Council archive · source document
Cover Letter_Precinct F_CDA_FINAL · 132005.1133.7
Attached to the e-mail Change Application - 132005.1133.7 (1 of 6).
SUNSHINE COAST 24 November 2017 Job Ref: M2652/F Noosa Council By Email: [email protected] Att: Patrick Murphy – Coordinator Planning Re: Change Application (‘Minor 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 Lots 6 & 7 on SP178340 (formerly Lot 3 on SP221524) - Council Ref: 132005.1133.6 Dear Patrick, On behalf of our client, Altum Constructions, we hereby request a Change to Development Approval (“minor change”) under section 78 of the Planning Act 2016 (PA2016) in relation to the above development approval granted by Council on 1 November 2011 by Negotiated Decision Notice (ref: 132005.1133) and as most recently modified on 21 September 2017 (ref: 132005.1133.6). This correspondence provides details of the site and approval history, a description of the proposed changes to the approved drawings and conditions. It includes an assessment of the proposed changes against the relevant requirements of PA2016 and the Development Assessment Rules including an assessment that the proposed change represents a minor change and 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 145 Dwelling Units and Associated Facilities (Shop, Restaurant, Multi-Function Room and Gym). This approval has been the subject of a number of amendments, with the most recent modification to the approval granted by Council on 21 September 2017 (refer 132005.1133.6). Conditions of this approval include a sunset date of 15 December 2026, at which time the uncompleted aspect of the approval lapse if the whole of the approval has not happened. There is a separate development approval over the adjacent Precinct E2 for a Multiple Dwelling (Type 4 Conventional – 37 Units) – Council Ref: MCU15/0109, which was issued by way of Negotiated Decision Notice dated 22 September 2017. It is intended to develop Precinct E2 and F in an integrated matter to allow for internal road and pathway connections between the two sites. We note that Council has issued a Development Permit for Reconfiguration 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 originalFull text of the other 14 pages
Page 2
of a Lot (to facilitate the creation of up to 26 balance lots) which further reinforces the staged and integrated
manner within which these development approvals will be delivered (Council Ref. REC17/0022).
In light of the changes outlined herein, it is advised that a separate (yet concurrent) Change Application (“minor
change”) has been lodged over Precinct E2. It is noted that the changes to the Precinct E2 and F approvals will
also require minor amendments to the reconfiguration approval.
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 proposed reduction in dwelling unit
numbers anticipated by this permissible change request. The new description of development will be as follows:-
Material Change of Use – 137 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 145 to 137;
Amend the overall number of persons from 426.5 to 425.6. This proposed density remains consistent
with the anticipated density under the Noosa Plan of 100 persons / hectare (i.e. 4.262ha x 100 = 426.2
persons);
Minor increase in overall gross floor area from 20.046.5m2 (nb. previous approved plans denote a total
GFA of 19,531.5m2 – we note that there is a minor discrepancy in the calculation of areas for unit type 18
in these plans) to 20,083m2 (nb. the original approved GFA was 21,950m2);
Minor redesign of central communal facilities, wherein such changes are generally contained to the
arrangement of ‘back of house’ servicing facilities, with no significant changes to either the scale or the
external appears of the built form;
Rationalisation of pedestrian networks across the development;
Minor amendments to the driveway and parking arrangements in the southern part of the site to achieve
access arrangements and reflect other changes proposed in Precinct E2. It is recognised that the
amendments to the driveway will also necessitate a consequential amendment to the approval over the
adjacent Precinct E2 (Council Ref: MCU15/0109). As indicated in section 1.0 of this correspondence
above, a separate (yet concurrent) Change Application has been lodged over Precinct E2 reflecting a
corresponding change to the driveway arrangement. We note that this will also require an amendment
to the reconfiguration approval (e.g. reciprocal access easements between Precinct F & E2);
Minor amendments to the orientation of unit blocks 13 and 14 to increase the efficiency of the layout and
function of these buildings;
Introduction of a new 3 bedroom unit type into Block 14 and 3 new unit types into Block 2;
Minor variations to the building heights generally as follows:-
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 2
Page 3
o Block 3 – the height of this building has been increased by approximately 350mm generally as a
consequence of minor changes to the floor to floor heights of individual levels of the building.
