Minor Change Request

Page 2

•   Adjustment to service and mechanical plant areas to reflect detailed design.
•   Bicycle parking relocated

Level 1
• Adjustment of tenancy areas to reflect tenant requirements, including relocation of radiation bunker from
   level 1 to ground level.
• New lower roof line above the relocated bunker area.
• Southern plant deck relocated from above roof to above car parks similar to northern plan deck.
• Additional carpark achieved.
• A new landscape planter has been added between carparks and void area.

Northern elevation
• Changed to reflect changed floor plans, including relocation of radiation bunker from level 1 to ground
    level.

Gross Floor Area
• Increased from 3,899m2 to 3,913m2 as supported by provision of 1 additional car park.

In addition to the changed design plans, a change to the following conditions is requested:

Condition 2 – Update to reflect new plan numbers.

Condition 4 – request deletion

Condition 4 limits the number of practitioners of site to 63 at any one time. A condition limiting the number of
practitioners was imposed with the original approval on the basis of the planning scheme requirement at that
time for carparking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 20m2 or 3 per practitioner. Under the current
Noosa Plan 2020 there is no longer any reference to practitioners, with the car parking requirements simply
based on 1 space per 20m2. As there is no longer any limitation on the number of practitioners based on car
parking provision under the current Noosa Plan 2020, deletion of this condition is requested.


MINOR CHANGE ASSESSMENT
The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change for a development approval as a change to the approval that
would not result in a substantially different development.

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 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.
    •   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.

Page 3

    •   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   The proposed changes will not result in
        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.

The original application did not trigger any referral agency assessment and no referral agency assessment is
now triggered with the changes.


CONSISTENCY 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.

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.

Comment: The original application was lodged and approved under the superseded Noosa Plan 2006. The
proposed design changes remain consistent with the provisions of the superseded Noosa Plan 2006.

The proposed changes have also been considered against the relevant sections of the current Noosa Plan
2020, being the Noosaville Local Plan, Major Centre Zone, Business Activities & relevant works codes. The
proposed changes do not conflict with any provisions of the Noosa Plan.

The development remains consistent with all planning scheme outcomes.

Page 4

CONCLUSION
The proposed change does not compromise the intent of the original approval and continues to comply with
the provisions of the Noosa Plan 2020.

Approval of the minor change is warranted.


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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]