Original source · versioned page text
Cover Letter_Precinct E2_CDA_FINAL
Attached to the e-mail Change to DA - MCU15/0109.02.
SUNSHINE COAST 4 June 2018 Job Ref: M2652/E2 Noosa Council By Email: <[email protected]> Att: Patrick Murphy – Coordinator Planning Re: Change Application (‘Minor Change’) – Development Approval for Material Change of Use – Multiple Housing Type 4 – Conventional (29 Units) over land at Resort Drive, Noosa Heads (Precinct E2) and described as Lot 6 on SP178340 - Council Ref: MCU15/0109.01 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 22 September 2017 by Negotiated Decision Notice (Ref: MCU15/0109) as most recently modified on 15 February 2018 (Council Ref. MCU15/0109.01). This correspondence provides details of the site and approval history, a description of the proposed changes to the approved drawings and conditions, and an assessment of the proposed changes against the relevant requirements of PA2016 and the Development Assessment Rules including demonstration that the proposed change represents a minor change and does not constitute “substantially different development”. 1.0 SITE / APPROVAL HISTORY The site forms Precinct E2 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 north (Precinct F) form the eastern extremity of the Noosa Springs locality and were historically used for sand quarrying purposes. Precinct E2 is subject to an existing development approval for Multiple Housing Type 4 – Conventional (29 Units), which was issued by way of Negotiated Decision Noticed date 22 September 2017. This approval has been the subject of amendments, with a modification to the approval granted by Council on 15 February 2018. There is a separate development approval over the adjacent Precinct F for a Multiple Dwelling comprising 137 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 18 January 2018 (Council Ref. 132005.1133.7). 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. 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 originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 5 pages
Page 2
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 there has recently been a reconfiguration of a lot approval (to facilitate the creation of up to 26 balance lots) issued by Council which further reinforces the staged and integrated manner within which these development approvals will be delivered. 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). Council will note that the changes predominantly relate to the landscaping and fencing solution along the Resort Drive frontage of the site, and the equivalent representations to the Precinct F approval (132004.1133.7) also refer. In this regard, a 2 metre landscape strip has been introduced generally along the length of Resort Drive, wherein this landscaping is set behind a semi-transparent fence located on the Resort Drive boundary. As a consequence of the introduction of the landscape buffer strip, there have also been a number of amendments made to the design of the adjacent courtyards for unit Blocks 10 – 12 by way of the removal of pools previously nominated on approved plans, as well as the replacement of lower level terraces with turf. Informal pedestrian access arrangements to Resort Drive, requested in previous Minor Change applications, are also no longer intended. However, gates have been provided in the dividing fences between courtyards to allow access from the outer units to the middle units for maintenance purposes. Further amendments have also been made to the common fences between courtyards such that timber batten fences are provided in the 2 metre landscape buffer strip, in lieu of previously intended rendered block fencing. The design of the fencing is such that it comprises a light weight timber batten fence that is anticipated as sitting lightly within the landscape, with final fence post locations intended to be determined by existing tree protection zones and consultation with an arborist prior to construction. The intended fence design is reflected in Figure 1 below:- Figure 1: Proposed Resort Drive Fence Detail JFP Ref: M2652/E2 Page 2
Page 3
To assist in communicating the intended fencing and landscaping solution for the development, a Visual Analysis
(refer attached) has been prepared to demonstrate the visual impact (or otherwise) of the proposed development
along the Resort Drive frontage. The perspectives denote the presentation of the proposed development from
two view locations as follows:-
Image 1 – The proposed development with existing vegetation only;
Image 2 – the proposed development with existing vegetation and proposed additional planting at 5
years establishment; and
Image 3 – the proposed development with existing vegetation and proposed additional planting at full
maturity.
As Council is aware, a meeting has recently been held with residents of the adjacent ‘The Fairways’ in Resort Drive
to represent to them the anticipated development outcome along the Resort Drive frontage. This meeting was
held on 24 April 2018, wherein in the proposed fencing and landscaping solutions was presented. Feedback
offered at the meeting was, very positive, with the residents pleased with the semi-transparent timber fencing
proposed along Resort Drive.
2.1 Changes to Conditions
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) as a consequence of the revised landscaping
and fencing design solution along the Resort Drive frontage of the site:
Condition 2
The changes to the intended fencing and landscaping solution along the Resort Drive frontage of the site are
reflected on amended architectural plans. It is therefore requested that condition 2 be amended to incorporate
the following updated plans:-
Drawing No. Issue Drawing Name Date
WD1.3 I SITE PLAN by Sparks Architects 16.05.18
DD1.17 H GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 10 by Sparks Architects 16.05.18
DD1.20 H GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 11 by Sparks Architects 16.05.18
DD1.23 J GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 12 by Sparks Architects 16.05.18
Please note, the above plans are intended to replace the following equivalent approved plans currently detailed
in Condition 2:-
Drawing No. Issue Drawing Name Date
DD1.3 H SITE PLAN by Sparks Architects 27-06-17
DD1.15 G GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 10 by Sparks Architects 27-06-17
DD1.18 G GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 11 by Sparks Architects 27-06-17
DD1.21 G GROUND FLOOR PLAN BLOCK 12 by Sparks Architects 27-06-17
JFP Ref: M2652/E2 Page 3
Page 4
Condition 65
As per our representations on the equivalent condition for the Precinct F approval (Ref: 132005.1133.7), and in
light of the proposed changes detailed above, it is respectfully requested that this condition be deleted.
65. The rear 2 metres of Blocks 10, 11 and 12 is to be extensively landscaped and no structures or
swimming pools are to be located in these areas. No access is to be provided from the rear of these
Blocks to Resort Drive
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:-
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 new 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 contend that this application meets the definition of a minor change.
JFP Ref: M2652/E2 Page 4
Page 5
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 and 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 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: Built form does not substantially differ from the existing approval, with buildings and
structures sited and oriented in similar locations.
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 minor
change approval.
6. The proposed changes do not significantly impact on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site.
JFP Ref: M2652/E2 Page 5
Page 6
Comment: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes will not result in
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 will not impact on
infrastructure beyond that which is already anticipated by the existing approval.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed changes to Precinct E2, 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 the fencing and landscaping solution along the Resort Drive frontage of the site. 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 URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
ENCL: Amended Architectural Drawings prepared by Sparks; and
Visual Perspectives prepared by Conlon Group
CC: Altum Constructions
JFP Ref: M2652/E2 Page 6