Original source · versioned page text
Cover Letter_Precinct F_CDA_FINAL
Attached to the e-mail 132005.1133.5 - Request to Change Development Approval - Vegetation Management Plans- Noosa Springs Precinct F - Email 1 of 3.
SUNSHINE COAST 9 August 2016 Job Ref: M2652/F Noosa Council By Email: [email protected] Att: Denis Wallace – Coordinator Planning Re: Request for Permissible Change – Development Approval for Material Change of Use – 155 Multiple Dwelling Units and Associated Facilities – Theatre, Restaurant, Shops & Function Rooms over land at Resort Drive, Noosa Heads (Precinct F) and described as Lot 7 on SP178340 (formerly Lot 3 on SP221524) - Council Ref: 132005.1133.3 Dear Denis, On behalf of our client, Altum Constructions, we hereby request a Change to Development Approval (“permissible change”) under section 369 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) in relation to the above development approval granted by Council on 1 November 2011 by Negotiated Decision Notice (ref: 132005.1133) and as modified on 10 March 2016 (ref: 132005.1133.4). The development approval encompasses Precinct F of the Noosa Springs Estate, comprising a site area of 4.26 hectares. This correspondence provides details of the site and approval history, a description of the proposed changes to the approved drawings and conditions, and an assessment of the proposed changes against the relevant requirements of SPA, including a demonstration that the proposal does not constitute “substantially different development”. 1.0 SITE / APPROVAL HISTORY The site forms Precinct F of the Noosa Springs residential community. Master planning for the Noosa Springs locality was undertaken in the 1990s, with the majority of the area now developed for residential and golf course purposes, with associated recreational and community facilities. The subject site and adjoining land to the south (Precinct E2 - Lot 6 on SP178340) form the eastern extremity of the Noosa Springs locality and were historically used for sand quarrying purposes. Precinct F is subject to an existing development approval for Multiple Dwelling comprising 155 Dwelling Units and Associated Facilities (Theatre, Restaurant, Shops and Function Rooms) as part of an integrated resort complex. This approval was recently extended until 1 November 2017 (Ref: 132005.1133.3). A modification to this approval was granted by Council on 10 March 2016 (ref: 132005.1133.4). A separate development application was recently lodged over Precinct E2 for Multiple Dwelling (Type 4 Conventional – 44 Dwelling Units) – Council ref: MCU15/0109. This application is now in the decision stage of IDAS. It is intended to develop Precinct E2 and F in an integrated manner to allow for internal road and pathway connections between the two sites. BRISBANE SUNSHINE COAST CENTRAL QUEENSLAND JFP House 237-239 Bradman Avenue, Maroochydore 59 Goondoon Street, Gladstone 76 Ernest Street, South Brisbane PO Box 6 Maroochydore Qld 4558 PO Box 172, Gladstone Qld 4680 PO Box 3634, South Brisbane Qld 4101 P 07 5443 2500 F 07 5443 4759 P 07 4839 4100 F 07 4972 5444 P 07 3012 0100 F 3846 1959 JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ABN 79 050 414 045 MEMBERSHIPS. UDIA. PCA. PIA. UDAL. SSSI. RPECQ. AILA. WEBSITE. WWW.JFP.COM.AU
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 6 pages
Page 2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The proposed changes to the existing development approval are described in detail in the sections below (refer
enclosed architectural drawings).
