Cr Mather: ‘It’s not a gamble anyone should be prepared to take’

A Central Qld councillor wants an investigation into potential flooding arising from the impact of a proposed 81-lot housing development on land on the Capricorn Coast.

The proposed development site at 1-41 Neville St, Mulambin.

A Livingstone Shire councillor wants an investigation into potential flooding arising from the impact of a proposed 81-lot housing development on land at Mulambin.

Cr Glenda Mather asked her fellow councillors to pass a motion to obtain a hydrology study on the development at 1-41 Neville St, Mulambin to determine the influence major vegetation clearing might have on the water table and adjacent homes.

“Vigorous monitoring of the water flows in the existing swales during the recent rain events has shown locals how long it takes for water to subside – sometimes days to weeks,” she wrote in her notice of motion.

“Local photography will verify this. Without any scientific proof that properties both existing and proposed will be granted immunity during rain events, (it) is not a gamble anyone should be prepared to take.”

The proposed development site at 1-41 Neville St, Mulambin.

A senior officer told councillors that staff were aware of concerns provided in public submissions arising from the development’s public notification period in December.

He said officers had been actively working with the developer’s representative to address them.

“As a result of these discussions (with the developer’s representatives) there are some proposed changes and it is anticipated that the development will need to undergo a second public notification period (of 15 days, dependent on the changes),” he said in a report.

However council has not yet seen or received the proposed changes.

Livingstone Shire Cr Glenda Mather has urged her councillors to pass a motion to obtain a hydrology study.

He said officers were aware of public concerns that if trees were removed from the site the water table may rise.

He said the developer’s representative had already stated that they were satisfied with the response they would be providing related to submissions about hydrology.

“It’s going to come down to whether council is comfortable in that space,” the senior officer said.

When asked if he thought a hydrology report was needed, he referred to a report done on a neighbouring property about 10 years ago.

“In effect it showed there was no negative impact on development in the area,” he said.

“It had been clear for quite some time and we have not had any reports of people having water in their houses or anything in that space.

“If officers are not satisfied with the further material that comes in (the Neville St DA), there is the opportunity, should we move to a recommendation for approval, to condition it (a hydrology report).

“All developments are subject to reasonable conditions and where council may not be satisfied matters have been attended to, council can condition it reasonably and relevantly, and potentially refuse it if it’s a showstopper. Water in people's houses would be one of those.”

After much discussion, councillors voted to “lay the matter on the table” until a future council meeting so they could seek legal advice due to the sensitivities around such development applications.