The purpose of this change in floor to floor heights was to introduce greater acoustic treatment
between levels. Notwithstanding this change, the overall building height remains below 12m;
o Blocks 16 and 17 – the floor to ceiling heights of individual levels has increased slightly for these
units blocks, however the overall height remains under the maximum RL approved (i.e. RL44.7)
under the most recent change approval. This is achieved by a minor change to the roof pitch for
these buildings;
o Block 20 – the overall height of this building has marginally increased as a consequence of
associated proposed civil works, wherein the upper level of the building has been shifted to align
with the level of adjacent driveway to facilitate convenient and pedestrian access to the
dwellings;
Minor amendments to the staging of the development to generally align with anticipated construction
and titling program of delivery. Notwithstanding the proposed staging amendments, these have been
notated for identification purposes only. The order of construction of individual stages has not been
confirmed. Our client is seeking to retain flexibility in the approval conditions to allow stages to proceed
individually, simultaneously or not in sequential order.
The proposed new dwelling configuration for individual stages can be summarised as follows:-
CTS PHASE BUILDING DWELLING CONFIGURATION
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed(+) Sub-Total (No. of
Dwellings)
101 Block 15 - - 11 11
100 102 Block 16 - - 11 11
103 Block 17 - - 11 11
201 Block 7 - 2 2 4
200 202 Block 8 - 2 2 4
203 Block 9 - 2 2 4
301 Block 3 - - 11 11
300
302 Block 4 - - 9 9
Main - - - -
400 401 Communal
Facilities
501 Block 5 3 4 8 15
500
502 Block 6 4 1 8 13
600 601 Block 22 - - 11 11
700 701 Block 2 - 6 7 13
801 Block 13 - - 6 6
800
802 Block 14 - - 5 5
901 Block 18 - - 2 2
902 Block 19 - - 2 2
900
903 Block 20 - - 3 3
904 Block 21 - - 2 2
TOTAL 7 17 113 137
As requested during a meeting with Council officers on 24 October 2017, to assist in Councils assessment of the
application, a comparison of the proposed amendment against both the original approval and the most recently
modified approval is provided in the table below:-
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 3
Page 4
Criteria Original Approval Current Approval Proposal
(September 2007) (September 2017) (November 2017)
Population Density 356.4 persons 426.5 persons 425.6 persons
Unit Mix Building 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed
Block 15 - - 11 - - 11
Block 16 - - 11 - - 11
Block 17 - - 11 - - 11
Block 7 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 8 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 9 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 3 4 2 7 - - 11
Block 4 - 6 6 - - 9
Communal - - - - - -
Facilities
48 87 20
Block 5 2 6 6 3 4 8
Block 6 4 2 7 4 1 8
Block 22 - - 11 - - 11
Block 2 - 10 4 - 6 7
Block 13 - 4 4 - - 6
Block 14 - 4 2 - - 5
Block 18 - - 2 - - 2
Block 19 - - 2 - - 2
Block 20 - - 3 - - 3
Block 21 - - 2 - - 2
TOTAL 48 87 20 10 40 95 7 17 113
Gross Building Gross Floor Area (approx.) Gross Floor Area (approx.) Gross Floor Area (approx.)
