Original source · versioned page text
Minor Change Letter
26 September 2025
The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin QLD 4565
Via email: Council’s Lodgement Email
RE: Request to Change a Development Approval (Reconfiguring a Lot)
63, 65 & 67 Hofmann Drive Noosaville – RAL18/0023
Dear Sir/Madam,
Introduction
Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd (Stockwell) hereby lodges the above change application in accordance with
section 78 of the Planning Act 2016 (PA).
In accordance with section 79 of the PA, we confirm the application:
▪ is made in the approved form, having been accompanied by the relevant Queensland Government form, being the
DA Form 5 change application form;
▪ will be accompanied by the required fee, once the respective invoice has been issued by Council;
▪ is not subject to any pre-request response notice; and
▪ is accompanied by the written consent of the owner.
On the basis of the above, we request that Council confirm their acceptance of the application in accordance with section
79(2) of the PA.
Application Fees
In accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges 2025/26, it is noted that the application fees are in the order of $3,010.00
on the basis that the change is minor and Council is already aware of the requirement for this change. We request that
Council provide their fee quote such that we can arrange payment.
We would appreciate if Council would now proceed with its assessment of this proposed development. Should you have
any further queries regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact Stockwell.
Kind Regards,
Holly Lucas
SENIOR DEVELOPMENT MANAGER - PLANNING
0466 994 436
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 6 pages
Page 2
Minor Change Application
1. Introduction
This change application is to facilitate changes to an approved reconfiguration (Council ref: – RAL18/0023) of the above-
described land. This letter ultimately seeks Council support to change the requirement for a 10m landscaped buffer for Lot
4 to 7m as per the agreement reached with Council with respect to an appeal over Lot 4 at 63 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville
(ref: 1998 of 2024). As such, changes to conditions of the original approval are sought.
1.1. Report Structure
To guide a reader to the report’s structure, please note that:
▪ Section 2 provides an overview of the current development approval.
▪ Section 3 provides details of the proposed changes
▪ Section 4 provides an assessment of the proposed changes against the minor change criteria.
▪ Section 5 provides an evaluation against the relevant assessment criteria contained in section 81 of the Planning Act.
1.2. Supporting Material
To assist with Council’s assessment of the change application, the following supporting material is provided which form
part of the application.
Table A – Supporting Material
Document Title Prepared By
Stockwell Development Group Pty
Appendix A - Owners consent
Ltd
Appendix B - PA Form 5 Therefor Group
2. Development Approval
2.1. Overview
On 20 February 2020, Council resolved to refuse application RAL18/0023 over land formerly known as 28 Eenie Creek
Road, Noosaville QLD 4566 (Lot 3 SP246584). Subsequently, an appeal was lodged in the Planning and Environment Court
(reference 765 of 2020). On 3 September 2020, the Court allowed the appeal, subject to conditions, and issued a
Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (1 lot into 23 lots).
3. Proposed Changes
3.1. Overview
Following the agreement reached with Council with respect to an appeal over Lot 4 at 63 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville (P&E
ref: 1998 of 2024 and MCU22/0094) (Lot 4), this letter seeks Council approval to amend the condition in the original
approval, RAL18/0023, which outlines the requirement for a 10m wide landscape buffer to Hofmann Drive.
It is noted that there are no changes to the approved drawings and documents.
3.2. Changes to Approved Drawings and Documents
There are no changes to the approved drawings and documents in relation to this request.
3.3. Changes to Conditions of Approval
We request that the existing conditions are generally maintained and updated to be reflective of the proposed change.
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
1
Page 3
Notably, the amendment identified in Table A below will be required to be made to the conditions of approval.
Table A: Changes to conditions of approval
Condition Rationale / Comments
▪ The revised 7m buffer maintains the intent of the
condition by providing a landscaped frontage to
Hofmann Drive with local native species. The
Condition 53(a)
revised buffer will continue to achieve the intent of
Local native plant species suitable for the location in
the original condition by providing a landscaped
mulched garden beds within the lots that front Hofmann
edge to Hofmann Drive with local native plant
Drive and the future extension of Hofmann Drive that at 6m
species, while balancing the site’s development
wide to the residential lots 17-19 and 10m wide to the
potential.
remaining lots at the time of sealing the plan of
subdivision, unless otherwise approved by Council as ▪ The change is sought to align the approval with the
part of a subsequent development application over the outcome of discussions and agreement reached
newly created lots. with Council during the Child Care Centre appeal.
