Original source · versioned page text
26 0116 - Change Req Letter
Attached to the e-mail Lodgement of Minor Change Application - MCU174/0559.05.
Date: 16 January 2026 Council Ref: MCU17/0559.04 Noosa Shire Council PO Box 141 Tewantin QLD 4564 Via Email ([email protected]) Dear Sir / Madam, RE: MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 16A GRANT STREET, NOOSA HEADS QLD 4567 Reference is made to the development approval that was issued by the Noosa Shire Council (the Council) on 1 August 2018 and subsequently changed on 31 January 2024 (ref. MCU17/0559.04) over 16 Grant Street, Noosa Heads (the Subject Site). On behalf of the Applicant and registered landowner, Maan Investments Pty Ltd, a minor change is sought in accordance with s78 and s81 of the Planning Act 2016. Background The Subject Site contains a Dual Occupancy that was completed late 2023. Unit 2 (Lot 2 on SP326085) adjoins the southern property boundary and is the dwelling that is relevant to this Change Application. On 31 January 2024, the Council granted a request to change a previous development approval under MCU17/0559.04. The requested change concerned the following: ▪ The addition of shade pergolas at the rear of the constructed duplex; ▪ Revised lower level backfill at the rear of the Subject Site; ▪ The addition of constructed washer/dryer and bar/kitchenette on lower floor level; ▪ The inclusion of a spiral staircase from the lower level to the upper level of Unit 2; ▪ Internal layout revisions on the upper floor level of Unit 1. Of relevance to this request, Condition 5 required the establishment of planter boxes adjacent to the rumpus room and bedroom 2 of both dwelling units, given the lack of backfill undertaken at the rear of the Subject Site. These planter boxes are shown on the approved plans (refer Figure 1) and are to be maintained in accordance with this condition of approval. Figure 1 – Approved Lower Floor Plan Level 10, 167 Eagle Street, Brisbane + m. 0405 300 290 + e. [email protected] w. www.mbplanning.com.au + ABN 81 549 271 352
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 7 pages
Page 2
Proposed Minor Change
The registered owner of Unit 2 has observed a gradual deterioration of the timber planter box (refer Figure 2 &
3) constructed along the southern façade wall. In seeking to verify this, a structural engineer (RPEQ) has been
engaged to review the structural integrity and future performance of the timber planter box (refer Attachment 1 –
Site Inspection Report).
Figure 2 – Planter Box Figure 3 – Planter Box Elevation
The Site Inspection Report identifies movement in the planter box’s timber posts and sleepers, as well as the
potential for moisture accumulation between the planter box and the cold joint where the concrete floor slab
meets the masonry wall. Additionally, concerns have been identified that it is not possible to visually inspect the
perimeter termite protection system, a finding further confirmed by a building and pest inspection (refer
Attachment 2 – Termite Detection Report). The Termite Detection Report recommends the removal of the planter
box, as the space between the planter box and the external wall provides favourable conditions for termites and
obstructs inspection of the termite protection barrier surrounding the duplex.
It is recommended that the planter box be removed, as the structure:
1. Is progressively deteriorating, with ongoing degradation anticipated;
2. Is causing slab edge dampness and the potential migration of moisture through walls;
3. Encourages water movement towards the slab edge, contrary to the National Code of Construction
3.1.3.3 (Surface Water Drainage); and
4. Contributes to an increased risk of termite infestation.
The registered owner of Unit 2 has also highlighted concerns with the practicality of maintaining landscaping
within the planter box due to the structures overall height (<1.5m above ground) as shown in Figure 3, and the
lack of natural light that the rumpus room and bedroom 2 currently receives within Unit 2, due to placement of
the planter box hard against the southern façade, which covers ~80% of the external window which is critical for
natural light and ventilation (refer Figure 4).
Figure 4 – Side Window Obstruction (Southern Façade Wall)
Page 2 of 8
Page 3
Additionally, the planter box inappropriately reduced the width of the side access along Unit 2, narrowing the
walkway to 0.7m from the originally approved width of 1.8m (refer Figure 5). This limited width is particularly
problematic with larger guest groups accessing the private terrace at the rear of Unit 2, as it only permits single
person movement. The limited width also prevents persons with disabilities from moving along the side of the
dwelling.
Figure 5 – Restricted Side Access
In summary, the planter box materially diminishes the liveability of Unit 2 by restricting natural light and
ventilation, narrowing the approved side access, and introducing ongoing maintenance, moisture, and pest-
related risks. It’s presence impacts functionality by impeding movement, limiting inspection of critical building
components and pest deterrent systems, and contributing to potential structural deterioration of the building. The
planter box is not visible from the adjoining property to the southern and as a result, does not fulfill any screening
function to protect amenity. The planter box offers no meaningful amenity, functional use, landscape or aesthetic
benefit that would otherwise justify its continued retention and thus, its removal is recommended given the
absence of any adverse impacts.
