MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Petition

 additional retail outlet a few hundred meters from the Property. Further addition of retail facilities is not
 needed, and certainly not in such close proximity to the sensitive Schoolarea.


 The Applicant has not demonstrated a need for the inconsistent use within the subject zone. The
 Applicant provides no grounds that would justify the granting of an exception and indeed in this specific
 case there are no grounds on which approval of this type of Development on the Property could be
justified by the AssessmentManager and/or Council's elected representatives. Furthermore, in conflict
with Division 17 of the Noosaville Locality Plan, the New Use is located and designed whereby its
operation will causesignificant adverse impact on the School.


A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing. Welibeing
 may be improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways. However, any new
uses must be compatible with surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment           and economics.
Furthermore in assessingthe public interest the Assessmentmanager may give weight to the negative
impacts of a proposed Development on the community and neighbourhood.


The Applicant provides no substantive data or justification based on community need or anything else to
substantiate why the School's children should be exposed to inappropriate and significant adverse
impacts on, and compromises to, the amenity they should be allowed to enjoy unhindered by retail
intrusion into the school environment. The applicant indicates the service station and the convenience
shop would operate 24 hours, given that it is primarily proximate, not to other industrial uses,but to the
School and nearby residential use this raises real concerns for parents, children and the entire
surrounding neighbourhood.


Furthermore the proposed Shop has not been objectively demonstrated by any credible analysis to be
ancillary to the service station. The Application is deliberately misleading in attempting to minimise the
true area allocated to retail floor space and hence to hide the fact that the Shop is a significant part of
the Development and supporting business model. The Applicant acknowledges that the Shop
component is in total 197m', the majority, if not all of which is available for retail use, and not the
100m' mentioned by the Applicant, an assertion simply designed to play down and hide the true nature
of this venture as a retail development. Industry data shows that a service station without a significant
retail component is an unviable businessmodel. The retail component is therefore not ancillary to, but a
major component of the proposed Development. it has as an target market, not the servicing of the
refuelling motorist, but the children of the School who will be attracted to the facility. This is an
unacceptable intrusion into, and interference with, the amenity of the School.


The Applicant has not subjected the proposal to an economic needs and impact assessmentof even the
most rudimentary kind. The need for a development is commonly recognised to be related to
community wellbeing. A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community
wellbeing. Wellbeing may be improved by accessto new services or facilities or a range of other ways.
However, any new uses must be compatible with surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the
environment and economics. As is demonstrated through this document the proposed Development
does not improve, and indeed is detrimental to, community wellbeing. It is not compatible with
surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment      or economics.




                                                                                                           3