Original source · versioned page text
Minor Change Request - NBC Lot 22
29 November 2022
Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin QLD 4565
Via email: [email protected]
Attn: Patrick Murphy – Planning and Development Services
Dear Patrick Murphy,
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CHANGE A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (s78 of Planning Act 2016)
Material Change of Use for Commercial Business Type 1: Office & Commercial
Business Type 2: Medical, assessed against the Superseded Planning Scheme
(Noosa Plan 2006).
28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville (Lot 22 on SP322201 (formerly Lot 3 on
SP246584)) Council Ref: MCU22/0038
1. INTRODUCTION
Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd (Stockwell) hereby requests to make a change to the
abovementioned development approval under s78 of the Planning Act 2016 (Planning Act).
The minor change request seeks the following amendments to the approval:
▪ Amendment of the approved plans to relocate 93m² of approved GFA from the ground floor
to basement level 02 for the purpose of specialised medical treatment, with a consequential
reduction of GFA at ground level to ensure no increase to the total approved GFA;
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 14 pages
Page 2
▪ Removal of the requirement in the conditions to construct the tandem car parking at
basement level in the location of the proposed cancer treatment facility, reducing the total
number of car parks provided in the development from 104 to 96, justified on the basis of:
o a significantly reduced parking demand generated by the cancer treatment
facility as compared to local medical practices; and
o a proposal to convert all of the at grade car parking available to short term
parking in order to respond to the needs of patients of the proposed cancer
treatment facility to be dropped off and picked up for their treatment.
▪ Consequential amendment of the approved plans to relocate the access stairs in the
basement level to provide adequate emergency escape routes from the cancer treatment
facility to ground level;
▪ Consequential amendment of the approved plans to relocate the at grade pedestrian
pathway from the western site boundary into the development to a more provide direct
access/escape route to the cancer treatment facility;
▪ Removal of the requirement in the conditions of approval to resubmit plans for Council’s
endorsement on the basis that the bicycle parking, SRV and Ambulance configuration and
motorcycle parking required for the development under the current conditions of approval
have been incorporated into the development plans.
It is important to note that the Applicant has been careful to design the incorporation of the
cancer treatment facility so as not to impact the following aspects of the approved
development:
▪ No increase in the total GFA;
▪ No increase in the height of the building;
▪ No change to the Landscape Concept Plan including the location of the significant trees at
the north-west and south-west corners of the development;
▪ No change to the design of the bio-retention systems as modelled.
Page 3
Further justification of the proposed amendments is provided in section 3 of this letter and the following documents are provided in support of the change application. ▪ Planning Act Form 5 – Change Application; ▪ Planning Act Form 1 - Development Application Details (Part 7); ▪ Landowners Consent; ▪ Appendix A – Amended Architectural Plans prepared by BUCHAN Architecture; and ▪ Appendix B – Carparking Assessment prepared by SLR Consulting 2. BACKGROUND On 23 August 2022, Noosa Shire Council granted a development approval for Material Change of Use for Commercial Business Type 1: Office & Commercial Business Type 2: Medical (Noosa Civic Medihub), which was assessed against the Suspended Planning Scheme (Noosa Plan 2006). The Medihub is a two (2) level specialised medical building supported by two (2) levels of basement and at grade car parking. 3. PROPOSED CHANGES TO APPROVED PLANS 3.1. INCORPROATION OF CANCER TREATMENT FACILITY AT BASEMENT Icon Group has been confirmed as the anchor tenant for the Medihub, having made a commitment to a long term tenancy in the development. Icon Group is Australia’s largest dedicated cancer care provider. Due to the nature of the cancer treatment procedure which involves, amongst other things, radiation therapy, a purpose-built radiation treatment facility is required to be provided as part of the Medihub development. Given the design requirements for the radiation treatment facility which are concerned with the appropriate location and containment of the radiation equipment used in the treatment of cancer patients, the optimum location of this facility is at basement level in the north west corner of the site. This location appropriately distances the radiation therapy from other specialist medical tenants located in the building, and results in no impact on the design of the building, landscaping and stormwater treatment as currently approved by Council. Accordingly, the approved development is proposed to be amended to include an additional treatment room in the basement level 2. The treatment room will have a total GFA of 93m² in Basement 02 only. It is noted that some of the structure extends up to the Basement 01 level however none of this structure is usable floor space and is either part of the lower basement GFA
Page 4
or plant and machinery room associated with the activity and building services (i.e does not
constitute GFA). In response to the inclusion of the cancer treatment facility at basement, the
level 1 GFA is being reduced by the equivalent amount to ensure there is no increase in the total
GFA as currently approved. Consequently, the total GFA of the development has not changed. A
summary of the reallocation of GFA between the basement and ground level is provided in Table
1 below, and Figure 1 highlights the proposed changes to the approved plan.
Table 1. Existing vs. Proposed GFA Summary
Existing (m²) Proposed (m²)
Basement 02 0 93
Basement 01 0 0
Ground 1,003.1 914.5
Level 01 1,167 1,162.5
TOTAL 2,170.1m² 2,170m²
Figure 1. Proposed Basement Treatment Room
Approved Plan – Basement 1 Proposed Changes – Basement 1
Note: no additional GFA occurs on this
level
Page 5
Approved Plan - Basement 2 Proposed Changes - Basement 2 DEVELOPMENT. PROPERTY FUNDS. LEASING. RETAIL. SALES. LIVING.
