Minor Change Report MCU17 0559 05 (As Published) · MCU17/0559.05

Page 2

               The locality and proposal plans are included below.




                                                           Figure 1 – Locality




                                       Figure 2 - Approved Plan – showing location of planter boxes




                                          Figure 3 Render of Planter Boxes – Northern Elevation


                                                                                                      Page 2 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 3

                                        Figure 4 Render of Planter Boxes – Southern Elevation




               2.     BACKGROUND
               A Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Multiple Housing- Type 2 Duplex was issued
               on 1 August 2020. The plans indicated that sections of the lower level were to be below ground
               level and considered as a basement to ensure compliance with gross floor area provisions.




               On February 2020, a minor change to the original development approval was issued (Council ref.
               MCU17/0559.02). The main change related to the development’s roof form, a reduction to the roof
               pitch from 8 to 1 degrees and reduction in the extent of eaves.
               On 20 November 2020, a Generally in Accordance Letter (Council ref. MCU17/0559.03) was
               issued, relating to revised location of the swimming pools and roof pitch from 1 to 2 degrees.
               A Plan Seal application (Council ref. PS23/0020) and Operational Works (Council
               ref..OPW20/096.01) off-maintenance request was lodged in September 2023. Following a site
               inspection carried out by Council Officers’, it was identified that there were inconsistencies between
               Council approved plans and the constructed dual occupancy.
               The variations to the approved plans included:
               a) Shade structure at the rear of each unit
               b) Internal reconfiguration to the upper level and lower levels of each unit, creating self contained
                  dwellings on the lower level of each unit.
               c) Spiral staircase within the southeastern side boundary setback.
               d) Storage areas on the lower level below the outdoor recreational areas of each unit.
               e) Extent of earthworks carried out contrary to Condition 5, the approved plans, and maximum
                  plot ratio permitted for the development.
               f) Variation to the approved window placement along both side elevations.
               A minor change application (MCU17/0559.04) was submitted October 2023 seeking retrospective
               approval for the matters listed above. The assessment for the change application noted that the
               original approval required backfilling to ensure the lower level met the definition of a basement
               under The Noosa Plan. This work was not completed and as a result the lower level contributed to
                                                                                                        Page 3 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 4

               gross floor area and increased the total GFA to 391.6 m² and a plot ratio of 0.658:1 which exceeded
               the 0.45:1 maximum.
               To address the area of non-compliance the applicant proposed 1.5 m high planter boxes to screen
               the non-compliant section in lieu of backfilling. Council did not consider this a good planning
               outcome however after considerable discussions with the applicant and builder, accepted the
               proposal as it avoided structural risks associated with earthworks and provided a landscaped
               outcome that screened the lower exposed floor level.




               The minor change application was approved 31 January 2024.
               3.     ASSESSMENT
               3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
               Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
               statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
               •    State Planning Policy;
               •    South East Queensland Regional Plan;
               •    Planning Regulation 2017; and
               •    2006 Noosa Plan (version. 3 July 2017).
               3.2. Statutory Process
               The applicant has requested to make a minor change to a development approval under s78 of the
               Planning Act 2016. An application for a minor change to a development approval can only be made
               in circumstances where a change would constitute a ‘minor change’.

               The proposed change to the development approval requested by the applicant is determined to
               constitute a minor change on the grounds that:

               •    the development would not result in substantially different development as the established use
                    remains the same;
               •    the change does not include prohibited development;
               •    the change would not require the application to be referred to an additional referral agency or
                    cause a referral agency to have regard to new matters prescribed by regulation;
               •    where the original application was code assessable, the change would not cause the
                    application to become impact assessable.

               3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
               The original application was lodged and assessed under the now superseded 2006 Noosa
               Planning Scheme.



                                                                                                      Page 4 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 5

               The following codes from the Noosa Plan are applicable to this development:
               •    Noosa Heads Locality Code;
               •    Residential Uses Code;
               •    Landscaping Code;
               •    Engineering Works Code.
               Pursuant to s81 of the Planning Act 2017, Council must consider the planning scheme in effect
               when the original development application was lodged, however Council may give weight to Noosa
               Plan 2020 (Amendment 2 - 26 September 2025) as the planning scheme in effect at the time of
               the minor change application being lodged.
               Due weight can be given to the following codes from Noosa Plan 2020 (Amendment 2 – 26
               September 2025) are applicable to this development:
               •      Medium Density Residential Zone Code;
               •      Noosa Heads Local Plan Code;
               •      Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code;
               •      Works Codes;
               •      Landslide Hazard Overlay Code.


               Existing Conditions 2 and 5
               2.     Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
                      approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless
                      otherwise amended by these conditions.

