Minor Change Application_301017

Page 2

               d.      three illuminated signs are permitted facing (or viewed from) Eumundi Noosa
                       Road frontage, being 2 freestanding pillar signs and one wall sign located on
                       the tenancy of the Entertainment and Dining business

No other changes to the approval are sought or required.


MINOR CHANGE DETERMINATION

The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as:

A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that —

      i.   would not result in a substantially different development; and

       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.

       A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
       change:

          Involves a new use; or

           Comment: the proposal is not for a new use.

          Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or

           Comment: the application does not apply to any additional parcels of land.

          Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or

           Comment: the proposed deletion of condition 114 b will have no impact on scale, bulk or
           appearance of the development.

          Changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended (for example,
           reducing the size of a retail complex may reduce the capacity of the complex to service the
           intended catchment); or

           Comment: the proposal will operate the same with the proposed change.

          Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development; or

           Comment: the proposed change does not seek to remove an integral component of the
           development.

          Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to
           the site; or

           Comment: The proposed deletion of condition 114 b will not significantly impact traffic
           matters.

          Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts; or




                                                   2

Page 3

            Comment: the proposed change will not introduce or increase the severity of new or
            known impacts.

           Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact
            of the development; or

            Comment: not applicable as the proposed deletion of condition 114 b does not relate to
            incentives or offsets of this nature.

           Impacts on infrastructure provisions.

            Comment: There will be no impact on infrastructure provision as a result of the proposed
            change.

      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

                Comment: the deletion of condition 114 b does not introduce prohibited
                development.

                B. referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were
                   no referral agencies for the development application; or

                Comment: the proposed change does not trigger referral.

                C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or

                Comment: not applicable as there were no referral agencies for the original
                application.

                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

                Comment: not applicable as there were no referral agencies for the original
                application.

                E. public notification if public notification was not required for the
                   development application.

                Comment: the proposed deletion of condition 114 b does not trigger public
                notification.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the proposed change can be deemed a “minor change”.


MINOR CHANGE ASSESSMENT

This minor change application is to be assessed against the relevant matters set out in Section 81 of
the Planning Act 2016. These relevant matters are addressed below.

Firstly, there were 14 properly made submissions received for the original application. Of these
submissions, 13 supported the proposed development and only 1 submission voiced concerns with the
proposal at the time. Of all the submissions, none mentioned any concerns regarding signage.




                                                    3

Page 4

Secondly, no pre-request responses or response notices have been received or are relevant to this
minor change application.

In respect to the matters set out under section 81(3) of the Act, we make the following comments:

         (3)(a) must assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the development
         application was made; and

Comment: Council described in their assessment report at the time of assessing the original OPW
(Signage) application that the Advertising Devices Code allows the following:
 a total sign face area of 10m² per premises
 no sign exceeding a single sign face area of 4m² per premises
 1 pillar sign per frontage
 1 illuminated sign per frontage.

Council’s assessment of the signage proposal centred on Specific Outcome O6 of the Code, which
states:

         O6 Advertising devices respect the scale and nature of surrounding development and
         contribute positively to the visual amenity, streetscape, landscape setting and natural and built
         environment of where the advertising device is placed.

Council concluded that some of the tenancy signage was larger than it felt the Code allowed and the
number of illuminated signs was too many for the development. Council’s recommended conditions
be applied to reduce the size of the wall signs to 4m2 each and to limit the number of illuminated
signs to one per frontage. Such conditions were subsequently applied.

In regard to the proposed pillar signs at the time, Council’s reported that:

         “The proposal plans indicate 2 x 6m high pillar signs to the Eumundi Noosa Road frontage.
         The Advertising devices Code prescribes a 5m height limit and 1 pillar sign per frontage. It is
         acknowledged that not all pillar signs in the auto park comply with the 5m height requirement,
         but generally, pillar signs elsewhere in the industrial estate do not exceed 5m in height. The
         number of pillar signs is generally 1 per frontage in the surrounding area. The development is
         located prominently and the additional pillar sign and height is not considered warranted. A
         condition is recommended to reduce the height of the sign and to permit only 1 pillar sign on
         each frontage.”

Council did in fact impose conditions to reduce the size of the pillar signs to a maximum height of 5m
and to be limited to one sign per frontage – which are the Acceptable Solutions for Specific Outcome
O6.

Having regard to the same criteria for the proposed pillar sign it is noted that:

                           1.   The height of the proposed pillar sign does not exceed 5m; and
                           2.   The proposed pillar sign would be the only freestanding sign fronting
                                Walter Hay Drive relative to the subject land.
                                                                                                         1
As the site technically has five (5) frontages according to Council’s administration definitions – Lot 1
has a frontage to Eumundi Noosa Road and Lionel Donovan Drive, and Lot 2 has a frontage to
Eumundi Noosa Road, Lionel Donovan Drive and Walter Hay Drive – the above assessment would have
allowed 2 pillar signs to Eumundi Noosa Road, 2 pillar signs to Lionel Donovan Drive and 1 pillar sign
to Walter Hay Drive.


1
  frontage means a boundary of an allotment which abuts a road. Where a lot has more than one frontage, Council may
nominate a primary frontage. allotment means a piece of land or space described in a land title.




                                                        4

Page 5

Having regard to the same matters, the proposed pillar sign fronting Walter Hay Drive can be
supported bringing the total number of pillar signs over both allotments to four (4).

        (3)(b) may assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the change
        application was made.

Comment:

Council amended its Advertising Devices Code on 28 October 2016. In summary, the requirements
became more stringent under the amended code. Those amendments particularly relevant to the
subject application are set out as follows (these are the “acceptable solutions”):

All freestanding signs
(a)      do not exceed a maximum height of 5m and a signface area of 4m²;
(b)      ensure that not more than one (1) freestanding sign is erected on any site (including a site
         with multiple occupancy buildings.

Pylon sign
(a)     is mounted as a freestanding structure in a landscape environment;
(b)     is situated at least half its height from any site boundary;
(c)     is designed and treated in such a way that the supporting framework and the back of the
        signface area blend with the surrounding streetscape or field a view; and
(d)     has a maximum thickness not exceeding 75mm per metre of height above ground level;

A strict assessment of the proposed pillar sign would find that it would not meet the maximum
signface area requirement nor the restriction to one freestanding sign per site. The proposed sign
would not meet the setback requirement of half its height either. The remaining criteria are likely to
be able to be met.

It is because of these particularly stringent changes to the Advertising Devices Code that the applicant
has submitted a request to be assessed under the superseded planning scheme. This would limit
Council’s assessment to the previous version of the Code (which was discussed above where the
proposal was found to be supportable).


CONCLUSION

The above assessment has demonstrated that the proposed change can be deemed a “minor change”.
With that, an assessment of this minor change application against the relevant matters set out in
Section 81 of the Planning Act 2016 , concludes that the proposed pillar sign fronting Walter Hay Drive
can be supported.

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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN



Peter Folker
Director
Email: [email protected]

cc.        Inline Property Development P/L TTE (via email)




                                                   5