MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Various - Petition Kelly Gerber

"

            justify       the decision, despite the DA not conflicting           with the Noosa Planl. 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.        CONFLICTWITH 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 conflice.



                   i. INCONSISTENTUSE


    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 on inconsistent use. However, the separate use of a 'shop'
                     is only applied for because the definition of a 'service station' under the planning
                     scheme does not include a shop/retail area as an ancillary function of the use.
                     We note that the extent of shop/retail proposed as part of the service station
                     building is typical to that of modern day suburban service stations of this scale.


    1 "StatutoryGuideline 05/09, Sufficient grounds for decisions that conflict with a relevant instrument".   See
    http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resou  rces/plann ing/planning/statutory-guideline-OS-09. pdf

    2 Woodmon      McDonold Hordwore Pty Ltd v Mockoy Regional Council [2013) QPEC21 at [63 - 64).



                                                                                                                     2



                                                                                             ___       \   ......- __ .J