PM Submission Object - James & Mary Schofield MCU16/0130

     uses that have and continue to occur. This statement is false as the application seeks
     approval for an existing outdoor display area that was never approved and has no
     existing use rights as detailed in Council correspondence. Further the range of industrial
     uses being sought is to wide for the site.

7.   The range of uses proposed as part of the application are extensive and inappropriate for
     the residential area in which they are contained.

8.   Due to the types of industrial uses proposed for the site a noise report should have been
     provided as part of the application demonstrating the industrial uses will not impact on the
     surrounding area.

g.   The proposal to use the site for as a Retail Business Type 7 Garden and Lifestyle Centre
     is not appropriate as insufficient carparking has been provided on site and no traffic
     report provided assessing the impacts of such a use on the site.

10. The applicant indicates that a coffee shop will be established on site as part of the Retail
    Business Type 7 Garden and Lifestyle Centre and it will be subordinate to the nursery
    use. As detailed previously, a nursery or coffee shop have never been approved for this
    site and this further intensification of retail activities on the site is not appropriate and
    should not be allowed.

11. The applicants consultant argues that a pool shop can be defined as a hardware shop is
    incorrect. A hardware shop is able to sell a wide range of materials and requires different
    whereas a pool shop has a more limited range of goods associated with pools and spas.

12. The proposed pool shop is not a lawful use and should be relocated to an appropriate
    retail or industrial lot.

13. As evidenced by a sign on the front door of the building, the existing pool shop is
    relocating to Selkirk Drive which is a more appropriate site for this type of activity. The
    applicants submission that the application therefore seeks to ratify the existing
    unapproved uses therefore is not totally correct. The applicant is therefore seeking to
    intensify industrial uses on the site not ratify existing uses.