Floor Area Block 15 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 16 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 17 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 7 595sqm 595sqm
Block 8 595sqm 595sqm
Block 9 595sqm 595sqm
Block 3 1,343sqm 1,221sqm
Block 4 1,242sqm 1,341sqm
Communal Units = 20,609sqm 612sqm 600sqm
Facilities
Block 5 Community Facilities = 1,429sqm 1,447.5sqm
Block 6 1,341sqm 1,343sqm 1,343sqm
Block 22 1,326.5sqm 1,326.5sqm
Block 2 1,442sqm 1,469sqm
Block 13 952sqm 894sqm
Block 14 682sqm 766sqm
Block 18 426sqm 426sqm
Block 19 426sqm 426sqm
Block 20 653sqm 653sqm
Block 21 436sqm 436sqm
TOTAL 21,950sqm 20,046.5sqm 20,083sqm
Car Building Covered Uncovered Covered Uncovered Covered Uncovered
Parking Block 15 23 27
Block 16 86 20 23 16 27 16
Block 17 23 23
Block 7 6 6
134 21 2 2
Block 8 6 6
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 4
[OCR of page images]
RUA
URBANCONSULTANTS
Criteria (eye rel wave) eed] Celaciw@e\s) eel | Proposal
| tAYet el Clu] t-1ay 400A tAYeye) Clin] tay 40 8 (November 2017)
Population Density 356.4 persons 426.5 persons 425.6 persons
Unit Mix Building 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed
Block 15 - - 11 - - 11
Block 16 - - 11 - - 11
Block 17 - - 11 - - 11
Block 7 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 8 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 9 - 2 2 - 2 2
Block 3 4 2 7 - - 11
Block 4 - 6 6 - - 9
Communal - - - - - -
Facilities
Block 5 48 87 20 2 6 6 3 4 8
Block 6 4 2 7 4 1 8
Block 22 - - 11 - - 11
Block 2 - 10 4 - 6 7
Block 13 - 4 4 - - 6
Block 14 - 4 2 - - 5
Block 18 - - 2 - - 2
Block 19 - - 2 - - 2
Block 20 - - 3 - - 3
Block 21 - - 2 - - 2
TOTAL 48 87 20 10 40 95 7 17 113
Gross Building Gross Floor Area (approx.) Gross Floor Area (approx.) Gross Floor Area (approx.)
Floor Area | Block 15 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 16 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 17 1,983sqm 1,983sqm
Block 7 595sqm 595sqm
Block 8 595sqm 595sqm
Block 9 595sqm 595sqm
Block 3 1,343sqm 1,221sqm
Block 4 1,242sqm 1,341sqm
Communal Units = 20,609sqm 612sqm 600sqm
Facilities
Block 5 Community Facilities = 1,429sqm 1,447.5sqm
Block 6 1,341sqm 1,343sqm 1,343sqm
Block 22 1,326.5sqm 1,326.5sqm
Block 2 1,442sqm 1,469sqm
Block 13 952sqm 894sqm
Block 14 682sqm 766sqm
Block 18 426sqm 426sqm
Block 19 426sqm 426sqm
Block 20 653sqm 653sqm
Block 21 436sqm 436sqm
TOTAL 21,950sqm 20,046.5sqm 20,083sqm
Car Building Covered Uncovered Covered Uncovered Covered Uncovered
Parking Block 15 23 27
Block 16 86 20 23 16 27 16
Block 17 23 23
Block 7 6 6
Block 8 134 at 6 2 6 2
JFP Ref: M2652/F
Page
Page 5
Criteria Original Approval Current Approval Proposal
(September 2007) (September 2017) (November 2017)
Block 9 6 6
Block 3 16 19
15 15
Block 4 13 18
Communal
- 18 - 19
Facilities
Block 5 18 20
17 17
Block 6 16 18
Block 2 23 - 19 -
Block 14 13
24 2 2 26 4
Block 13 19
Block 22 20 - 20 -
Block 18 4 4
Block 19 21 12 4 4
26 18
Block 20 6 6
Block 21 4 4
TOTAL 265 55 243 94 253 92
Notes:
− Given that the building references from the original approval to the current proposal (and existing approval) have
changed over time, for the purposes of this assessment, the following alignment of building references has been
adopted:-
Current Proposal (Existing Approval) Adopted (equivalent) Building References
Building References from Original Approval
Blocks 15, 16 & 17 Blocks A, B and C
Blocks 2 – 9 (inclusive) and Communal Blocks L to S (inclusive)
Facilities
Blocks 13 & 14 Blocks T, U, V & W
Blocks 18 – 22 (inclusive) Blocks D – K (inclusive)
− The car parking comparison provided relates to numbers of spaces denoted on architectural plans (for the original
approval, the current approval and the proposed new architectural plans) rather than number of spaces required by the
planning scheme (as applicable at the time of approval).
