RFI Response Letter

Response
Urban Economics provides the following response:

        As the Noosa Shire has yet to undertake an integrated land use study for employment and
         enterprise areas in the Shire since de-amalgamation, the take up of industrial land in Noosa
         has been based upon the QGSO’s South Industrial Land Monitoring Program for the former
         Sunshine Coast Region which identified 340 hectares of available industrial land, 219 hectares
         of potential future supply, and an average take up rate of just 3 hectares per annum between
         2006 and 2011.

        Urban Economics has identified that 22ha or approximately 6.5% of the available industrial
         land of the Sunshine Coast at the time of the monitoring was within the Noosa Shire; and that
         since the monitoring (year ended 2011), there has been less than 1ha in total of industrial land
         consumed within Noosa, which has been predominantly within the ‘Noosa Metro’
         development at Noosaville. We have investigated the takeup of land within Cooroy itself and
         with the exception of storage on the subject site itself, no land for industrial purposes in
         Cooroy was taken up post 2011. More particularly, the majority of the vacant industry land
         within Noosa Shire (some 14.7ha as estimated within the EIA) is within Cooroy.

        If this trend continued, there is estimated to be approximately 45years of available industrial
         land supply throughout the Noosa Shire of which the subject site represents less than 4% or
         22months of supply. Even at a higher take-up rate of 3ha per annum, it is estimated that
         vacant industry land within the Noosa Shire would represent some 7years supply of industry
         land and therefore that the subject site would represent approximately 3 months’ supply of
         industry land.

4.   Demonstrate why the development should not occur on other land within the area and, more
     broadly, on land directly adjacent the Bruce Highway that may better meet the needs of highway
     travellers.

Response
A review of land parcels near the highway has revealed that there are no appropriately zoned sites in
or around Cooroy that are provided with the combination of (a) this level of access to the highway, (b)
this level of visibility from the highway and (c) connection to all essential urban infrastructures.

5.   Demonstrate the Department of Transport and Main Roads does not plan to address the need for
     a Highway Service Centre in the area via the creation of a new Centre(s) on the upgraded Bruce
     Highway.

Response
The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) has provided Council with third party advice
confirming that DTMR’s existing Highway Service Centre policy is under review and that… No specific
areas or sites will be identified by TMR until the policy is finalised. A copy of this third party advice is
enclosed.

6.   Provide comment on whether need could be established for the subject development if the Myall
     Street development is approved.

Response
Urban Economics provides the following response:

The proposed Myall Street development it is accepted, would have some impact upon the need and
demand for the proposed Taylor Street (sic) development if approved however; it is contended that
the proposed development would cater for unmet needs for the fuel retailing and that:

        The subject site is further detached from the Cooroy township than the Myall Street proposal
         and would primarily support motorists of the Highway with minimal impact on the retail