Page 6
3.2. REMOVAL OF TANDEM CAR PARKING AT BASEMENT LEVEL
The change application proposes the removal of the requirement in the approval to provide the
tandem car parking at basement level in the location of the proposed cancer treatment facility,
which will have the effect of reducing the total number of car parks provided in the development
from 104 to 96.
It is proposed that the following be provided to accommodate the transport requirements of the
development:
• 96 car parking spaces comprising 7 at-grade (including 2 PWD spaces and 5 short term
car parks), 45 on Basement Level 1 and 44 on Basement Level 2;
• 10 motorcycle parking spaces across Basement Levels 1 and 2;
• One SRV loading bay and one ambulance bay at-grade;
• 16 bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities comprising 8 lockers, 2 male and
female showers and change rooms; and
• Reservation of all of the general purpose at-grade parking (5) parking spaces as
designated short stay parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients
at the medical centre.
In addition to the cancer treatment facility, the Medihub will largely comprise highly specialised
medical services including but not limited to radiology, cardiology and ophthalmology. As a
consequence, the Medihub’s parking demands are significantly lower than that of a local medical
centre where more general medical services are provided.
The SLR traffic engineering advice dated 21 November 2022 (Appendix B) provides support for
this change on the following basis:
• 76% of the total GLA of the approved building has been secured with long-term specialist
medical tenants, which warrants a first principles approach to determining carparking
demand;
• The first principles parking assessment provided by SLR demonstrates that the
proposed provision of car parking in the development will be more than sufficient to
accommodate the number and type of traffic that will be generated by the Medihub;
• The conversion of all of the at grade spaces to short stay parking coupled with the more
typically drop and go nature of cancer patient support, will result in a reduction to the
overall parking demands of the development.
Page 7
The SLR first principles assessment also relies on recent car parking surveys carried out at other medical centres in order to determine the estimated parking demands for the Medihub. In summary, the surveyed medical centres at Peregian and Tewantin are providing parking at lower rates than the Medihub, and even at a lower supply rate, the surveyed sites showed a surplus in parking supply. An excerpt from SLR’s report is provided below which depicts Medihub’s supply rate in comparison to surveyed medical centres. Figure 2. Excerpt from Appendix B Source: SLR Consulting 4. CONDITIONS REQUESTED TO BE CHANGED As a consequence of the changes to the development as described above, changes to the following conditions are requested: Condition 40: “Provision of amended plans incorporating the tandem carparking arrangement, together with the SRV and ambulance bay shown on plans SK01, SK02 and SK03 prepared by SLR and dated 13/7/22, (with the wheel stop deleted from the ambulance bay and the ground level carparking plan modified for compatibility with the provision of that modified service vehicle arrangement) as amended by the conditions of this approval”. Requested change: We request the deletion of Condition 40. Representations: On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43 below, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. Further, the attached plans of development accommodate the SRV and ambulance
Page 8
configuration as required by this condition 40. It is therefore appropriate for Condition 40 to
be deleted.
Condition 43:
“Provision of 104 car parking spaces and 10 motorcycle spaces on the site, plus the SRV loading
bay and ambulance bay”.
Requested change:
Amend Condition 43 to state:
“Provision of 96 car parking spaces and 10 motorcylce spaces on the site, plus SRV loading bay and
ambulance bay”.
Representations:
We propose the provision of the following to accommodate the transport requirements of the
development:
• 96 car parking spaces comprising 7 at-grade (including 2 PWD spaces), 45 on Basement
Level 1 and 44 on Basement Level 2;
• 10 motorcycle parking spaces across Basement Levels 1 and 2;
• One SRV loading bay and one ambulance bay at-grade;
• 16 bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities throughout the development; and
• Reservation of all of the general purpose at-grade parking (5) parking spaces as
designated short stay parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients
at the Medihub.
The proposed car parking represents a more than adequate provision of car parking based on
SLR’s recent first principles assessment of the demand of the Medihub, being a highly
specialised medical hub with a lower car parking demand than other local medical centres. This
position is further supported by the recent survey of the car parking provision and utilisation of
other medical facilities located at Peregian and Tewantin by SLR.
Condition 46:
“Each tandem parking space arrangement (ie 2 spaces) is to be allocated to a single tenant”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 46.
Page 9
Representations: On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43 above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is therefore appropriate for Condition 46 to be deleted. Condition 47: “Signage is to be installed and maintained at all times identifying the allocation of the tandem spaces”. Requested change: We request the deletion of Condition 47. Representations: On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43 above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is therefore appropriate for Condition 47 to be deleted. Condition 48: “A management plan is to be prepared documenting in detail options for how use and operation of the tandem parking spaces is to be managed by the individual tenants to ensure that both spaces of each tandem space are effectively utilised”. Requested change: We request the deletion of Condition 48. Representations: On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43 above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is therefore appropriate for Condition 48 to be deleted. Condition 49: ”That management plan is prepared to the satisfaction of Council and prior to the commencement of use on the site is to be incorporated into the requirement and procedures of the body corporate”.
Page 10
Requested change: We request the deletion of Condition 49. Representations: On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43 above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is therefore appropriate for Condition 49 to be deleted. Condition 52: “2 of the car parking bays provided at grade must be signed and reserved for short stay car parking”. Requested change: We request that Condition 52 be amended to read as follows: “5 of the car parking bays provided at grade must be signed and reserved for short stay car parking”. Representations: Following on from the representations made above in relation to Condition 43, it is proposed that all of the general purpose at-grade parking (five (5) parking spaces) is reserved as designated short stay parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients at the Medihub. This is an increase of short term drop and go parking from 2 (two) spaces required under Condition 52 to five (5) spaces. 5. OWNER’S CONSENT In accordance with Section 79(1)(b)(iii) of the Planning Act 2016, this application to change an existing development approval is accompanied by the relevant owner’s consent. 6. TYPE OF CHANGE APPLICATION 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.
Page 11
For a change application to be considered 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:
‘A change that⎯
(b) For a development approval⎯
(i) Does 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’.
Table A below provides our response to these criteria and demonstrates that the proposed changes
comply with all provisions specified under the definition of a ‘minor change’ under Schedule 2 of the Act.
Table A: Minor Change Test
Substantially different development- Y/N Comments
do the changes:
Involve a new use? N The proposed change does not introduce any new
uses.
Result in the application applying to a N The proposed changes do not result in the
new parcel of land? development applying to a new parcel of land.
Dramatically change the built form in N The changes involve:
terms of scale, bulk and appearance?
▪ Additional medical treatment room in the
basement levels; and
▪ Changes to the carparking provided to be
more reflective of the uses being applied for.
Page 12
None of these changes introduce dramatic
changes to built form in terms of scale, bulk or
appearance.
Change the ability for the use to N The proposed changes do not change the ability of
operate as intended? the use to operate. The changes are proposed to
better accommodate for one of Medihub’s tenant.
The proposed change will allow the tenant to
operate the clinic as intended and provide medical
service.
Remove a component that is N The proposed changes do not remove any
integral to the operation of the components that are integral to the approved
development? development.
Significantly impact on traffic N The proposed changes do not significantly impact
flow or the transport network? on traffic flow or the transport network.
Introduce new impacts or N The proposed changes will not give rise to any new
increase the severity of known impacts or increase the severity of known impacts
impacts? associated with the approved development.
Remove an incentive or offset N The proposed changes do not result in the removal
component that would have of an incentive or offset component of the
balanced a negative impact of the approved development.
development?
Impact on infrastructure N The proposed changes will not impact on the
provisions? provision of infrastructure on site, or within the
area.
Would a new development
application, including the changes, Y/N Comments
cause:
The inclusion of prohibited N The proposed changes do not include prohibited
development? development.
Referral to a referral agency, other N The proposed changes do not trigger a referral,
than to the Chief Executive, if there given the referral applies to the Chief Executive
were no referral agencies for the only.
development application?
Page 13
Referral to extra referral agencies, N The change does not involve referral to extra
other than to the Chief Executive? referral agencies, other than to the Chief
Executive.
A referral agency, in assessing the N The changes would not result in a referral agency
application under section 55(2), to assessing the application against or having regard
assess the application against, or to new matters.
have regard to, a matter, other than a
matter the referral agency must have
assessed the application against, or
had regard to, when the application
was made?
Public notification if public N The proposed changes do not result in public
notification was not required for the notification being required.
development application?
Page 14
7. EVALUATION AGAINST RELEVANT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Section 81 (2) of the Planning Act sets forth criteria the responsible entity assessing a change
application for a minor change must consider, including:
(2) When assessing the change application, the responsible entity must consider—
(a) the information the applicant included with the application;
(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
(c) any pre-request response notice or response notice given in relation to the
change application; and
(d) if the responsible entity is, under section 78(3) (ba) or (bb), 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
(e) if paragraph (d) does not apply⎯all matters the responsible entity would or may
assess against or have regard to, if the change application were a development
application; and
(f) another matter that the responsible entity considers relevant.
(3) For subsection (2)(d) and (da), the responsible entity—
(a) must assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the
development application was made; and
(b) may assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the
change application was made.
Subsection 2(a)
This change request provides a brief background of the approval history and detailed overview
of the proposed changes which seek to modify the development approval. The proposed
changes are supported by updated development plans. It is considered that through this change
request and the supporting plans, all information required to assess the request has been
provided.
Subsection 2(b)
Page 15
The application was subject to code assessment only, therefore there are no properly made submissions for the assessment manager to consider. Subsection 2(c) No pre-request was made. Subsection 2(d) The responsible entity of this change request is the assessment manager, being Noosa Shire Council. Subsection 2(e) 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. Subsection 2(f) As above. 8. CONCLUSION Thank you for considering the requested change to the abovementioned development approval. Should you have any queries regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards, Kelly Alcorn Development Manager Stockwell