                         Plan No.      Rev.   Plan Name                                          Date

                         001           18     Site Plan by H4                                    10.09.2019

                         002           18     Site Cover by H4                                   10.09.2019

                         100           22     Lower Floor Plan by H4                             10.01.2024

                         101           22     First Floor Plan by H4                             10.01.2024

                         200           18     Roof Water Discharge Plan by H4                    10.09.2019

                         300           22     Elevations by H4                                   10.01.2024

                         301           22     Elevations by H4                                   10.01.2024

                         302           22     Front Entry Elevation prepared by H4 Plan + Design 10.01.2024
                                              + Build

                         500           22     3D Perspectives – Unit 16 prepared by H4 Plan + 10.01.2024
                                              Design + Build

                         501           22     3D Perspectives – Unit 16 prepared by H4 Plan + 10.01.2024
                                              Design + Build

                         900           22     Details – Unit 16 Planter Box prepared by H4 Plan + 10.01.2024
                                              Design + Build


                                                                                                    Page 5 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 6

                         901           22   Details – Unit 16 Planter Box prepared by H4 Plan + 10.01.2024
                                            Design + Build

               4.     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.
               Applicant’s Request
               The applicant has requested existing condition 2 be amended to cross out the planter box
               associated with unit 2. Condition 5 is also requested to be deleted.
               The timber planter box along the southern façade of Unit 2 is proposed to be removed with the
               applicant citing structural deterioration, movement in the posts and sleepers, moisture
               accumulation at the slab edge and increased termite risk identified in structural and pest inspection
               reports. The applicant submits that the planter box restricts natural light and ventilation to the
               rumpus and Bedroom 2, narrows the approved side access from 1.8 m to 0.7 m which impedes
               movement (including for people with disabilities) and prevents proper inspection of building and
               termite barriers. The applicant further argues that the structure provides no meaningful landscape,
               amenity or screening benefit, is not visible from the adjoining property and diminishes the liveability
               and functionality of Unit 2.
               The applicant submits that the development was originally approved with a compliant 39% site
               cover and 0.45:1 plot ratio under the superseded Planning Scheme and argues that the downstairs
               area should continue to be treated as a ‘basement’ rather than GFA. It is contended that previous
               approvals over the site accepted this level as a basement and that a new topographic survey
               confirms the ceiling does not exceed 1 m above ground level and the building remains two storeys.
               The applicant asserts that Council’s reclassification of this level as GFA creates an artificial
               non-compliance with the former 0.45:1 plot ratio and that the planter box was introduced only to
               fabricate compliance by creating a false ground level. Further they argue that the planter box does
               not influence true ground level and that the development therefore remains compliant with the
               superseded scheme.
               The applicant further details that under the current Noosa Plan 2020 (Amendment 2) plot ratio and
               site cover are no longer applicable benchmarks for this form of development and the removal of
               the planter box does not change the approved built form and maintains compliance with all relevant
               assessment benchmarks, including the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.
               Assessment of Request
               The applicant seeks the removal of the planter boxes as prescribed in condition 2, based on the
               following grounds:
               a) The approval was assessed under the superseded planning scheme which prescribed a
                  maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1 and site cover of 40%. The current planning scheme does not
                  prescribe a plot ratio or site cover for this type of development

                    Response
                    This is incorrect. The acceptable outcomes for the medium density residential zone detail site
                    cover and plot ratio for a dwelling house. The approval seeking variation is not for a dwelling,
                    but for a duplex. The Noosa Plan 2020 Performance Outcome is applicable which prescribes
                    a plot ratio of 0.4:1 and site cover of 40% is applicable. In accounting for the lower ground level
                    and extent of lower ground that now protrudes above 1 metre NGL, the existing building has a
                    total GFA of 340sqm and a plot ratio of 0.57:1 which is considerably higher than that envisaged
                    by the Planning Scheme. The development exceeds both the nominated plot ratio under the
                    2006 Noosa Plan and the current scheme in effect.

               b) The applicant has submitted a survey plan suggesting the lower floors constitute basements
                  as they are below the surveyed ground level, that the building does not exceed 2 storeys and
                  the planter boxes do not influence ground level and creates an artificial non-compliance.

                                                                                                          Page 6 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 7

                   Response
                   The applicant relies on a survey plan to assert that the lower level constitutes a basement as it
                   is located approximately 1 metre below the surveyed ground level. The survey plan, however,
                   relates to the undercroft area behind the unit, rather than the ground floor area that has
                   historically been assessed by Council for gross floor area (GFA) purposes. The undercroft area
                   was never included in Council’s GFA or plot ratio calculations, whereas the subject ground floor
                   level has previously been assessed as above-ground and not a basement under the Noosa
                   Plan 2006.
                   Under the applicable Noosa Plan 2020, a basement is defined as a space no part of which is
                   more than 1 metre above ground level, with ground level being the natural ground or the level
                   as lawfully changed, being the level shown on the first registered plan of survey. In this instance,
                   the ground levels shown on the approved building plans were created as part of development
                   works and do not constitute the natural ground level or a lawfully changed ground level for the
                   purposes of the Planning Scheme.
                   While the applicant asserts that the subject level is located approximately 1 metre below the
                   surveyed ground level, this fact alone is not determinative. Having regard to the lawful ground
                   level and the planning context, the space does not properly characterise as a basement and
                   continues to perform as an above-ground storey. Accordingly, the area must be included in GFA
                   calculations, with the result that the proposal significantly exceeds the GFA anticipated for
                   development within the zone and does not achieve the zone’s overall intent or planned built
                   form outcomes.
               c) The installed planter boxes are deteriorating resulting in maintenance issues for the boxes and
                  the overall the unit.

