Town Planning Report - 12 Eenie Creek Rd (RESOLVED DRAFT)

display vehicles are stored within the building rather than occupying customer parking.

Acid Sulfate Soils overlay. The site is within the overlay. The code is triggered by excavating or otherwise
removing soil or sediment, extracting groundwater, or filling land at or below 5 metres AHD. The principal
works are internal. External works are proposed at the frontage, being construction of the accessible
parking space and shared area to AS/NZS 2890.6 including grading, bollard footings and a new garden
bed. Soil disturbance associated with these is expected to be shallow and localised on a site that is already
developed and sealed, and no bulk earthworks, filling or groundwater extraction is proposed. The applicant
offers, as conditions of any approval, an acid sulfate soils investigation where excavation below natural
ground level is required, and management of any material identified in accordance with an acid sulfate soils
management plan.

Other overlays. The site is not affected by the flood hazard, bushfire hazard, landslide hazard, coastal
protection and scenic amenity, heritage, or biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlays. Each has been
checked against the parcel and none applies. The Acid Sulfate Soils overlay is the only overlay affecting
the land.

The absolute numerical position should also be stated plainly. Assessed as a total rather than as an increase,
Table 9.4.1.4 would call for twelve spaces at 600 m2, and the site provides two. That shortfall is a pre-
existing characteristic of an 809 m2 lot substantially covered by an existing building, and it is unchanged
by this proposal. The application is accordingly made against the performance outcome rather than the
acceptable outcome, on the basis that the change of use generates no meaningful additional demand and
that the appointment only operating model reduces demand further. On-site parking is provided at the
frontage, comprising one standard space and one accessible space with the shared area required by AS/
NZS 2890.6, as shown on sheet A202. The two bays drawn within the building are display positions on the
showroom floor rather than functional car parking, consistent with the nature of a vehicle showroom. The
existing site presents as an open hardstand forecourt, so the proposal does not reduce the parking area; it
formalises frontage parking and introduces a compliant accessible space where none presently exists. and
a traffic engineer's parking assessment can be provided if Council requires one.

13       SECTION 13



         Grounds for approval despite the conflict
The proposal conflicts with the Noosa Plan 2020 to the extent that a Showroom of this description in
the Medium Impact Industry zone is categorised as an inconsistent use. The question for the assessment
manager is whether there are sufficient grounds to approve the application despite that conflict. The
grounds relied on are as follows.

First, the proposal does not engage the mischief the categorisation is directed at. The zone code is concerned
to prevent retail activity of a type and scale that would compromise or compete with the Noosa Shire
Centres Hierarchy, and to protect industrial land from underutilisation by retail conversion. An appoint­
ment only motor vehicle showroom is not a centre activity. It does not draw passing trade, it does not
compete with the Noosa Civic centre or with any centre in the hierarchy for convenience or comparison
retail expenditure, and it does not generate the visitation patterns that centre based retail generates. The
applicant offers the appointment only limitation as a condition of any approval, so that the basis on which
approval is granted is enforceable and enduring.