2.1 Change to Description of Development
It is proposed to change the description of the development to reflect the amended approval issued on 10 March
2016. The change is required in order to remove the Theatre use from the description of development as this use
is no longer part of the proposal. The new description of development will be as follows:
Material Change of Use – 151 Multiple Dwelling Units and Associated Facilities – Shop, Restaurant, Multi-
Function Room and Gym
2.2 Changes to Approved Drawings
It is proposed to amend the approved drawings as follows:
Reduce the overall number of dwelling units from 155 to 151
Reduce the overall number of persons from 421.4 to 404
Minor increase in overall gross floor area from 17,571m2 to 18,610m2 (note original approved GFA was
21,950m2)
Increase in overall number of carparks from 324 to 337, comprising the following:
- 243 resident carparks (previously 268)
- 88 visitor carparks (previously 50)
- 6 staff carparks (previously 6)
Remove Blocks H & I due to redesign of Blocks D-G and associated driveway and carparking areas
Minor redesign of central communal facilities;
Introduce staging of the development - 10 stages to be broken down as follows:
STAGE BUILDING DWELLING CONFIGURATION
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed
1A Block P - 2 - 2
Block Q - 2 - 2
Block R - 2 - 2
1B Block O 4 6 3 -
1C Block N - 12 - -
1D Block M 2 11 1 -
1E Block L 4 6 3 -
1F Main Resort Facilities - - - -
2 Block A - 6 7 -
3 Secondary Resort Facilities - - - -
4 Block B - 6 7 -
5 Block T - 4 2 -
Block U - 4 4 -
6 Block C - 6 7 -
7 Block S - 14 - -
8 Block D - - 2 -
Block E - - 2 -
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 2
Page 3
9 Block F - - 3 -
Block G - - 2 -
10 Block K - 6 5 -
TOTAL 10 87 48 6
The amended list of approved drawings is detailed in the table below:
DRAWING NO. ISSUE DRAWING NAME DATE
7038-DA01 08 Project Summary 22/07/16
7038-DA03 07 Carparking / Basement 22/07/16
7038-DA04 07 Ground Floor 22/07/16
7038-DA05 06 First Floor 22/07/16
7038-DA06 05 Second Floor 22/07/16
7038-DA07 05 Site Section 22/07/16
7038-DA08 06 Site Section 22/07/16
7038-DA09 09 Indicative Apartment Layouts 22/07/16
7038-DA10 08 Indicative Apartment Layouts 22/07/16
7038-DA11 05 Perspective Sketches 22/07/16
7038-DA12 05 Perspective Sketches 22/07/16
7038-DA13 04 Overall Staging Plan 22/07/16
7038-DA14 03 Finishes Palette 22/07/16
7038-DA15 02 Resort Facilities Floor Plan 22/07/16
7038-DA19 03 Building A Elevations 22/07/16
7038-DA20 03 Building D Elevations 22/07/16
7038-DA21 03 Building O Elevations 22/07/16
7038-DA22 03 Building R Elevations 22/07/16
7038-DA23 03 Building S Elevations 22/07/16
2.3 Changes to Conditions
The proposed changes will require consequential changes to conditions to reflect the amended site layout and
updated building number references. The following conditions will require updating/amending:
Condition 1
We request this condition be amended to allow for full building elevations, including detailed roof plans and
ground level contours to be provided prior to civil operational works. Our client is seeking to obtain upfront
operational works approvals for vegetation clearing and bulk earthworks prior to finalising detailed architectural
drawings and ground level contours.
Condition 2
Update table with amended architectural drawings as detailed under s2.2 above.
Condition 4
This condition requires the communal resort facilities to be built as part of Stage 1. The amended proposal
includes a breakdown of the development into stages, with the resort facilities to be constructed as Stage 1F.
This is due to the need to establish a critical mass of population on the site to ensure viability of the communal
facilities. We note the development approval is for a Multiple Dwelling and not a Resort, as such the requirement
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 3
Page 4
for resort facilities to be constructed upfront prior to anyone residing on the site would be unreasonable and cost
prohibitive. Where the stages are constructed sequentially, Stages 1A-1E will comprise 64 dwelling units, with a
resident population of approximately 158 people. However, we note stages may not necessarily be constructed
sequentially and therefore request the final paragraph of this condition be amended as follows (with changes
shown in bold type):
“Where the development is staged, the common resort facilities must be completed and operational prior
to the commencement of the use of the 64th dwelling unit.”
Condition 8
A colours and finishes palette has been submitted as part of this change request (refer dwg no. 7038-DA14). We
therefore request this condition be amended to reflect the submitted plans so as to not require submission of
further plans prior to commencement of the development.
Condition 12
A revised Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Duke Environmental has been submitted with this change
request. We therefore request this condition be deleted or amended to reflect the submitted BMP.
Condition 20
Given it is now proposed to stage the development, we request that this sunset clause be amended to allow for a
construction timeframe of 10 years. We note the original approval issued in November 2007 had a 10 year
timeframe.
Condition 33
Update to reflect new carparking numbers as per amended architectural drawings, ideally with a breakdown of
resident and visitor parking numbers provided. We note that proposed carparking numbers are in excess of the
minimum requirements for both resident and visitor parking under the Noosa Plan, and that some visitor spaces
may be removed to accommodate site works and stormwater management infrastructure. However, the number
of visitor parking spaces will not drop below the minimum required under the Noosa Plan, being 38 spaces (1 per
4 units).
In light of this, we propose the following condition wording to reflect the proposed carparking and allow some
flexibility to reduce carparking from that shown on the plans where necessary to accommodate essential
infrastructure. Proposed changes to the condition are shown in bold type:
“Carparking shall be provided within the site generally as shown on the approved plans. Carparking shall
include a minimum of 151 covered resident carpark spaces and a minimum of 38 visitor carpark spaces,
including 10 clearly defined disabled carpark spaces. Motorcycle/scooter parking spaces may be
incorporated at a rate of 4 spaces equivalent to 1 car space.”