− Notwithstanding the comparative assessment above, we contend that a direct comparison of the current proposal (and
existing approval) against the original approval is unable to be undertaken given that the built form across the site is not
intended in the exact same location as the original building siting.
The list of approved drawings to be updated to incorporate the following plans:
DRAWING NO. ISSUE DRAWING NAME DATE
7038-DA01 12 Altum Constructions Masterplan Noosa Springs Resort 03-11-17
7038-DA03 10 Car parking / Basement 29-09-17
7038-DA04 11 Ground Floor 29-09-17
7038-DA05 10 First Floor 29-09-17
7038-DA06 10 Second Floor 03-11-17
7038-DA07 08 Site Section 29-09-17
7038-DA08 09 Site Section 29-09-17
7038-DA09 14 Indicative Apartment Layouts 29-09-17
7038-DA10 12 Indicative Apartment Layouts 29-09-17
7038-DA11 08 Perspective Sketches 29-09-17
7038-DA12 08 Perspective Sketches 29-09-17
7038-DA13 07 Overall Staging Plan 29-09-17
7038-DA14 06 Finishes Palette 29-09-17
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 5
Page 6
DRAWING NO. ISSUE DRAWING NAME DATE
7038-DA15 06 Resort Facilities Floor Plan 29-09-17
7038-DA16 05 Facilities Elevations 29-09-17
7038-DA17 03 Indicative Apartment Layouts 29-09-17
7038-DA19 06 Building 15 Elevations 29-09-17
7038-DA20 06 Block 18 Elevations 29-09-17
7038-DA21 06 Building 3 Elevations 29-09-17
7038-DA23 06 Block 2 Elevations 29-09-17
7038-DA25 03 Block 18 Sections 29-09-17
7088_A01-10_04 04 CTS 400 Site Plan – Level 1 03-10-17
7088_A01-21_B B CTS 100 Site Plan – Level 1 03-10-17
7088_A01-31_B B CTS 300 Site Plan – Level 1 03-10-17
7088_02-01_11 11 Facilities Building Level 1 – Floor Plan 03-10-17
7088_02-02_10 10 Facilities Building – Roof Plan 03-10-17
7088_A02-30_C C Block 15 Basement Level – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-31_D D Block 15 Level 1 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-32_D D Block 15 Level 2 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-33_D D Block 15 Level 3 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-34_C C Block 15 – Roof Plan 04-09-17
7098_A02-01_F F Block 3 Basement Level – Floor Plan 03-10-17
7098_A02-02_E E Block 3 Level 1 – Floor Plan 03-10-17
7088_A02-03_D D Block 3 Level 2 – Floor Plan 03-10-17
7098_A02-04_E E Block 3 Level 3 – Floor Plan 03-10-17
7098_A02-05_C C Block 3 – Roof Plan 03-10-17
7088_A02-90_C C Block 16 Basement Level – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-91_D D Block 16 Level 1 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-92_D D Block 16 Level 2 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-93_D D Block 16 Level 3 – Floor Plan 04-09-17
7088_A02-94_C C Block 16 – Roof Plan 04-09-17
7088_A04-01_07 07 Elevations 03-10-17
7088_A04-10_D D Block 15 - Elevations 04-09-17
7088_A04-11_D D Block 15 - Elevations 04-09-17
7098_A04-01_D D Block 3 - Elevations 03-10-17
7098_A04-02_D D Block 3 - Elevations 03-10-17
7088_A04-30_D D Block 16 - Elevations 04-09-17
7088_A04-31_D D Block 16 - Elevations 04-09-17
7088_05-01_06 06 Sections 03-10-17
7088_A05-10_C C Block 15 - Sections 04-09-17
7088_A05-15_C C Block 16 - Elevations 04-09-17
7088_A017_04_02 02 Parkridge Terrace 15 29-09-17
7088_A017_05_02 02 Parkridge Terrace 15 29-09-17
2.3 Changes to Conditions
The proposed changes will require consequential changes to conditions to reflect the amended site layout,
proposed staging amendments and updated building number references. The following conditions will require
updating/amending (please note, requested additions to conditions are notated in bold text and deletions
notated by way of strikethrough):
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 6
Page 7
Condition 1
We request that this condition be amended to reflect the compliant population density now provided by way of
the amended plans, and it is respectfully requested that this condition be amended to read as follows:-
1. Prior to the issue of an operational works approval for civil works for each stage of the development, fully
detailed architectural proposal plans relevant to each stage must be submitted for Council approval.
