Original source · versioned page text
Martoo Planning Statement Minor Change
Council Reference: MCU18/0009
Our Reference: 2187 L14 NG
10th April 2019
Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
[email protected]
Attention: Development Assessment
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL MCU18/0009___________________
APPLICATION TO CHANGE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL MCU18/0009 (MULTIPLE
HOUSING TYPE 3 RETIREMENT & SPECIAL NEEDS 32 BEDS)
Martoo Consulting has been engaged by the Noosa Care Incorporated to lodge an application for a change
to the existing development approval MCU18/0009 which approved an extension for additional dementia
beds to the existing aged care facility on the site known as Carramar. The site has had a number of
applications lodged over it with the most recent including:
2004/5763 DA – Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning Scheme (lapsed)
MCU11/0082 - issued 2001 for Multiple Housing Type 3 Retirement & Special Needs – 32 Beds
MCU18/0009 – issued 2018 for Multiple Housing Type 3 Retirement & Special Needs – 32
Dementia Beds
During assessment of the most recent development application (MCU18/0009) Council required significant
changes to the proposed layout in relation to the location of buildings with reference to flooding, vegetation
and crayfish habitat. The applicant subsequently amended the plans and reduced the number of beds and
buildings to reflect the areas of the site that Council considered suitable for development.
The applicant has now further reviewed the viability of the project and the overall operations and due to the
costs of construction now seeks to change the existing approval and reduce the number of buildings on site
and provide the additional beds through the inclusion of an additional storey on two buildings at the rear of
the site. The previously approved buildings at the front of the site over the carpark are to be deleted.
The proposed changes include:
Two storey dementia buildings at the rear of the site for 32 beds;
Revised entry building at front of site;
Deletion of approved buildings over front carparking area;
6 new carparking spaces within the front carpark;
All buildings located above the Q100 flood line; and
All buildings consistent with fire management recommendations.
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 4 pages
Page 2
The applicant submits the following documents in support of the changes: Prepared By Drawing Number Date Middap Architecture - proposal A101A, A102 A, A103A Feb 2019 plans Middap Architecture - proposal A104A to A106A, 18.03.2019 plans A201A to A208A Tod Engineers and Project 16519-C101 rev C 10.01.2019 Managers – carparking Murray & Associates – contour 60601 03.05.2017 and detail Callaghan & Toth – Integrated 1714 April 2019 Water Management Plan A comparison of the existing approved site and the revised proposal plan is detailed below: Figure 1 - Approved 2018 Plan Figure 2 - Proposed minor change plan The applicant requests the change to the following conditions: Condition 1 - List of approved plans Representation to condition 1 – The applicant seeks approval to amend condition 1 to reflect the revised plans submitted as part of this change application. The plans provide for a reduced building footprint that is located above the Q100 flood line and comply with the bushfire requirements. Proposed amended condition – Condition to refer to plans submitted as part of the changes application. Condition 6 - A maximum building height of 2 storeys and 8.0 metres, except for Villa 2 which may be 8.50 metres. Representation to condition 6 – The applicant seeks approval to amend condition 6 to reflect the revised plans submitted as part of this change application. As a result of the changes to the overall layout, the proposed two storey units at the rear of the site propose heights of 9.3m to 9.75m from natural ground surface levels and 8.4 metres above the required minimum fill level. It is noted that the original approval for the site approved a maximum height of 8.5 metres for Villa 2 and the proposed height from the required fill level is approximately 8.4metres.
Page 3
The applicant seeks approval for the proposed intrusion into the height noting:
The area of intrusion relates to a portion of the roof and skylights;
The buildings are two storeys in height;
The buildings and area of intrusion will not be visible to Cooroy Noosa Road;
The areas of intrusion are in the central portion of the buildings and will not be visible to surrounding
properties to the north;
The design respects the existing vegetation retained in the adjoining parkland dedicated to Council
as part of the approval;
Similar building heights have been approved for a Retirement Village and Aged Care Facility by
Sundale Garden Village at Mckinnon Drive (Council reference 132007.1965);
The increased height is required to provide for services on site as well as provide a pitched roof
form;
The site is unique in its location and use and will not set a precedent for the surrounding area.
