Original source · versioned page text
Noosa Civic Submission
Attached to the e-mail MCU14/0106 Submission PM Object - Aaron White and Kim Luff.
The Noosa Civic expansion proposal fails to justify its conflict with the Noosa Planning Scheme and is
unable to prove an overriding need in the public interest for the following reasons:
1. The Noosa Civics’ expansion would preclude the site from its intended and approved use, which was
proposed to provide a diverse mix of enterprises operating from the area. Should the commercial
precinct be exploited almost exclusively for retail purposes, as new and innovative businesses enter the
market and require commercial space to establish, Council will then face the dilemma of having to look
elsewhere in the Shire to accommodate information technology and research and development type
enterprises. Such an eventuality would inevitably lead to further planning conflicts.
2. Considering the Noosa regions established retail precincts presently in need of refurbishment or
revitalisation (the Noosa Junction for instance), were Council to allow the Noosa Civic to exponentially
expand, there would be on-going adverse impacts on these existing precincts.
We note a number of businesses and their representative organisations in adjacent commercial precincts
have voiced concerns with the impact of the Noosa Civic expansion. Such opposition suggests the
Civic expansion does not represent an overall benefit to the Noosa community. On this basis we
consider the Civic expansion proposal directly conflicts with the retail plans under the Noosa Planning
Scheme Commercial and Retail uses 3.3.3 (b)
“A hierarchy of centres with a range of Commercial and Retail business uses provide suitable levels of
amenity, service and access to the community, consistent with the community’s location and needs and
is based on (i) a proportion of Noosa’s higher order needs fulfilled by centres in other areas,
particularly the key regional centre of Maroochydore; (ii) the Shire Business Centre, a Major Activity
Centre for the purposes of the SEQ Regional Plan and the highest order centre within the former Noosa
Shire, developed in stages consistent with the needs of the population of the former Noosa Shire and
areas to the immediate south;(iii) protecting the long term viability of the Shire Business Centre as the
principle business, retail and administrative centre;(iv) recognising that it may be necessary to increase
floor space in existing centres to meet changing needs, provided any increased floor space does not
impact on the successful operation and development of the Shire Business Centre;(v)business centres
at Cooroy, Noosa Junction, Noosaville and Tewantin; (vi) neighbourhood or visitor centres at
Peregian Beach, Sunrise Beach, Sunshine Beach, Noosa Heads, Noosaville, Tewantin, Cooroibah and
Teewah”
As proven by the compelling objections to this proposal from established enterprises in adjacent
commercial precincts, it is clear the attempt by the developer to expand the retail floor area would
adversely “impact on the successful operation” of the other business centres.
3. We note competing retail precincts to the Noosa Civic already suffer from relatively high vacancy rates.
Aside from our request for Council to refuse this application on the basis of its planning conflicts, we
believe Council must take further measures to re-invigorate the adjacent retail and commercial precincts
to achieve a rich and diverse mix of services to the Noosa community and its significant number of
visitors.
Urban renewal must be a priority so Noosa is not left with second rate, run down and unviable
commercial precincts.
4. Even if the Noosa Civic expands its retail floor area as proposed, we contend it would remain
uncompetitive with Maroochydore’s Sunshine Plaza retail precincts which are the established large
scale shopping destination for the Sunshine Coast region. We note recent data on the viability of
medium scale “malls” suggests they have a propensity to suffer from poor vacancy rates. An expanded
Noosa Civic is likely to continue to have trouble with tenanting their retail component, as they have in
Page 2 of 3
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.