11396_Council_Change to DA_020916 · MCU11/0254

Page 2

PERMISSIBLE CHANGE ASSESSMENT

Section 367 of Sustainable Planning Act 2009 states:

(1) A permissible change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that would not—
       (a) result in a substantially different development; or

        In respect to what constitutes a ‘substantially different development’, specific reference is made to
        the statutory guidelines pursuant to section 769 of the SPA (Statutory Guideline 06/09):

        “Although it will depend on the individual circumstances of the development, the following list
        identifies changes that may result in a substantially different development and would, therefore, not
        be a minor change or permissible change under the SPA. This list is intended as a guide to assist
        assessment managers and applicants to determine whether a change will result in a substantially
        different development and is not intended to be exhaustive.

           Involves a new use with different or additional impacts.

            Comment: The proposed change does not establish a new use.

           Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land.

            Comment: The proposed change does not involve any new parcels of land.

           Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance

            Comment: The proposed change will not dramatically change the built form in terms of the scale,
            bulk or appearance.

           Changes the ability of the proposal to operate as intended.

            Comment: The development will still operate as intended.

           Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development

            Comment: The proposed change does not remove any integral components of the development.

           Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the
            site.

            Comment: The proposed change will not significantly impact on traffic flow or the transport
            network.

           Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts.

            Comment: The proposed change will not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of
            known impacts.

           Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact of the
            development.

            Comment: No development incentives or offsets are removed by the change.

           Impacts on infrastructure provision from a location or demand.

            Comment: The proposed change will have minimal impact on infrastructure provision.

Page 3

        (b) if the application for the approval were remade including the change—
                 (i)    require referral to additional concurrence agencies;

                Comment: The proposed change would not require the application to be referred to
                additional concurrence agencies.

                or

                (ii)   for an approval for assessable development that previously did not require
                       impact assessment—require impact assessment; or

                Comment: The original approval required impact assessment.

        (c) for an approval for assessable development that previously required impact assessment—
            be likely, in the responsible entity’s opinion, to cause a person to make a properly made
            submission objecting to the proposed change, if the circumstances allowed; or

                Comment: No submissions were received for the original application. The proposed change
                would be unlikely to cause a person to make a properly made submission if the
                circumstances allowed as the minor height increases relate to parts of the building towards
                the rear of the site which back onto park reserve and which are not visible from Hofmann
                Drive.

        (d) cause development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited development.

                Comment: The proposed change does not propose the inclusion of any prohibited
                development.

(2) For deciding whether a change is a permissible change under subsection (1)(b) or (d), the planning
    instruments or law in force at the time the request for the change was made apply (the applicable
    law).

                Comment: The proposed change does not offend the provisions of the Noosa Plan as the
                original approval already allowed for a minor height increase.


CONCLUSION

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed change to the development complies with the
provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as it is minor in nature and does not change the intent of
the approval. Approval of the request to change the development approval is therefore warranted.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.


Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]