Report comment

In Morayfield QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 26 Rangeview Road, Morayfield QLD 4506:

Geoff Grant commented

I oppose this development because I believe the contents of the application does not adequately mitigate the risks created by this development.

Our objection includes but is not limited to the following:

1.Waste Water Management Plan:
The applicants water management plan states the development will potentially produce an additional 2.6million litres of treated effluent each year. The disposal of this effluent will be via irrigation. The irrigation area is located uphill from a dam which is proposed to be altered during the development. The dam is proposed to capture storm water runoff and due to location and quantity of treated effluent being pumped out the and the natural topography of the land I believe the risk of this dam becoming contaminated is extremely likely. The water in the dam is used by a significant number of local wildlife and the risk of this wildlife becoming sick due to drinking this water is also very likely and has not been adequately addressed in the waste water management plan.

The likelihood of the of the dwelling’s adhering to the use of diversion mounds and the irrigation locations proposed by the applicant is also unlikely and difficult to enforce in the future after the new lots are occupied, further increasing the risks associated with contamination of the proposed dam.

2. Storm Water Management Letter:
The application proposes to fill an existing dam located in the MBRC identified overland flow area, and to place a new dwelling within the overland flow area. The storm water management letter proposed that altering an adjacent existing dam will capture the additional stormwater runoff created by the development and the filling in of and existing dam located in the overland flow area. I fail to see how this is possible and find no evidence within the storm water management letter to explain how it will be achieved. The risk of additional storm water entering adjacent properties remains to high and should be investigated further.

3. Clearing of trees and habitat used by local fauna:
When we overlay the proposed development with satellite images it reveals that the location of the proposed road, fence lines and new dwellings would require significant removal of the existing flora. Conservative estimate would be approximately 80% of the existing trees would need to be removed. In the town planning report it states that: “the site is located within the Koala Priority Area” and goes on to say that “the proposed development seeks to maintain trees where possible and appropriate. It is considered that where trees are required to be removed, they can be suitably off set by nest boxes in the area”. I find it difficult to believe that where 80% of the existing trees are to be removed that these could possible adequately replaced by nest boxes considering the limited number of trees that will remain. I believe that this development will indeed result in the loss of fauna habitat and that the request for council to include the no net loss of fauna habitat should be further investigated by the council.

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts