Attachment 2 - Letter from Thomson Geer · 132007.12.8

                                                                                                                                 8



          (g)       The introduction of the Commercial Business Type 3 – Veterinary use is acceptable, and
                    does not constitute a "substantially difference development", in circumstances where:

                    (i)       Other Commercial Business uses are already approved and operating on the
                              land (including the very similar medical and office uses), meaning that this new
                              use is broadly consistent with what is already approved and operating on the
                              land. Indeed, to an external observer a veterinary office/practice would be
                              virtually identical (in terms of appearance and impacts) to a doctor's
                              office/practice, which is already allowed to operate from the land;

                    (ii)      Under the terms of Noosa Plan 2006, the planning scheme in force when the
                              original approval was granted and that remains in force today, Commercial
                              Business Type 3 is specifically listed as a consistent use for this land and is
                              subject only to code assessment.10 There can therefore be no question that
                              public submission rights (or the like) would be lost as a result of the inclusion of
                              this use as part of the existing development approval. No public submission rights
                              with respect to this use have ever been available in any event.

8         Summary

8.1       The changes as a whole, given the scale of the proposed development, the nature of the changes
          and the planning controls that applied to the original application and that apply to the land today,
          do not result in a "substantially different development".

8.2       Even if it could be said the changes were 'dramatic' or 'significant', a proposition that we would
          not agree with, it has been noted by the Court that this does not mean the changes automatically
          result in a "substantially different development".11

8.3       In our view, the changes proposed fall within the scope of a change to the approval that does not
          result in a "substantially different development". The proposed changes are also broadly
          consistent with other circumstances where the Court has approved permissible change requests
          (under the similar terms of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009), as outlined above.

8.4       Consequently, we consider that the changes proposed to the current development approval are a
          "minor change" and that the changes can be assessed and determined by the Council pursuant
          to the requirements set out in section 81 Planning Act 2016.

If you have any queries regarding the above matters, please contact us.

Yours sincerely




Michael Marshall
Partner
T +61 7 3338 7525
M 0407 914 748
E     [email protected]




10 See Table 11.8 of Noosa Plan 2006. All of the land the subject of this advice was part of former Lot 1 on RP900855.
11 Dempsey v Brisbane City Council [2012] QPEC 2.




                                                                                                                   Legal/49114049_1