Proposed amended condition – Condition to refer to height of 8.4 metres above the filled level.
Condition 36 - Prior to obtaining a Development Permit for Operational Works the land area identified
as being to the east of the proposed wetland fence on Middap Architecture Pty Ltd - Plan MCU.02A.
(Proposed Lower Level Plan August 2018) be dedicated to Council in fee simple on trust for the
purpose of an Environmental Park. The land to be dedicated is “non-trunk infrastructure” for the
purposes of the Planning Act 2016.
Representation to condition 36 – The applicant seeks approval to amend condition 36 to reflect the
revised plans submitted as part of this change application. The revised plan does not change the area to be
dedicated and only updates the layout. .
Proposed amended condition 36 – Condition to refer to plans submitted as part of the changes
application - Middap Architecture Pty Ltd - Plan MCU.02A. (Proposed Site Works Plan – February
2019).
Condition 26 - All works must be constructed and work procedures undertaken in accordance with:
b)The document ‘Proposed Cartwright Village Extension – Carramar, Noosa Care
Integrated Water Management Plan Version 2 by Callaghan & Toth dated September
2018.
Representation to condition 26b) – The applicant seeks approval to amend condition 1 to reflect the
revised stormwater plans submitted as part of this change application.
Proposed amended condition 26 b) – Condition to refer to revised plans prepared by Callaghan and Toth
submitted as part of this changes application.
Item 9 Further Development Permits Required – Section 9 details that a further development permit for a
Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing Type 3 – Retirement &Special Needs is required.
Representation to item 9 – This requirement appears to be a remnant of Councils preliminary
approval which was later replaced by a Development Permit following representations. As a
development permit has been issued for the site this requirement is not relevant and should be
removed.
.
Proposed amended item 9 – Delete reference to requirement for a development permit for a Material
Change of Use.
Page 4
MINOR CHANGE
Section 78 of the Planning Act 2016 describes that a changes application can either be either ‘minor
changes’ or ‘other changes’. The proposed changes to the development approval constitute a minor change
as detailed below.
minor change means a change that—
(b) for a development approval—
(i) would not result in a substantially different development –
The proposed changes do not alter the approved use of the site with the new buildings located in
an area approved for development.
(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
The proposed changes do not include any 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
(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
(E) 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
No concurrence agencies would be triggered by the proposal and the level of assessment has
not altered.
(F) public notification if public notification was not required for the development application.
No public notification required.
The amended design does not increase the number of units, or introduce any additional
impacts and is generally in keeping with the built form of the existing approval.
ASSESSING AND DECIDING A REQUEST
Section 81(2) and (3) of the Planning Act 2016 specifies what the responsible entity must consider when
assessing and deciding applications for minor changes including the following:
(2) When assessing the change application, the responsible entity must consider—
(a) the information the applicant included with the application; and
(b) if the responsible entity is the assessment manager and submissions were properly made
about the development application—the submissions; and
(c) any pre-request response notice or response notice given in relation to the change application;
and
(d) all matters the responsible entity would or may assess against or have regard to, if the change
application were a development application; and
(e) another matter that the responsible entity considers relevant.
(3) For subsection (2)(d), the responsible entity—
(a) must assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the development
application was made; and
Page 5
(b) may assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when the change application
was made.
The applicable planning instruments that Council must have regard to are:
State Planning Regulation;
State Planning Policy; and
The Noosa Plan.
The site is within the urban footprint and the site is approved for aged care. The proposal does not change
the use or scale of impacts and is consistent with the higher order State Planning Regulations and Planning
Policies.
The proposed works and extensions have been reviewed against the provisions of the Noosa Plan and are
consistent with the approved development parameters except in relation to building height. As detailed
above, the revised plans do not comply with height provisions from natural ground however are considered
appropriate due to the location of the buildings, the approved use and surrounding vegetation which will
provide a backdrop for the development.
Conclusion
The proposed changes meet the criteria for a minor change and provide a more efficient and cost
effective solution to the restrictions placed on the original development.
The Assessment Manager’s favourable consideration of the above development application is
therefore recommended.
Please contact our Noosa office if you require any further information and/or clarification with respect
to the above application.
Yours sincerely,
Nadine Gorton
Senior Planner
Martoo Consulting