MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Petition

."




     additional retail outlet a few hundred meters from the Property. Further addition of retail facilities is not
     needed, and certainly not in such close proximity to the sensitive School area.


     The Applicant     has not demonstrated      a need for the inconsistent       use within the subject zone. The
     Applicant provides no grounds that would justify the granting of an exception and indeed in this specific
     case there are no grounds on which approval of this type of Development on the Property could be
     justified by the Assessment Manager and/or Council's elected representatives.            Furthermore,    in conflict
     with Division 17 of the Noosaville Locality Plan, the New Use is located and designed whereby                     its
     operation will cause significant adverse impact on the School.


     A development      may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community           wellbeing. Wellbeing
     may be improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways. However, any new
     uses must be compatible with surrounding        uses in terms of amenity, the environment         and economics.
     Furthermore     in assessing the public interest the Assessment manager may give weight to the negative
     impacts of a proposed Development on the community and neighbourhood.


     The Applicant provides no substantive data or justification       based on community need or anything else to
     substantiate    why the School's children should be exposed to inappropriate             and significant adverse
     impacts on, and compromises to, the amenity they should be allowed to enjoy unhindered                    by retail
     intrusion into the school environment.      The applicant indicates the service station and the convenience
     shop would operate 24 hours, given that it is primarily proximate, not to other industrial uses, but to the
     School and nearby residential         use this raises real concerns for parents, children         and the entire
     surrounding neighbourhood.


     Furthermore     the proposed Shop has not been objectively demonstrated            by any credible analysis to be
     ancillary to the service station. The Application is deliberately    misleading in attempting     to minimise the
     true area allocated to retail floor space and hence to hide the fact that the Shop is a significant part of
     the   Development        and supporting   business model.       The Applicant     acknowledges    that   the   Shop
     component      is in total 197m', the majority, if not all of which is available for retail use, and not the
     100m' mentioned by the Applicant, an assertion simply designed to play down and hide the true nature
     of this venture as a retail development.     Industry data shows that a service station without a significant
     retail component is an unviable business model. The retail component is therefore not ancillary to, but a
     major component          of the proposed Development.     It has as an target market, not the servicing of the
     refuelling   motorist,    but the children of the School who will be attracted         to the facility. This is an
     unacceptable intrusion into, and interference with, the amenity of the School.


     The Applicant has not subjected the proposal to an economic needs and impact assessment of even the
     most rudimentary          kind. The need for a development        is commonly      recognised to be related to
     community      wellbeing. A development    may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community
     wellbeing. Wellbeing may be improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways.
     However,     any new uses must be compatible             with   surrounding     uses in terms    of amenity,     the
     environment     and economics.      As is demonstrated    through this document the proposed Development
     does not improve,         and indeed is detrimental     to, community   wellbeing.    It is not compatible     with
     surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment           or economics.




                                                                                                                            3