NSC_Minor Change_Cover Letter_20260624 · 132005.1133.17

      3. The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance.

         Comment: The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form, as there is no change to the
         proposed GFA of the existing Block 14. The proposed conversion of tearoom and storeroom spaces to
         residential use does not change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance.

      4. The proposed changes do not change the ability of the proposal to operate as intended.

         Comment: The proposed changes will not affect the ability of the proposal to operate as intended i.e. as
         an integrated residential community.

      5. The proposed changes do not remove a component that is integral to the operation of the development.

         Comment: The proposed changes do not seek to remove any components that are integral to the operation
         of the development. The tearoom provided an ancillary function that is not critical to the operation of the
         development as a primarily residential development with some mixed use components.

      6. The proposed changes do not significantly impact on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
         increasing traffic to the site.

         Comment: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes will not generate
         impacts on traffic flow or the existing road network beyond what was already anticipated under the existing
         development approval.

      7. The proposed changes do not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts.

         Comment: The proposed changes do not introduce any new impacts or increase any known impacts in
         relation to environmental values, bushfire hazard or landslide risk nor visual impacts beyond that which were
         anticipated and addressed under the existing development approval.

      8. The proposed changes do not remove an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative
         impact of the development.

         Comment: The approved development did not involve any incentives or offsets.

      9. The proposed changes do not impact on infrastructure provision, location or demand.

         Comment: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes are not anticipated as
         having any increased demand on infrastructure as provisioned in the existing approval.

3.0      CONCLUSION

The proposed changes to Precinct F, Noosa Springs are considered to meet the test of “minor change” under the
Planning Act 2016 and will not result in substantially different development to the existing approval.



 JFP Ref: M2652/F                                                                                           Page 10