Detailed plans must provide the following details as a minimum:
1.1. Full architectural building elevations;
1.2. Detailed roof plans and ground level contours demonstrating compliance with the development’s
8m/12m building height limits above natural and finished ground levels;
1.3. Landscaping areas demonstrating compliance with Condition 5 herein
1.4. The location of proposed stormwater management/treatment devices;
1.5. Consistency with all management plans for the development;
1.6. Building colour schemes demonstrating compliance with Condition 8 herein; &
1.7. Vehicle manoeuvring areas and temporary turning provisions.
1.8. Plans demonstrating compliance with the allowable population density of 426.2 persons.
Condition 2
Update table with amended architectural drawings as detailed under s2.2 above.
Condition 4
The current wording of this condition is somewhat ambiguous as to when the common resort facilities are to be
completed and operational. As per previous discussions with Council, and as reflected in the previous Council
assessment report (i.e. Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda of 6 December 2016) it is requested
that this condition be amended as follows to require that the facilities be constructed and operational prior to the
commencement of use of the 64th dwelling unit:-
4 The ancillary shop, restaurant/cafe, multi-function room, gym and other ancillary facilities shall be operated
and maintained as a Resort. A letting pool service promoting and managing short term accommodation
must also be established on site and made available to all owners of multiple dwelling units. The community
management statement for any or all bodies corporate having control of the Resort or any part thereof shall
incorporate this condition. Where the development is staged, the common resort facilities must be
completed and operational as part of the first stage or after construction prior to the commencement of
use of the 64th Unit.
An extract of Council’s assessment report from 6 December 2016 is reproduced for convenience in support of the
requested change to Condition 4:-
Assessment
The nature and extent of the resort facilities has been reduced since the original approval issued in 2007.
This original approval was for a Resort of 155 units and associated facilities (including a Theatre,
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 7
Page 8
Restaurant, Shops & Function Rooms) however, the associated facilities were significantly reduced as part
of the 2016 changes application with the theatre and function rooms components removed. This changes
application also reduced the size of the remaining common facilities including pool with the reference to
resort limited to conditions of approval.
The applicant submits that the approved use is not of a resort with the approved use relating to a multiple
dwelling. The previous and current changes application further reinforces this aspect with a reduction in
the number of one bedroom units and an increase in the number of two and three bedroom units on site.
It is noted also that the Noosa Plan does not seek to limit the site’s use to only a resort, with allowance for
a multiple dwelling on the site. Many of the resorts facilities such as the golf course, club house and spa,
tennis courts as intended by the original plan of development are also located opposite the site under
separate ownership.
The current condition requires the common facilities to be completed and operational as part of the first
stage. The request to change to the 64th unit is considered reasonable and ensures that the facilities will
be constructed almost halfway through the development.
Condition 8
An updated colours and finishes palette has been submitted as part of this change request (refer dwg no. 7038-
DA14 dated 29-09). We therefore request this condition be amended to reflect the amended plan, as follows:-
8 The development’s external colour scheme shall use muted environmental tones of browns, greens and
greys to integrate the development with its landscape setting and ensure the development does not visually
impact on the vegetated skyline. All buildings shall utilise the finishes palette detailed on Plan 7038- DA14
Issue 05 Dated 06.06.2017 06 Dated 29-09-17. The use of paint finish Taubmans Tahira White is to be
minimised.
Condition 33
It is requested that this condition be amended to reflect new car parking numbers triggered by the proposed new
unit mix as reflected on the amended architectural plans. We note that proposed car parking numbers are in
excess of the minimum requirements for both resident and visitor parking under the Noosa Plan, as reflected in
the following table:-
Covered Uncovered TOTAL
Existing approval – existing condition 33 205 56 261
Changes Application – car parking detailed on amended architectural plans 253 92 335
Noosa Plan (July 2017) requirements – based on proposed new unit mix 250 35 285
reflected on amended architectural plans
In addition to the number of carparks triggered for the proposed units identified in the table above, an additional
6 car spaces are also intended to be allocated for staff parking.