Changes to the Development Approval / Plan of Development
A summary of the changes that are required to the approval package are detailed below:
Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Changes
Plans of Development
Approved Plans and Documents Proposed Revision
Site Plan by H4 – Plan No. 001 Rev 18 (dated 10 Retain
September 2019)
Site Cover by H4 – Plan No. 002 Rev 18 (dated 10 Retain
September 2019)
Lower Floor Plan by H4 – Plan No. 100 Rev 22 (dated 10 Retain – Add an amendment to the approved plans
January 2024) crossing out the planter box associated with Unit 2.
First Floor Plan by H4 – Plan No. 101 Rev 22 (dated 10 Retain
January 2024)
Roof Water Discharge Plan by H4 – Plan No. 200 Rev 18 Retain
(dated 10 August 2019)
Elevations by H4 – Plan No. 300 Rev 22 (dated 10 Retain – Add an amendment to the approved plans
January 2024) crossing out the planter box associated with Unit 2.
Elevations by H4 – Plan No. 301 Rev 22 (dated 10 Retain
January 2024)
Front Entry Elevation prepared by H4 Plan Retain
+ Design + Build – Plan No. 302 Rev 22 (dated 10
January 2024)
3D Perspectives – Unit 16 prepared by H4 Retain
Page 3 of 8
Page 4
Plan + Design + Build – Plan No. 500 Rev 22 (dated 10
January 2024)
3D Perspectives – Unit 16 prepared by H4 Delete
Plan + Design + Build – Plan No. 501 Rev 22 (dated 10
January 2024)
Details – Unit 16 Planter Box prepared by Retain
H4 Plan + Design + Build – Plan No. 900 Rev 22 (dated
10 January 2024)
Details – Unit 16 Planter Box prepared by Delete
H4 Plan + Design + Build – Plan No. 901 Rev 22 (dated
10 January 2024)
Conditions of approval
Current wording of Condition 5:
‘The landscape planter boxes, as detailed on the approved plans, must be provided to the area adjacent to the rumpus
room and bedroom 2 of both dwelling units (northern and southern elevations). The planter boxes must not be removed’
Proposed wording of Condition 5:
‘The landscape planter box, as detailed on the approved plans, must be provided to the area adjacent to the rumpus
room and bedroom 2 of dwelling unit 1 (northern elevation). The planter box must not be removed’
Compliance with the Planning Act 2016
Assessing and Deciding Application for Minor Changes
In accordance with s81 of the Planning Act 2016, when assessing the Change Application, the responsible entity
must consider—
(a) the information the applicant included with the application; and
The proposal is considered to have provided all documentation to facilitate the processing of 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
The original development application (MCU17/0559) and all subsequent Change Application’s did not receive
any properly made submissions.
(c) any pre-request response notice or response notice given in relation to the Change Application; and
Not applicable. A pre-request response notice was not requested or given.
(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
Not applicable. The responsible entity is not the Minister.
(da) 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
Assessment Benchmarks
The original development application was lodged and was assessed against the now superseded Noosa Plan
2006 (the Superseded Scheme).
The original development application was assessed against the following Superseded Scheme codes:
Page 4 of 8
Page 5
▪ Noosa Heads Locality Code;
▪ Residential Uses Code;
▪ Landscaping Code; and
▪ Engineering Works Code.
Of relevance to this request, Specific Outcome O10(c) and Specific Outcome O11 of the Noosa Heads Locality
Code prescribed a maximum site cover of 40% and maximum plot ratio of 0:45.1 respectively. A review of the
Council’s Delegated Report confirms that the development was approved with a 39% site cover and a plot ratio
of 0:45.1.
The planter box was introduced as part of MCU17/0559.04. Due to the lack of backfilling undertaken at the
rear of the Subject Site, it is understood that the Council now considers the downstairs living area as Gross Floor
Area (GFA), despite previously accepting this area as ‘basement’. Where meeting the definition of ‘basement’
(i.e. a basement with a ceiling that is not more than 1m above ground level), which was the case with all prior
approvals granted over the Subject Site, the downstairs living area was excluded from GFA calculation for the
purposes of assessing plot ratio. Focus Survey Group has prepared a topographic survey (refer Attachment 3 –
Topographic Survey) confirming that the basement does not feature a ceiling that exceeds 1m above ground
level (refer Figure 6). The survey also in turn confirms that the built form at no point exceeds 2 storeys as the
‘basement’ does not count as a storey as per the building height in storeys definition of the Superseded Scheme.
Figure 6 – Topographic Survey
Noting that the Council continues to classify the downstairs living area as GFA, despite the findings of the
topographical survey, the constructed development is perceived as containing a plot ratio >0.45:1, thereby
resulting in non-compliance with Specific Outcome O11 of the now superseded Noosa Heads Locality Code.
