51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 APPPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR A SEAFOOD KIOSK AT 185 WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 September 2024 - Item 5.2) · ATTACHMENT 1 - (51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01) - PLANNING OFFICER'S REPORT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT                                10 SEPTEMBER 2024


      (D)   a referral agency, in assessing the application under section 55(2), to assess the
            application against, or 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; or
      (E)   public notification if public notification was not required for the development application.
The proposed changes do not constitute a minor change to the development approvals as the
proposal would result in a substantially different development to the approved seafood kiosk. The
proposal is for a new use and will result in new impacts and increase the severity of known impacts.
In this regard the following is noted:
•   Under the 1973 Town Planning Scheme a kiosk was defined as a refreshment service and a
    bakery was a separately defined use.
•   Both developments approvals (TPC 1503 and TPC 1705) restricted the use of the kiosk to the
    sale of takeaway seafoods only, with no on-site dining permitted.
•   The site was zoned Residential A under the 1973 Town Planning Scheme and is zoned Medium
    density residential under Noosa Plan 2020. Both planning schemes do not contemplate a
    bakery establishing in these zones.
•   The 1973 Town Planning Scheme identified that Service Shops (bakery) was a ‘purpose for
    which buildings or other structures may not be erected or used or for which land may not be
    used’ within the Residential A zone.
•   Noosa Plan 2020 defines both a kiosk and bakery as a food and drink outlet, with a food and
    drink outlet identified as an inconsistent use in the zone.
•   It is important to acknowledge the existing kiosk use has not been recognised as a commercial
    node in the Noosa Plan 2020, and therefore does not seek to encourage broader commercial
    activities in this location beyond the existing approved use.
•   While both uses are similarly defined as a food and drink outlet under Noosa Plan 2020, since
    they both prepare and sell food and drink for consumption on or off the premises, the proposed
    bakery is likely to raise additional impacts when considered in the context of the conditions of
    the existing approval and the site’s location in a residential area.
•   The existing takeaway seafood kiosk and proposed bakery have different operating times and
    peaks, with the bakery proposed to open very early in the morning at 6am with a baker on site
    at 4am, a second baker at 5am and 2 front of house staff commencing their shifts at 5.30am
    and 6am.
•   The proposal includes an expansion in use area compared to the takeaway seafood kiosk, with
    provision proposed on site for table and chairs for up to 10 persons for consumption of food
    and drinks. This on-site dining is likely to generate additional noise impacts and increase car
    parking demands compared to the takeaway seafood kiosk.
•   The proposed bakery is anticipated to have additional staff on site compared to the takeaway
    seafood kiosk.
•   Residents in the area are likely to raise valid objection to the proposed changes and ought to
    be afforded an opportunity to make a submission.
Subsequently, the proposed changes do not constitute a minor change as defined by the Planning
Act 2016, as the proposed change would result in a substantially different development when
considered in the context of the site’s location in a residential area.
It is noted that the applicant provided a legal opinion stating that they did not believe that an
approval was required for the proposed minor change, as the proposal did not constitute a ‘material
change of use’. In response, Council also sought its own independent advice regarding the
application and the applicant’s assertion that the proposal did not require approval. This advice did
not concur with the applicant’s legal opinion and confirmed Council Officer’s were correct in their
                                                                                         Page 9 of 14