Based on the above, there is an overall surplus in car spaces (circa 51 uncovered car spaces) anticipated by the
development, and it is requested that the opportunity be provided that these surplus car spaces be able to be
allocated to individual units by the developer, as exclusive use spaces. This would increase the marketability of
units without adversely impacting upon visitor parking arrangements across the development.
In light of this, it is requested that this condition be amended to read:-
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 8
Page 9
5. Carparking shall be provided within the site generally as shown on the approved plans. All at grade
carparking shown on the approved plans must be maintained in common property and available to all units.
Carparking shall include 261 285 carpark spaces with 205 250 of these to be covered carpark spaces, and
include 10 clearly defined disabled carpark spaces for the unit component of the development. Five
carparking spaces for staff in addition to resident and visitor spaces are to be provided on site.
Motorcycle/scooter parking spaces may be incorporated at a rate of 4 spaces equivalent to 1 car space
Condition 47
This condition currently requires no net increase in 1 year ARI peak stormwater flows from the site at any stage of
the development. As discussed through the detailed design process, and associated operational works package
associated with the development, there is a minor net increase in the 1 year ARI event from the site of 0.08m3/s.
This increase is considered minor when compared to the total site 1 year ARI event flow of 1.709m3/2.
Although there is a minor increase in flow, it should be noted that the site is 51% impervious which is generally in
keeping with the 50% imperviousness assumed in the master drainage plan report for the site. The pipe drainage
infrastructure in Resort Drive and the stormwater property connections to the site have been designed for the
minor (10 year ARI) storm events so that the minor net increase in the 1 year ARI can be accommodate without
negatively impacting the existing drainage infrastructure. Furthermore, the minor increase in the 1 year ARI Flow
from the site will be mitigated by the storage provided within the extensive pipe network, bio-retention basins
and swales within the site.
In light of the above, it is requested that Condition 47 be amended to read:-
47. All stormwater drainage shall be managed so that:
a) there is no net increase in 1 year ARI peak stormwater flows from the site at any stage of the
development; and
b) the discharge of stormwater from construction or completed stages of the site does not affect the
approved design residence time of the Noosa Springs Golf Course lake system.
Condition 64 and Advisory Notes 1, 2 and 11
It is requested that condition 64 be amended to reflect the current rates that would apply (at the time of issue of
a decision in relation to the proposed Change Application) to the proposed new mix of units and overall reduction
in yield. We note that consequential amendments to Advisory Notes 1, 2 and 11 will also be required.
Condition 72
We note that there appears to be a minor formatting issue with this condition in terms of numbering that is
suggested should be rectified.
Condition 81
We note that there appears to be a minor formatting issue with this condition (i.e. dot point) that we suggest
could be rectified through this Change Application.
Condition 83
This condition requires that a Noise Management Plan be prepared to deal with noise emissions associated with
the common resort facilities, wherein such strategies comply with an acoustic report prepared by Ron Rumble Pty
Ltd and dated 2006. We note that the Ron Rumble Pty Ltd report was prepared for and supported the original
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 9
Page 10
approval over the site which incorporated resort facilities of a scale and form that were more significant than the
scale of the current approved common resort facilities. It is understood that this reduction in scale has previously
been acknowledged by Council. The gross floor area of the proposed Community facilities has now reduced from
approximately 1,341sqm (as originally approved) to (circa) 600sqm.
To advise prospective purchases of the particular noise control features that have been implemented into the
design of individual apartments is an onerous requirement given the small scale of the facilities now proposed.
Acoustic mitigation measures can be readily incorporated into the required noise management plan. We can
confirm that a noise management plan is currently being prepared to this effect and is anticipated as being
provided to Council under separate cover.
As such, it is requested that:-
clause 83.3 be amended to require the prospective purchasers be advised of the noise management plan to
manage potential noise emissions associated with the development;
the cross referencing error in clause 83.4 be amended; and
the noise control measures identified in clause 83.1 may not all necessarily be required to achieve
appropriate acoustic levels, and this should be reflected in the drafting of this condition.