In an attempt to fabricate compliance with Specific Outcome O11, it is understood that the planter box was
approved by the Council in an attempt to artificially create a false ‘ground level’ in order to achieve compliance
with the prescribed maximum plot ratio. Regardless, a planter box has no influence or bearing on ‘ground level’
and thus, it is our offices professional opinion that the constructed development remains compliant with the
prescribed maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1, as the downstairs living area is defined as ‘basement’.
Page 5 of 8
Page 6
The Superseded Scheme is no longer in effect, and the Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment 2 (the Planning Scheme)
is currently in effect. There has been a change to the Subject Site’s zoning and the following assessment
benchmarks are now applicable:
▪ Noosa Heads Local Plan Code;
▪ Medium Density Residential Zone Code;
▪ Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code; and
▪ Works Code.
A maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1 and a maximum site cover of 40% was prescribed under the Superseded Scheme
however, the Planning Scheme does not prescribe such parameters for development other than for a Dwelling
House where located in the Medum Density Residential Zone. Regardless, the proposed removal of the planter
box adjoining Unit 2’s southern facade wall does not alter the developments plot ratio or site cover approved
under MCU17/0559.04. The revised development remains compliant with all assessment benchmarks of both
the Superseded Scheme and the Planning Scheme, specifically the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.
Temporary Local Planning Instrument
There are no Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TPLI) that are currently in effect for the Noosa Local
Government Area.
Adopted Charges
The Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No. 9) 2025 does no levy infrastructure charges for this type of
request relating to the removal of a planter box.
(e) another matter that the responsible entity considers relevant.
Noted, however there are no other matters that are considered relevant to the assessment of this minor Change
Application.
Determining whether the change is a “Minor Change”
In accordance with the definitions in Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016, a “minor change” means a change
that— (b) for a development approval—
i. would not result in substantially different development;
Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules (the DA Rules), a statutory instrument made under section 68(1)
of the Planning Act 2016, provides guidance on what may constitute a “substantially different development” in
the context of the meaning of a minor change to a development application or development approval. A change
may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed change:
Development Assessment Rules Response
(a) involves a new use; or The proposed change does not result in a new use on
the premises.
(b) results in the application applying to a new parcel No new land is being included as part of this change.
of land; or
(c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of The proposal does not dramatically change the built
scale, bulk and appearance; or form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance. The
proposed removal of the planter box along the
southern side of Unit 2 does not alter the approved
duplex’s scale, bulk or appearance. The buildings
overall height, site cover and setback provision
Page 6 of 8
Page 7
remains unaltered. The planter box is not visible from
the public domain or neighbours to the south.
(d) changes the ability of the proposed development The development will continue to operate as
to operate as intended;28 or previously approved under MCU17/0559.04.
28
For example, reducing the size of a retail complex may reduce
the capacity of the complex to service the intended catchment.
(e) removes a component that is integral to the The proposed change does not remove any integral
operation of the development; or components from the development.
(f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport
The proposed changes will not result in impacts to the
network, such as increasing traffic to the site; or transport network nor increase traffic to and from the
Subject Site.
(g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of No new impacts will be generated by the proposed
known impacts; or change. All existing boundary fences and boundary
landscaping will be maintained thus, overlooking
between properties will not occur. The planter box
does not act as a visual buffer or screening device that
restricts overlooking between Unit 2 and the
neighbours to the south.
(h) removes an incentive or offset component that The proposed change does not seek to remove any
would have balanced a negative impact of the incentive or offset component of the development.
development; or
(i) impacts on infrastructure provisions. The proposal will not result in any significant impacts
on the provision of infrastructure, location or demand.
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
The proposal does not constitute prohibited development.
B. public notification if public notification was not required for the development application.
The original development application (MCU17/0559) and the subsequent most recent Change Application
(MCU17/0559.04) did not require public notification. If a new development application for Material Change of
Use was lodged based on the proposed change, the level of assessment would remain Code Assessable as per
Table 5.5.2 of the Planning Scheme.
This letter demonstrates that the proposed change does not impact on the nature or intent of the existing
development permit, nor does the changes constitute a substantially different development. Accordingly, we
request that the Council approve the proposed Change Application as a minor change in accordance with
Section 78 of the Planning Act 2016.
We trust the above and attached information is sufficient for Council’s assessment. We look forward to your
response in due course. Please contact the undersigned should you require any further clarification or information
on the proposed changes to the development.
Yours sincerely,
Brock Acworth
Page 7 of 8
Page 8
B. Urb. Reg. Plan.
Encl. Attachment 1 – Site Inspection Report
Attachment 2 – Termite Detection Report
Attachment 3 – Topographic Survey
Page 8 of 8