Report · MCU19/0088.02

  Criteria                               Commentary
  agencies for the development           to the existing conditions and approved drawings will not trigger
  application; or                        referral to any other referral agencies.
  (C) referral to extra referral
  agencies, agencies, other than
  to the chief executive; or
  (D) a referral agency to assess        N/A
  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      The proposed development constitutes a code assessable
  notification was not required for      development application and would not require public notification.
  the development application.

Table 3      Substantially different development - Development Assessment Rules, Schedule 1

  Criteria                               Commentary
  A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
  change:
  (a) involves a new use; or      No new uses would be introduced to the site. The use would
                                  remain as a Dan Murphy’s.
  (b) results in the application  The proposed works remain within Lot 2 on RP842280.
  applying to a new parcel of
  land; or
  (c) dramatically changes the    The works will not dramatically change the scale, bulk and
  built form in terms of scale,   appearance of the building. The treatment of the northern façade
  bulk and appearance; or         of the building remains consistent with Specific Outcome 84 of the
                                  Noosaville Locality Code (Streetscape and Character) despite the
                                  remove of the reclaimed timber panel covers and alternating paint
                                  colour finish of the precast panels (refer to Section 3.0 for
                                  justification).

  (d) changes the ability of the         The works will not change the ability of the development to
  proposed development to                operate as a retail premises (Dan Murphy’).
  operate as intended; or
                                         The hours of use, access, and site arrangements would remain
                                         consistent the approved development. Additionally, it has been
                                         demonstrated that the removal of the two car parking spaces will
                                         not result in a shortfall of parking spaces against the requirements
                                         of The Noosa Plan.

  (e) removes a component that           All existing development components integral to the operation
  is integral to the operation of        remain on-site. It has been demonstrated that the removal of the
  the development; or                    two parking spaces will not result in a shortfall of spaces that
                                         would hinder the serviceability of the development.
  (f) significantly impacts on           The TUA of the premises will remain the same. On this basis, the
  traffic flow and the transport         proposed change will not impact traffic flow to the site and the
  network, such as increasing            surrounding road network.
  traffic to the site; or


5 of 9