Condition 52 & 55
We request these conditions be reworded to remove reference to the Tate Professional Engineers drawings and
instead require all internal reticulation sewers and internal private water reticulation mains to be designed and
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 4
Page 5
constructed in accordance with Council’s engineering design standards. Further details can be provided at
operational works/detailed design stage.
Condition 62
Update this condition to refer to the new State Planning Policy.
Condition 72
Amend this condition to remove reference to the Tate Professional Engineers drawing and instead refer to the
approved drawings in relation to waste storage and collection arrangements.
Condition 73
Amend this condition to remove reference to the Starco Developments drawings and instead refer to the
approved architectural drawings in relation to waste storage and collection arrangements.
3.0 ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECTION 367 OF THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009
The proposed changes have been assessed against the requirements of s367 of SPA with respect to the definition
of “permissible change”. In this regard, the following comments are provided:
The proposed changes will not result in a substantially different development (refer Section 3.1 below for
further discussion).
If the application for the proposal were remade including the change, it would not:
o require referral to additional concurrence agencies;
o result in a change to the level of assessment from code to impact (under the approved Master
Plan);
o in our opinion, be likely to cause a person to make a submission objecting to the proposed
change; and
o cause any development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited development.
We therefore contend that this application meets the definition of permissible change and does not require a
new application to be lodged.
3.1 Assessment of Substantially Different Development
Statutory Guideline 06/09: Substantially different development when changing applications and approvals (as
published by the Department of Local Government and Planning, 2009) provides guidance on determining if a
proposed change to a development approval results in a substantially different development.
Although it depends on the individual circumstances of the development, the Guideline provides a list of what
changes may result in substantially different development. These criteria are provided below, along with an
assessment of how the proposal meets each requirement.
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 5
Page 6
1. The proposed changes do not involve a new use with different or additional impacts.
Comment: The overall development is retained as an integrated multiple dwelling development
comprising 151 dwelling units, 4 less units than originally approved, together with minor ancillary
activities including a shop, café/restaurant and communal recreation facilities. There are no new uses
proposed that would create different or additional impacts.
2. The proposed changes do not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.
Comment: The permissible change request applies to the same parcel of land as the current development
approval, albeit the legal description of the property has changed from Lot 3 on SP178323 to Lot 7 on
SP178340.
3. The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
appearance.
Comment: The proposed changes seek to retain the general building layout, with some minor redesign
and re-siting of buildings to ensure efficiency and viability of construction. The overall built form and
scale will remain the same ie. a mix of 2-3 storey buildings with basement carparking, designed to step
down the slope so as to respect the site’s topography and minimise visual impacts.
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 ie. as
an integrated residential/resort 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 from the previous permissible
change approval. Instead, the changes seek to reduce the overall number of units and number of persons
on the site, whilst resulting in a minor increase in overall gross floor area from the previous permissible
change approval. However, the proposed GFA increase in GFA to 18,610m2 remains less than the original
approved GFA of 21,950m2.
6. The proposed changes do not significantly impact on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site.
Comment: The proposal is for 151 dwelling units which is 4 less than the number of dwelling units
originally approved. An overall increase of 13 carparking spaces is proposed, however this is not
anticipated to generate significant impacts on traffic flow or the existing road network beyond what was
already anticipated under the existing development approval.
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 6
Page 7
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
was already anticipated and addressed under the existing development approval. A revised Bushfire
Management Plan has been prepared to address the risk of bushfire in accordance with current
standards.
8. The proposed changes do not remove an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a
negative impact of the development.
Comment: The proposed changes do not remove any incentive or offset component that was considered
under the existing development approval.
9. The proposed changes do not impact on infrastructure provision, location or demand.
Comment: The proposed changes result in a reduced density compared with the existing approval and will
therefore not create any increased demand on infrastructure.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed changes to Precinct F, Noosa Springs are considered to meet the test of “permissible change” under
SPA and will not result in substantially different development to the existing approval. The changes are limited in
scope to minor redesign of buildings, reduction in overall dwelling units and population density, and minor
increase in gross floor area and carparking. The proposal will continue to function as an integrated resort facility.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with Council to further discuss the proposed changes if necessary.
Should you require any further information or wish to arrange a meeting, please contact Leanne Simpson via
phone or email to [email protected] faithfully,
LEANNE SIMPSON
Senior Planner
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
ENCL: Architectural Drawings prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design
Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Duke Environmental
Vegetation Management Plan prepared by JFP Urban Consultants
CC: Altum Constructions
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 7