                    Response
                    This is not a planning matter. The planter boxes were installed to comply with the previous
                    minor change approval. The deterioration is clearly due to poor materials and workmanship in
                    their construction. It is Council’s expectation that the planter boxes be repaired or replaced to
                    address the maintenance concerns. This is not considered valid grounds for their removal.

               d) The applicant raised amenity issues due to loss of light and air flow in the lower ground floor,
                  as well as access around the planters.
               Response
                    It is acknowledged that the planters result in some reduction to light and airflow. However, the
                    lower ground floor levels were approved as a basement level with limited openings and the
                    inherent amenity constraints anticipated for that built form. This is a building certification
                    matter.
                    In this respect, the development continues to achieve the purpose and overall outcomes of
                    the relevant zone and use codes, which recognise that building design must respond to site
                    constraints and approved building typologies, while still providing an acceptable level of
                    amenity commensurate with the nature of the accommodation provided. The marginal
                    reduction in light and airflow does not result in any unacceptable amenity outcome, nor does
                    it conflict with the relevant performance outcomes relating to residential amenity or building
                    functionality.
                    Council Officers have inspected the site following installation of the planters and confirmed
                    that pedestrian access around the building remains functional and unobstructed. Accordingly,
                    the planters do not materially compromise access outcomes or compliance with the relevant
                    performance and overall outcomes.
               Recommendation
               It is recommended existing condition 2 remain unchanged.



                                                                                                          Page 7 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 8

               Existing 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.


               Applicant’s Request
               The applicant has requested existing condition 5 be amended and replaced with the following
               amended 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
               Assessment of Request
               Refer response to condition 2 above.
               Recommendation
               It is recommended existing condition 5 remain unchanged


               6.     CONSULTATION
               6.1. Referral Agencies
               Not applicable
               6.2. Internal Council Referrals
               Not applicable
               7.     CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
               The constructed development does not comply with the requirements of the planning scheme and
               raises significant issues that cannot be addressed by reasonable and relevant conditions. The
               existing development, with particular reference to the lower ground level section and how it is
               viewed from the northern and southern elevations, is contrary to the outcomes sought as part of
               the original approval. The design ‘solution’ to deliver a landscape planter box was suggested by
               the applicant in 2024 as part of minor change application MCU17/0559.04. While the landscape
               planter does not resolve the extent of non-compliance with regard to site coverage and plot ratio,
               it does screen the lower ground built form and provide for an outcome that is more consistent with
               the original approval. Accordingly, the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
               The report is provided in accordance with Section 83(9) of the Planning Act 2016.
               RECOMMENDATION
               With regard to Application No. MCU17/0559.05 to make a minor change to an existing approval
               for Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Multiple Housing - Type 2 Duplex situated
               at 2/16 Grant St Noosa Heads Qld 4567 and described as Lot 2 SP 326085, Council on 2 June
               2026 decided to:
                A. Refuse to amend condition 2 and 5 for the following reasons:
                    1.      The proposed changes are contrary to Specific Outcome 011, and Overall Outcome (oo)
                            of the Noosa Heads Locality Code of the 2006 Noosa Plan, and Performance Outcome
                            PO13, and Overall Outcomes of (2) (c) (d) of the Medium Density Residential Code of
                            the Noosa Plan 2020.
                            1.1. The subject level does not constitute a basement under either the Noosa Plan
                                 2006 or the Noosa Plan 2020 and must therefore be included in gross floor area
                                 calculations. When included, the development exceeds the acceptable gross floor
                                 area and plot ratio outcomes anticipated under both planning schemes.
                                                                                                    Page 8 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026

Page 9

                            1.2. The resulting development represents an intensity and built form outcome that is
                                 materially greater than that envisaged for the site and surrounding area. The
                                 absence of visual impact does not mitigate the non-compliance with density
                                 controls, which regulate development intensity rather than visibility alone.
                            1.3. The proposed removal of the planter boxes is not warranted, as they are capable
                                 of being reinstated in accordance with the approved development and do not justify
                                 the recharacterisation of the subject level as a basement.
                            1.4. Approval of the proposed amendments would result in an undesirable planning
                                 outcome and precedent by allowing non-complying above-ground floor area to be
                                 excluded from gross floor area calculations, undermining the intent and consistent
                                 application of gross floor area and plot ratio controls under the Planning Scheme.




                                                                                                       Page 9 of 9

Document Set ID: 24630994
Version: 5, Version Date: 02/06/2026