Noosa Council Submission 18 December 2015 - Final submission with table of submitters

2.       In the alternative, if Noosa Council determines that the DA does not conflict with the
         Noosa Plan, we urge Council, pursuant to s.326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act
         2009 (Qld) (SPA), to reject the DA on the basis that there are sufficient grounds to
         justify the decision, despite the DA not conflicting with the Noosa Plan 1. Such
         sufficient grounds are as follows:

                   Adverse health impact on the community;

                   Adverse traffic impact on the community;

                   Destruction of local amenity;

                   Incompatibly with surrounding land use; and

                   Other planning grounds.

         B.     CONFLICT WITH NOOSA PLAN


3.       The Noosa Plan specifies the development standards or criteria for assessing the
         suitability of a development proposal. The application is impact assessable and it is
         the applicant’s responsibility to establish that the DA does not conflict with the Noosa
         Plan. If the DA does not comply with a solution put forward in a relevant Code to
         achieve an outcome, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate how
         alternative solutions achieve that outcome. If the DA conflicts with the Noosa Plan,
         the Council must reject the application, unless the applicant has demonstrated that
         there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict2.


              i. INCONSISTENT USE

4.       The site is located within the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Industry. The proposed
         shop is identified as an inconsistent use within the Industry Zone and sufficient
         grounds do not exist to warrant Noosa Council approving the DA, despite this conflict
         with the Noosa Plan.

5.       In regard to this inconsistency, the only argument that the applicant has provided is
         the following:

                “A shop in this zone is an inconsistent use. However, the separate use of a ‘shop’
                is only applied for because the definition of a ‘service station’ under the planning

1
 “Statutory Guideline 05/09, Sufficient grounds for decisions that conflict with a relevant instrument”. See
http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/planning/planning/statutory-guideline-05-09.pdf

2
    Woodman McDonald Hardware Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council [2013] QPEC 21 at [63 – 64].


                                                                                                               2