Planning Report - Revisions incoporating Attachment H - Economic Report · MCU13/0092

    This is particularly so given the relatively unique and attractive setting,
    informal nature, and Social function of the Village Square, and because
    both the Village Square and the proposed convenience shopping
    complex will clearly serve two (2) distinct roles for the Peregian
    Beach/Castaways/Marcus Beach residents . Refer also to the findings of
    the economic/retail “Needs Assessment” by Foresight Partners (February
    2013) which concluded similarly in this respect.

    In past times it is known that many Peregian Beach local residents
    shopped at the IGA supermarket at Coolum before it was taken over
    and replaced by Coles. It would seem reasonable to expect that a
    modern IGA store at Peregian Beach could be well patronised given the
    absence of Peregian Beach supermarkets and a general absence of a
    wide range of convenience shopping facilities, generally.

    With respect to the proposed development and its relationship with the
    potential future of development of Peregian Beach, assuming changes
    will occur over time, some more major than others, the following P & E
    Court extracts (Gaven Developments Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional
    Council, the Tamborine Mountain Progress Association Incorporated, et
    al) may be of relevance, particularly given that the subject Court
    Appeal involved the establishment of an enlarged (in terms of gfa and
    range of produce IGA store at Mt Tamborine outside the designated
    business precinct (Source: BD 2747 of 2008), namely:

           •   ‘If “edge of centre” development is to be tolerated, and if there are no
               other suitable and available sites within the zoned Local Centre, an
               edge-of-centre site is preferred to a more remote location”

           •   “Taking 1000 or so local people to be opposed (out of 7,500), we are still
               far from a majority. Even if the majority of the opponents be taken to
               hold a strong view that there is no need for the proposal (in opposition to
               the economic experts) we are far short of having a community view
               established that there is no need the situation must be that the weight of
               numbers, whilst not ignored, cannot prevail.”

           •   “What is more important than numbers alone is the validity of the
               contents of the submissions”

           •   “It is not a proper function of the court to act with a view to preserving
               the status quo, to restrict the introduction of competition, etc. Its proper
               function is to assess the merits of the development proposal and whether
               conflicts with the planning scheme must defeat it or can become
               overcome by sufficient grounds.



May 2013                         IA MCU IGA Complex at Peregian                     Page 23