2017-01-16 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                  16 JANUARY 2017



3                        FURTHER REPORT MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133 APPLICATION FOR SERVICE
                         STATION, CONVENIENCE SHOP & FOOD OUTLET & SIGNAGE AT 6 TAYLOR COURT,
                         COOROY
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION




Author                              Development Planner, Glen Conforti
                                    Planning & Infrastructure Department

Index                               ECM / Application / MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133

Attachments                         1.    Proposal Plans

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.


RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment
Committee dated 6 December 2016 and the Further Reports to the General Committee Meetings
dated 12 December 2016 and 16 January 2017, and refuse Application No. MCU16/0066 &
OPW16/0133 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Retail Business
Type 2 Shop & Type 5 Vehicle Uses, Entertainment & Dining Business Type 1 - Food & Beverages
and Operational Works for Signage, situated at 6 Taylor Court, Cooroy for the following reasons:
1.                       The development raises conflicts with The Noosa Plan and its current and future land use
                         intent for the subject site and water supply catchment area.
2.                       The proposal is not conveniently located or readily accessible for the local community and
                         will not provide a significant benefit to that community.
3.                       The development will adversely impact on the local villages and towns by reducing patronage
                         to these centres and therefore will not improve community wellbeing.
4.                       The proposal is contrary to the SEQ Regional Plan’s Regional Policy 11.5.1 to identify and
                         protect existing and potential drinking water catchments from inappropriate land use as the
                         development would pose an unacceptable risk to water quality.
5.                       The proposal is contrary to the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy for Mary River
                         Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives as the proposed surface water quality
                         exceeds these objectives in relation to Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous and the
                         applicant has not addressed the impact the in-ground storage of fuel will have on ground
                         water.
6.                       The proposal fails to meet the Plan of Development for the site, including the provision of a
                         10 metre landscape buffer to visually screen the development from the Bruce Highway.
7.                       The proposed illumination of the advertising devices is contrary to the Advertising Devices
                         Code and the intent of the Plan of Development for the site.




                                                                                                      Page 50 of 146