In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that this condition be amended as follows:-
83 The development shall comply with the noise management strategies contained in the report prepared by
Ron Rumble Pty Ltd and dated November 2006, with the following additional details to be provided prior to
issue of Operational Works to the reasonable satisfaction of Manger, Environmental Health:-
83.1 The necessary and appropriate noise control measures incorporated into the façade of the
apartments and within the restaurant. These measures should may include:
83.1.1 Upgraded glazing and air-conditioning to the potentially affected apartments, and which
apartments;
83.1.2 Strategically placed wing walls on balconies to screen the apartment and balconies from
alfresco dining areas;
83.1.3 The possibility of a roof over the outdoor dining area with absorption to the underside
should be explored;
83.1.4 Revised hours of operation to no later than midnight;
83.2 Formulate and implement a Noise Management Plan to deal with noise emissions from the
premises including patron noise.
83.3 Prospective purchasers of the apartments to be advised of the noise control features, which have
been incorporated into the design of the apartments and the hours of operation of the adjacent
restaurantThe applicant must advise prospective purchasers that a noise management plan has
been prepared to manage noise emissions related to the development.
83.4 The Noise Management Plan referred to in Condition 82.1.4 83.2 shall be incorporated in
perpetuity in the By-Laws of the Body Corp for the building.
83.5 The Noise Management Plan shall include a process for dealing with complaints and specify that
the Restaurant Management and Body Corp Manager be responsible for dealing with any noise
complaints.
Condition 96
It is noted that this condition has been introduced as a consequence of the most recent change approval, and we
note that previous representations were made that this condition should be either deleted or amended to allow
structures and / or swimming pools in the rear 2 metres of these blocks. We maintain our previous position, and
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 10
Page 11
reiterate that this has significant design implications for these buildings as well as will adversely impact on the
area of useable outdoor open space for future occupants of these units.
As reflected in the approved plans of development, there are only 6 plunge pools intended along the rear of these
blocks, each of which have been intentionally sited to ensure a seamless integration into the overall design of the
development, whilst also achieving a high quality presentation to the adjacent Resort Drive.
It is understood that Council imposed the requirement that no structures or swimming pools are to be located
within a 2m landscape setback primarily to ensure that existing vegetation (including koala food trees) along the
Resort Drive frontage are retained. The proposed development achieves this landscape outcome without the
need to setback pools and structures an additional 2 metres. In particular, a significant number of trees will be
retained along the Resort Drive frontage as required by conditions 5.5 and 6 of the most recent decision notices.
An updated Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared (refer attached) which demonstrates the
number of trees able to be retained, subject to arborist certification during the detailed engineering phase of the
project. As reflected in the VMP “tree protection zones” and a “tree protection fence” are proposed to delineate
those trees anticipated as being retained, the majority of which are generally clear of the construction zone for
the plunge swimming pools and boundary fences. Of those trees that are nominated as being removed by the
VMP, they are generally located within the areas of private open space for units 7, 8 & 9 and sited such that they
would significantly impede on the usability of those spaces. It is understood that buffer planting is intended to be
provided along Resort Drive in proximity of where trees are anticipated as being removed.
In addition, in respect of trees proposed to be retained, where it is practical to do so directional drilling
techniques will be utilised to construct utility services along Resort Drive, to ensure tree retention.
To assist Council’s assessment of the proposed change to condition 96, the following information will be
submitted under separate cover:-
Arboricultural assessment of trees to be retained;
Landscape Concept Plan demonstrating landscaping outcomes along the site frontage and within the private
open space of Blocks 7 – 9.
In addition to the above, it is proposed to maintain the opportunity for occasional pedestrian access to the rear of
Blocks 7, 8 & 9 for garden and pool maintenance only. The proposed restriction to access to Resort Drive will be
included within the Community Management Statement for the development.
We therefore request that this condition be amended to read as follows:-
96 The rear 2 metres of Blocks 7, 8 and 9 is to be extensively landscaped and no structures or swimming pools
are to be located in these areas. No access is to be Access, where provided from the rear of these Blocks
7, 8 and 9 to Resort Drive, is limited to garden and pool maintenance access only. No vehicular access is
permitted.