Specifically, it was agreed that a 7m wide landscape
buffer is appropriate for Lot 4, in place of the
previously conditioned 10m width.
3.4. Changes to Infrastructure Charges Notice
No changes are proposed to the number of approved lots. As such, it is not anticipated there would be any changes
required to the previous Infrastructure Charges Notice.
4. Assessment Of Minor Change
4.1. Overview
The Planning Act establishes two types of changes to a development approval:
▪ A ‘minor change’ to a development approval: or
▪ An ‘other change’ to a development approval.
For a change application to be considered as a minor change, the change to the development approval must meet the
definition of a ‘minor change’ as set out in Schedule 2 of the Planning Act. See below.
‘A change that⎯
b. for a development approval⎯
i. would not result in substantially different development; and
ii. if a development application for the development, including the change, were made when the
change application is made would not cause⎯
A. the inclusion of prohibited development in the application; or
B. referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were no referral
agencies for the development application; or
C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
D. a referral agency to assess the application against, or have regard to, matters prescribed by
regulation under section 55(2), other than matters the referral agency must have assessed the
application against, or have had regard to, when the application was made; or
E. public notification if public notification was not required for the development application’.
With respect to item (b)(i), Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules provides guidance on the determination of
whether a proposed change does or does not constitute ‘substantially different development’. These provisions are for
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
2
Page 4
guidance only and must be considered in the context of the proposed change. A proposal that does not meet these
guidelines may still potentially be determined as ‘not substantially different development’.
A full assessment of the proposed changes against the relevant criteria has been completed and outlined in Table B and
Table C below. As shown, our assessment concludes that the proposed changes do not constitute ‘substantially different
development’ and comply with the criteria specified under the definition of a ‘minor change’ within Schedule 2 of the
Planning Act.
4.2. Schedule 2: Minor Change Criteria
Table B: Assessment against minor change criteria (Planning Act)
Would a new development application, including the
Y/N Comments
changes cause:
The proposal does not involve prohibited
The inclusion of prohibited development? N development. The site is in the Urban footprint and the
proposal involves a Reconfiguration of a Lot.
The original development application was required to
Referral to a referral agency, other than to the Chief
be referred. However, the proposed changes will not
Executive, if there were no referral agencies for the Y
result in any new referral material to any referral
development application?
agencies.
Referral to extra referral agencies, other than the The proposed changes will not trigger referral to any
N
Chief Executive? extra referral agencies.
The proposed changes will not trigger any referral
A referral agency to assess the application against or
N agencies to assess the application against or have
have regard to new matters?
regard to any new matters.
The original application was subject to impact
Public notification if public notification was not assessment and as such public notification has
N
required for the development application? previously been undertaken and no further notification
is required.
4.3. Substantially Different Development Test
Table C: Assessment against substantially different development test (DA Rules)
Do the changes: Y/N Comments
The proposal does not involve a new use. The proposal
Involve a new use? N
seeks reconfiguration of a lot.
Result in the application applying to a new parcel of The requested changes do not apply to a new parcel of
N
land? land.
The proposed change is for reconfiguring a lot. The
Dramatically change the built form in terms of scale,
N requested change does not result in changes to the
bulk and appearance?
built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance.
The proposed changes will not change the ability for
Change the ability for the approved use to operate as the proposal to operate as intended. The development
N
intended? remains a residential subdivision which is
appropriately serviced by essential infrastructure.
Remove a component that is integral to the operation The change does not remove any components that
N
of the development? would impact the operation of the development
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
3
Page 5
No change to traffic flow or the transport network will
Significantly impacts on traffic flow or the transport
N be experienced as a result of this change. The yield of
network?
the development remains the same.
Introduce new impacts on increase the severity of The proposed changes will not introduce new impacts
N
known impacts? or increase the severity of any known impacts.
Remove an incentive or offset component that would The change does not propose to remove any offset
N
have balanced a negative impact of the development? components associated with the original approval.
