Cover Letter - 35 Walter Hay Dr Noosaville · 132004.5744.11

         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.
               o Vary the level of assessment, recognising that the original application was subject to impact assessment.

On the basis of the above, we consider 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 1.3 dated 11 September,
2020) 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: There are no new uses proposed.

     2. The proposed changes do not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.

          Comment: The proposed minor change applies to the same parcel of land as the current development approval.

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

          Comment: The proposed changes will not dramatically change the intended 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 as a
          retirement village development.

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

          Comment: The changes do not result in the removal of any integral components of the development within the
          Retirement village land use.

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



JFP Ref: M1717P                                                                                                 Page 5