Cover Letter - 35 Walter Hay Dr Noosaville · 132004.5744.11

          Comment: The proposed changes do not impact on traffic flow or the existing road network, as the propose
          changes do not intensify the use 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: No new or worsened impacts with respect to traffic, environmental or amenity issues will be
          introduced over and above those likely to occur as a result of the existing 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: The proposed changes do not impact on infrastructure provision, location or demand, as there are
          no material changes to the use with respect to capacity requirements for network services.

4.0       ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED CHANGE

The proposed changes are considered to be minor in nature. It is noted that, under section 81(4) of PA2016, Council
must consider those statutory instruments or documents in effect at the time the original development application was
made. Pursuant to section 81(5) of the PA2016, Council may also give the weight it considers appropriate to the statutory
instruments and documents that applied when or after the change application was made.

We consider the proposed changes comply with the performance outcomes of the relevant assessment benchmarks
and provisions under both the Transitional Planning Scheme 1997, Noosa Plan 2006 (we understand Council assessment
of the original development had regard to the Draft Noosa Plan 2006) and the Noosa Plan 2020. We make the following
comments in regards to the proposed changes: ‐

         The car parking arrangement for Building B is setback 3.8 metres from the secondary road frontage consistent
          with the arrangement approved for Building A.
         The relocation does not impact upon the existing mound or visual vegetation buffer along Eenie Creek Road;
         The height of existing fencing and mound ensures that the carport structure is not visible from the streetscape.
         The structure is of a form and scale that will not dominate the streetscape or surrounding properties or the
          building design.
         Car parking is located within an already cleared area.
         The current batter will be partly replaced with a retaining wall to the same standard which exists for Building A;
         There is no change to the Building B setback from Eenie Creek front boundary, which provides a 20m setback
          to the Building Façade. The relocation of car parking provides for additional landscaping at the front façade
          adjoining Swallow Street for Building B.
         There will be no adverse impacts on the visual streetscape amenity.



JFP Ref: M1717P                                                                                                   Page 6