No impact on infrastructure provisions. All required
Impact on infrastructure provisions? N
infrastructure will still be delivered.
5. Evaluation Against Relevant Assessment Criteria
Section 81(2) of the Planning Act sets forth criteria the responsible entity (which, in this instance, is Noosa Shire Council)
assessing a minor change application must consider. A response to the relevant assessment criteria is provided below to
assist with Council’s assessment.
2. In assessing the change application, the responsible entity must consider—
a. the information the applicant included with the application; and
Response to Subsection 2(a)
This covering letter and the supporting documentation provides a brief background of the approval history along with
an overview of the proposed changes to the development approval.
The proposed changes are supported by the agreement reached with Council with respect to the Child Care Centre
appeal (ref: 1998 of 2024).
The submitted assessment confirms the proposal meets the definition of a minor change as set out in the Planning
Act, and complies with the relevant matters of assessment, consistently with that previously approved.
b. if the responsible entity is the assessment manager⎯any properly made submissions about the development
application or another change application that was approved; and
Response to Subsection 2(b)
The original development application was subject to code assessment under the planning scheme and therefore,
while submissions can be made, no third-party appeal rights are provided to submitters.
c. any pre-request response notice or response notice given in relation to the change application; and
Response to Subsection 2(c)
A pre-request response was not provided.
d. if the responsible entity is, under section 78A(3), the Minister ⎯all matters the Minister would or may assess against
or have regard to, if the change application were a development application called in by the Minister; and
Response to Subsection 2(d)
The responsible entity of this change request is Noosa Shire Council and not the Minister.
e. if the responsible entity is, under section 78A(4), the chief executive—all matters the chief executive would or may
assess against or have regard to, if the change application were a development application declared to be an
application for State facilitated development under section 106D; and
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
4
Page 6
Response to Subsection 2(e)
The responsible entity of this change request is Noosa Shire Council and not the chief executive.
f. if paragraphs (d) and (e) do not apply—all matters the responsible entity would or may assess against or have regard
to, if the change application were a development application;
Response to Subsection 2(f)
Further to the original assessment of the development application, where potentially new matters of assessment have
been identified, this letter and supporting plans and technical reports provide sufficient supporting information for
Council to have regard to.
g. if another matter that the responsible entity considered relevant.
Response to Subsection 2(g)
As above
3. Subsections (4) and (5) apply if the responsible entity must, in assessing the change application under subsection
(2)(d), (e) or (f) consider —
a. A statutory instrument; or
b. Another document applied, adopted or incorporated (with or without changes) in a statutory
instrument.
4. The responsible entity must consider the statutory instrument, or other document, as in effect when the
development application for the development approval was properly made.
5. However, the responsible entity may give the weight the responsible entity considers is appropriate, in the
circumstances, to –
a. The statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the change application was made; or
b. If the statutory instrument or other document is amended or replaced after the change application is
made but before it is decided – the amended or replacement instrument or document; or
c. Another statutory instrument –
i. That comes into effect after the change application is made but before it is decided; and
ii. That the responsible entity would have been required to consider if the instrument had been
in effect when the development application for the development approval was properly
made.
Response to Subsections 3, 4 and 5
The applicant has not identified any further statutory instruments or documents which would impact on Council’s
assessment of the application. The applicant welcomes Council’s feedback in this regard and will provide any further
information reasonably required and requested by Council to undertake its assessment.
6. Excluded Premises
In accordance with Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016, the applicant wishes to use the excluded premises provision in
lieu of providing owner’s consent.
It is understood that the proposed change to the subject site will not cause any effect on the rest of the development, and
since the development has been approved resulting in multiple owners, it is considered impracticable to be able to obtain
owner’s written consent of each lot owner. Notwithstanding, a list of all lots within the original application is provided in
Appendix B - PA Form 5.
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
5
Page 7
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the applicant advises:
▪ The proposed change to the current development approval meets the definition of a ‘minor change’ as set out in
Schedule 2 of the Planning Act and Schedule 1 of the DA Rules.
▪ The proposal has been assessed against the relevant matters in Section 81(2) of the Planning Act, and based on the
outcomes of this assessment, the proposed minor change is recommended for approval.
www.thereforgroup.com.au Minor Change Application (ROL) | 21-0694P/15
6