitors and the Saturday morning markets, this will create chaos. There isn’t much in the way of public transport here which means most people rely on cars to get to work etc.

The lack of gardens or communal entertaining areas means that most kids will begin playing in the streets, cars tend to fly up and down Church st which could result in accidents. Kids being bored with nowhere to play means we may see an uptick in petty crime also.

The added noise from so many people crammed in one area on top of construction noise which will go on for months (perhaps years) will negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood.

That being said, more housing is needed and the proposal to regenerate the creek at the existing site is a good thing.

I would suggest halving the number of units or putting 3-5 duplexes on the site. This would strike the right balance between more housing (with proper sized backyards and a communal area) and harmony with the rest of the neighbourhood and residents.

I am writing as a resident of Pomona and also a resident of Red street and rate payer.I walk down church street on many occasions and have been glad that this last area of green passage for the resident wildlife is still in existence.
But,of course,there is always somebody trying to cash in on the need for housing The 3 new houses built on Church street in the last year have been squeezed into the developed patch and have don't fit into the Pomona street scape in any way.After the last flooding event I observed one of the unfinished houses had a waterline half way up its brick wall.as yet nobody has moved into th I s place but they probably won't be happy with the rising damp.
Who will be responsible for selling anybody real estate in a flood way and pay for the damages to houses and driveways knowing full well that this land should never be built on?
Does the developer and the Noosa shire have the ethics to look past th e dollars?
Yes we need housing badly but this is not the suitable position for it
I can only trust and hope that this council will protect Pomona and the reasons why so many of us chose to live here.
I just hope Noosa shire is not about green washing their decisions but about good and decent long term planning.
Regards. Regina Synnot

This application for 20 UNITS in a WILDLIFE corridor, on a WATERWAY prone to FLOODING, adjacent to the CHARACTER PRECINCT of our HERITAGE town, truly shocks locals as it goes against the very nature of our beloved town.
In a Noosa Council General Committee Meeting on 17/5/21 a previous development application was considered for this site under the superseded scheme, and denied. The local community certainly felt their concerns were heard by our Mayor and Councillors when they unanimously voted:- "That the Council indicate a preference for the area identified as a drainage reserve to be a reserve for environment purposes to link to other areas upstream zoned for that purpose." Cr Brian Stockwell explained in the meeting:- "The first stage of development did raise a lot of community concerns, but it also raised the concerns from the natural resource management groups of the local area. Because, while it is an intermittent first order and second order stream, there are values downstream including vulnerable and threatened frogs that have been identified reasonably close to the site. We have identified in the new scheme that the area immediately upstream has been zoned for environment conservation and management."
In essence, I'd like to highlight CONNECTIVITY to upstream and downstream. We cannot look at a site as a separate unit. Cr Joe Jurisevic made the very important point about connectivity in the May meeting and asked Conor Neville to elaborate. Conor explained:- "Upstream this block connects to Cooroora Mountain and the catchment area there, and it's largely vegetated upstream. Downstream it flows through a series of people's backyards until it goes through the IGA carpark and then is piped underground underneath the railway and comes out near Pages and then drains to the North into the Six Mile Creek system near the showgrounds."
Pomona recorded over 1500mm over several days in February 2022. I can show with photos (that I've uploaded to Healthy Land and Water's flood survey), the absolute torrent of water that swept through backyards like mine down to IGA and beyond. Locals who've been here longer have seen it worse, shaking their heads at the absurdity of building in the gully that serves a significant function as a waterway for our township. Many properties in Pomona are difficult to insure because of flooding issues.
There is a need in regional Queensland for more housing stock, but this proposal falls way short of displaying due regard for our community and ecology. The need for more housing does not justify placing new developments on sites that have, for the township's lifetime, been regarded as inappropriate for development. Let alone on this scale! It is not ok to place new developments on sites that may endanger other's well-being and safety, and right to enjoy the peaceful amenity of their much-loved homes.
We are a small heritage village with limited infrastructure and vibrant nature connection - urban creep is not appropriate here. We do not wish our town to be homogenised - like a suburb of a city. Is not the legislation here to protect the community, nature, heritage, character, waterways, threatened and vulnerable species, ecosystems and a functioning vibrant town? Of course the Code we all have to live under is Mother Nature. In a township that recently recorded in excess of 1500mm in February, how wise is it to build a new development on a flood-prone waterway? I know what the Climate Council and Insurance Council are advising us. In response to the severe flooding in February 2022 that decimated so many communities, leaving so many homeless, Ms Hutley from the Climate Council said:- "Politicians will have to make difficult and unpopular decisions about where people can rebuild and where new housing developments can be located."
In relation to this application, I ask how Noosa Council provides for:-
1. Protection of Environmental Values of land adjacent to waterways.
2. Management of Flood-prone lands
3. Protection of the Character Areas of Pomona
A developer being able to tick the boxes and file the right reports, is poor comparison to the actual lived experience of locals, please heed our locals' concerns. Please value what we value.

No, just no. Density housing is not appropriate for our small country community minded town.
Are there limits on setting a precedent?
Keep the face of Pomona as it is without structures pushed in together.

