MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Petition - principal submitter - Tracy Stevens

       justify the decision, despite the DA not conflicting with the Noosa Plan'. Such
        sufficient grounds are asfollows:


                 •    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 assessableand 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 conflict'.


               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.


S.      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 0 'shop'
                 is only appliedfor because the definition of a 'service station' under the planning
                 scheme does not include a shop/retail area as an ancillaryfunction 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 "Statutory Guideline 05/09, Sufficient grounds for decisions that conflict with a relevant instrument".   See
http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/pla    n ning/pla nning/statutory-guidel ine-05-09. pdf

2 Woodman       McDonald Hardware   Ply Ltd v Mockoy Regionol Council [2013J OPEC 21 at [63 - 64).



                                                                                                                  2