3.0 ASSESSMENT AGAINST PROVISIONS OF PLANNING ACT 2016
Further to the provisions of s78(1) of the PA2016, and in accordance with Schedule 2 of the PA2016, it is
recognised that a “minor change” is defined as follows:-
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 11
Page 12
minor change means a change that—
(b) for a development approval—
(i) would not result in substantially different development; and
(ii) if a development application for the development, including the change, were made when
the change application is made would not cause—
(A) the inclusion of prohibited development in the application; or
(B) referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were no
referral agencies for the development application; or
(C) referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
(D) a referral agency to assess the application against, or have regard to, 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 was not required for the development
application.
With regard to the above, we can confirm that the proposed changes constitute a “minor 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 Facilitate the introduction of prohibited forms of development ;
o Require referral to additional referral agencies. We note that the original application was
referred to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines for matters pertaining to Acid Sulfate
Soils (Advice) and Clearing of Vegetation (Concurrence);
o Vary the level of assessment, recognising that the original application was subject to impact
assessment.
On the basis of the above, we contend that this application meets the definition of a minor change.
3.1 Assessment of Substantially Different Development
Schedule 1: Substantially different development of the Development Assessment Rules (Version 1.1 dated 11
August 2017) 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 Development Assessment Rules
provides a list of changes that may result in substantially different development. These criteria are provided
below, along with an assessment of how the proposal meets each requirement.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a new use.
Comment: The overall development is retained as an integrated multiple dwelling development, now
comprising 137 dwelling units together with minor ancillary activities including a shop, café/restaurant
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 12
Page 13
and communal recreation facilitates. There are no new uses proposed that would create different or
additional impacts.
The proposed amended development is therefore not anticipated as having different or additional
impacts to that which has previously assessed and determined as appropriate.
2. The proposed changes do not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.
Comment: The majority of changes relate to the same parcel of land as the current development
approval. However, there is a minor realignment of the proposed internal private road to facilitate the
construction of the maintenance building within the adjacent Precinct E2 (which is also the subject of a
concurrent minor change application). Whilst the proposal apples to both the existing parcel and a new
parcel of land (albeit a minor part), it is considered that this of itself does not make the development
“substantially different development”. We contend that, having regard to the individual circumstances,
the inclusion of an additional land parcel does not result in substantially different development, based on
the following:
No change to external access to the site is proposed.
Inclusion of the additional land relates only relates to a minor realignment of a private road to
improve circulation and to accommodate the new maintenance building within adjacent Precinct
E2.
A separate but concurrent Minor Change application has been lodged with Council in respect of
Precinct E2 to ensure the new internal road alignment is consistent between the two precincts.
The amended private road alignment will be reflected in future access easements associated with the
related reconfiguration approval which was issued by Council on 11 November 2017.
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 vary the unit mix to meet market demands and achieve construction
efficiency. The overall built form and scale will remain the same i.e. 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 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 from the previous permissible
change approval. Instead, the changes seek to reduce the overall number of units, whilst resulting in a
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 13
Page 14
minor increase in overall gross floor area from the previous permissible change approval. However, the
proposed GFA increase in GFA to 20,083m2 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: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes result in an overall
reduction in density and as such are not anticipated as generating significant 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
was already 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 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: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes result in a reduction
in density that fully complies with the provisions of the planning scheme and as such are not anticipated
as having any increased demand on infrastructure to the existing approval.
4.0 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. The changes
are limited in scope to minor redesign of buildings, reduction in overall dwelling units, and minor increase in gross
floor area and car parking. The proposal will continue to function as an integrated residential 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 our office on (07) 5450
3900.
Yours faithfully,
GRAEME BEWS
Associate Director – Planning and Urban Design
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 14
Page 15
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
ENCL: Amended Architectural Drawings prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design
Updated Vegetation Management Plan prepared by Anembo Consultants
CC: Altum Constructions
JFP Ref: M2652/F Page 15
Used in these records
Cover Letter_Precinct F_CDA_FINAL.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 846 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.