Minor Change Assessment

Page 2

SITE DETAILS

The subject site is situated at 7-9 Gibson Road, Noosaville and is described as Lot 1 & Common Property
on SP127822. The extent of the site, which has an area of 1945m2 is currently occupied by a Harvey
Norman showroom, as well as other smaller stores over two storeys.


BACKGROUND

The proposed changes relate to a minor change application addressing the existing approval for the
subject site. A review of the development approval and associated conditions confirms that none of the
conditions specifically require the provision of existing toilet facilities. However, the approval includes
several plans prepared by Leffler Simes Architects Pty Ltd, which indicate the retention of the existing
toilet facilities while removing the internal courtyard. These plans are as follows:
     • Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Cross Sections
     • Numbered: BA01 Issue C (May 1999), BA02 Issue J (August 1999), BA05 Issue B (October
         1998), and BA08 Issue B (October 1998).

To align with the proposed changes, an amendment to the approved plans is required to reflect the
relocation of the communal toilets and their replacement with an expanded Harvey Norman tenancy.

PROPOSED CHANGES

This minor change application seeks to relocate the existing communal toilets currently situated
centrally within Building A (Northern) and replace them with an extension to the Harvey Norman
showroom. The central placement of the toilets reflects the original tenancy layout, which has since
been reconfigured following changes implemented in 2005.

To accommodate the updated internal display fit-out requirements for the Harvey Norman tenancy, the
proposal involves the relocation and reduction of the communal toilets. The new arrangement will
provide more direct and convenient access for customers (Refer Figure 1). The number of stalls has been
reduced to two: one unisex stall and one compliant with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) standards.
This reduction is consistent with advice from a building certifier regarding the minimum number of
facilities required, particularly given that other tenancies within the development are equipped with their
own toilet facilities.

The proposed changes will result in an increase in the Harvey Norman showroom area but will not alter
the overall gross floor area (GFA) of the development. This is achieved through the redistribution of
existing floor space rather than the addition of new space. Consequently, there is no requirement to
recalculate car parking provisions, as the total GFA remains unchanged.

This minor change application provides a practical solution to modernize and optimize the functionality
of the Harvey Norman tenancy while ensuring compliance with relevant building requirements. The
proposal achieves a better use of space without impacting the overall development footprint.

Page 3

                   Figure 1 - Extract of Approved Plan - Mark Up showing relocation of communal toilets




MINOR CHANGE

Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as:

A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that —

      i.       would not result in a substantially different development; and

       The DA Rules state:

       In determining whether the proposed change would result in substantially different
       development, the assessment manager or referral agency must consider the individual
       circumstances of the development, in the context of the change proposed.

           Description / Provisions                        Comment / Response
           A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
           change:

           •    Involves a new use; or                              No new land use is proposed.

           •    Results in the application applying to a No new land is included as part of the
                new parcel of land; or                   application.

Page 4

      •    Dramatically changes the built form in The proposed changes do not dramatically
           terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or change the built form in terms of scale, bulk
                                                   and appearance.


      •    Changes the ability of the proposed No changes are made to the proposed
           development to operate as intended (for development to impede its operations.
           example, reducing the size of a retail
           complex may reduce the capacity of the
           complex to service the intended
           catchment); or

      •    Removes a component that is integral to The proposed changes do not involve
           the operation of the development; or    removal of a component that is integral to
                                                   the operational of the development.

      •    Significantly impacts on traffic flow and The proposed changes do not result in
           the transport network, such as increasing significant impacts on traffic flow and the
           traffic to the site; or                   transport network, such as increasing traffic
                                                     to the site.


      •    Introduces new impacts or increases the The proposed change does not introduce
           severity of known impacts; or           any new impacts, nor will it increase the
                                                   severity of known impacts.


      •    Removes an incentive or offset No incentive                  or   offset   components
           component that would have balanced the incorporated.
           negative impact of the development; or

      •    Impacts on infrastructure provisions.      The proposed development does not impact
                                                      upon infrastructure provisions.



ii.       if a development application for the development, including the change, were made
          when the change application is made would not cause—

      Description / Provisions                        Comment / Response

      A. the    inclusion     of     prohibited No prohibited development proposed.
         development in the application; or

      B. referral to a referral agency, other than The original application did not trigger
         to the chief executive, if there were no referral. No additional referrals are required.

Page 5

             referral agencies for the development
             application; or

         C. referral to extra referral agencies, other No extra referrals are required.
            than to the chief executive; or

         D. a referral agency to assess the No             additional    referral  assessment
            application against, or have regard to, triggers/aspects are required.
            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 notification No public notification required
            was not required for the development
            application.


Accordingly, the subject change is a minor change.

ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Clause 81 (4) & (5) the responsible entity must consider the statutory instrument, or
other document, as in effect when the development application for the development approval was
properly made.

        Comment: The development approval was originally made under the 1985 Town Planning
        Scheme. This scheme remained operative until it was superseded by the Noosa Plan, which
        commenced in February 2006. Given the proposal does not change the physical development
        footprint or overall gross floor area, it is considered the changed development would have been
        approved in the same manner as the current development approval.


However, the responsible entity may give the weight the responsible entity considers is
appropriate, in the circumstances, to—
   (a)     the statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the change application
           was made; or
   (b)     if the statutory instrument or other document is amended or replaced after the change
           application is made but before it is decided—the amended or replacement instrument
           or document; or
   (c)     another statutory instrument—
           (i)      that comes into effect after the change application is made but before it is
                    decided; and
           (ii)     that the responsible entity would have been required to consider if the
                    instrument had been in effect when the development application for the
                    development approval was properly made.

Page 6

        Comment: The current planning scheme now in force is the Noosa Plan 2020 – Amendment 1
        as at 25 September 2020. The subject land is zoned District Centre. Given the proposal does
        not change the physical development footprint, or overall gross floor area, and represents only
        an internal rearrangement of toilet facilities the proposed change is considered consistent with
        the current planning scheme provisions.

CONCLUSION

This minor change application seeks approval to minor amendments to the distribution of communal
toilet facilities at 7-9 Gibson Road, Noosaville, legally described as Lot 1 & Common Property on
SP127822. These amendments include the relocation of communal toilet facilities, and replacement
with an extension to the showroom tenancy.


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


Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Glen Wright
Director
Email: [email protected]