Pomona has the special quality of a harmonious town which is overlooked by the majestic Cooroora Mountain , its guardian overseer. The proposed development of 11c Church St sits on a major artery line from Mt Cooroora running down to Cooroora Creek Park. This is also a creek system, a water catchment, Kookaburra Creek. It is also an important wildlife corridor from Mt Cooroora to Cooroora Creek Park. Essentially, it is an important nature corridor in the heart of Pomona that allows positive energy flow that enhances the energy and harmony of Pomona. Why ,in 2022, would Noosa Shire Council allow such an integral part of inner Pomona to be deconstructed/ desecrated??, particularly when NSC prides itself on being an examplery Biosphere region... With the recent extreme rainfall, it can only be clear that the proposed 20 unit development at 11c Church St is inappropriate, a town house development in an inner city creek system !!!... seriously in 2022, in Noosa Shire, the progressive Eco Shire!!!. This completely disregards the Nature of Pomona..

Sue Wood

I have read all the comments and agree wholeheartedly with them. I won't repeat any of these valid objections. Pomona is such a special place and the addition of these high density town houses is just not appropriate. An approval of this application would set a precedent that could destroy what is so magical about this gorgeous town.

I believe the objections raised in the previous comments have covered any further statements that I could make.
I truly hope that council does not let this go through.

I ask the council to reject this application.

I don't think anybody objects to more housing in Pomona but I don't believe high density housing is appropriate to this area with the attendant problems of road parking and increased traffic. The other huge problem is building on a creek system that floods. The removal of the big trees marked on the plan and the loss of green area to absorb rainfall contributes to the runoff being channeled into the creek, adding to the rising water levels during a storm. As mentioned in other submissions there are other suitable areas for housing in the district. The council has the power to plan responsibly for Pomona's future development, please do so wisely.

I too would like to raise my objections to this proposed development and to say that I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the proposal process.

Firstly, it is worth making explicit a few important points. Progress may be inevitable, but it is controllable. We, the residents and council, are not obliged to accept the first proposal that is submitted. Developers are business people; their sole purpose is to make a profit. They will build what they can, where they can, for as little money as possible, sell for as much as possible and walk away. Any consequences or resulting issues are left to the new homeowners, the council and existing residents to deal with.

If this block of land can not be left as a creek, flood plain and wildlife corridor (which is a great option and one the local residents would be more than happy with) then let us tell the developers what Pomona wants and not the other way around.

My objections to date include, in no particular order:

Water runoff and flooding
As QLD and NSW are currently living through the aftermath of floods and having seen first-hand the water pouring down Red St and into the natural creek and waterhole that is 11C Church St it is almost inconceivable to think that 20 units will be built in that same place. All the modelling and planning for large volumes of water will be no match for the weather events we have experienced this year and will experience more frequently in the future. Water runs downhill, it follows the lay of the land, whether that land is now your bedroom makes no difference. As the town to receive one of the highest rainfalls we are lucky to have survived as well as we did. It would be negligent then to ignore the facts and build 20 homes that could be headline news during the next flood.

Number of units & cars
Twenty units on such a small block on a quiet country town road seems more than extreme. Twenty units, potentially 47 people (one person to each bedroom) or more living there. Potentially 23 cars (one in each carport) coming and going out of the site. Will that more than double the traffic on Church St? Where will guests park? A development of this size is surely more appropriate for a city or large town where there is already infrastructure to support it. There may be a growing need for more houses on the Sunshine Coast over the next 15 years but that is still no excuse for cramming 20 small dwellings on a house block, prone to flooding, on a quiet street in central Pomona.

Rubbish bin collection
This may seem a trite issue, but where will the residents place their bins for weekly collection? Will each unit be putting two bins out? Where will 40 rubbish bins be placed along the roadside for collection? Where then will pedestrians walk, cars safely drive and so on?

New houses included in planning?
Having taken a look at a number of the proposal documents it seems that the three homes currently being built on the neighbouring property don’t appear and I wonder if their impact has been taken into account where necessary. For example, does their existence impact water runoff plans?

Animals
What will happen to those animals living on the site? The kookaburras, kangaroos, frogs, and all the others will either be crushed to death under earthmoving equipment, lose their habitats and food, lose the wildlife corridors that enable them to safely move around. To see those creatures living right in our town is such a special thing and something we should never take for granted.

What makes Pomona
Why do people live in Pomona and why do people visit? They come to live in a country town because they love the small country town pace of life. They love knowing their neighbours, bumping into friends down the street, getting a car park, safely walking the streets and letting their kids ride to the skate park. This is what sells Pomona as a place to live. Those who come to visit come for a taste of this; to get out of the hustle and bustle, see some of Australia’s countryside, take a breath of fresh air and relax. There are some core elements that make this town what it is and if we value them we need to protect them. That doesn’t mean a halt on all progress, it means we need to progress and develop in a way that is sympathetic to the town. It’s quick and easy to build an eyesore, but good design tailored to its environment takes time. There is definitely an air of ‘cut and paste’ about this proposal, but Pomona deserves more than a ‘one size fits all’ proposal.

I strongly hope that this proposal, as it stands, is rejected.