Minor_Change_Req

Page 2

with better designed access to each room and a reduced extent of earthworks and retaining required to establish
the foundations for the building. The changes proposed result in an improved outcome for the site and adjoining
premises with a smaller building footprint and greater mitigation of landslide hazard.


2.    Proposed Changes to Approved Plans
It is requested to make a Minor Change to the approved plans to accommodate revised built form, whilst
maintaining the predominant structure and site layout of the approved development. Please refer to the Revised
Building Design Plans prepared by Clare Design in Attachment 2.

As illustrated in Attachment 2, the proposal maintains the key components of the approved built form, which
includes a contemporary architectural design with a combination of flat and skillion roof forms, three (3) distinct
building levels and a stepped structure that gives the appearance of a single storey Dwelling to the street.

To best illustrate the key differences in the design, a comparative building footprint plan has been prepared and
is available as drawing DA-15 in Attachment 2. This is also provided in Figure 1 below for ease of reference.




Figure 1 Building footprint comparative analysis (Clare Design 2022)


As illustrated above, the overall footprint of the development has been reduced, with a more compact structure
proposed that sits centrally within the allotment to reduce the visual impact of the built form when viewed
externally. Further, the site layout provides for a more efficient use of the lot and creates a more open interface
with the public walkway to the north by orientating the private open space areas and structural voids to face
this boundary.

In accordance with Section 81(4) (Assessing Change Application for Minor Changes) of the Planning Act 2016,
Council must consider the change application against the planning scheme that was in effect when the
development application sought to be changed was properly made, which is the Noosa Plan 2006. Table 1 below
provides a comparative analysis of the key development parameters and areas of compliance achieved by both
the approved and proposed outcome when assessed against the Detached House Code of the Noosa Plan 2006.




Our ref: 220202                                                                                          Page 2 of 8

Page 3

Table 1 Comparative analysis of Approved Development VS Proposed Change
 Development       Required/Permitted          Approved                  Complies Proposed                   Complies
 Particular
 Building          8 metres from NGL           8 metres from NGL         Yes      8 metres from NGL          Yes
 Height            2 storeys                   3 storeys                 No       3 storeys                  No
 Site Cover        40% (otherwise 50% for      40% overall               Yes      38% upper level            No
                   ground and 30% for                                             46% mid level
                   upper levels)                                                  25.5% lower level
 Landscaping       20% of site area            Greater than 20%          Yes      Greater than 20%           Yes
 Parking           1 space                     2 spaces                  Yes      3 spaces                   Yes
 Setbacks          Front - 6m                  0m                        No       0m                         No
 (up to 4.5m)      Rear – 3m                   12m                       Yes      12.8m                      Yes
                   Side (north) – BTB          0m to garage blade,       Yes      BTB garage, otherwise      Yes
                   garage, otherwise 1.5m      otherwise 1.5m                     1.5m
                   Side (south) - BTB          BTB garage, 0m to lift,   No       BTB pergola1, otherwise    No
                   garage, otherwise 1.5m      otherwise 1.5m                     2m
 Setbacks          Front – 6m                  N/A                       Yes      N/A                        Yes
 (between          Rear – 6m                   12m                       Yes      15m                        Yes
 4.5m and          Side (north) – 2m           1.5m                      No       2m                         Yes
 7.5m high)        Side (south) – 2m           1.5m                      No       2m                         Yes
 Setbacks          Front – 6m                  N/A                       Yes      N/A                        Yes
 (between          Rear – 6m                   15m                       Yes      15m                        Yes
 7.5m and 8m       Side (north) – 2.5m         1.5m                      No       4.5m                       Yes
 high)             Side (south) – 2.5m         1.5m                      No       2m                         No
 Coastal           Buildings/structures not    Encroaching CBL by 3m     No       Encroaching CBL by 2.15m   No
 building line     to be seaward of CBL        (decks only)                       (decks only)
1 the proposed pergola is greater than 2.4m in height (2.8m) and therefore is not an exempted structure under QDC MP1.2

and requires a relaxation for being within the side setback.


As demonstrated above, the proposed development does not result in any new areas of non-compliance, and in
fact, resolves a number of compliance issues relating to side boundary setbacks.

Further, the proposal to create a dwelling that contains two (2) storeys over a basement, which is consistent
with the approved design and is appropriate for the site on the basis that the slope of the land conceals large
portions of the built form from view, as demonstrated in Figure 2 below. Finally, if the application were to be
assessed under the current planning scheme, the definition for “storey” would not include a lift shaft, a stairway,
a space containing only a bathroom or laundry, or any areas that are not more than 1m above ground level. On
the basis on the definition of storey under the current planning scheme, the built form would not be considered
to contain more than two (2) storeys in any location.

It is noted that whilst the development does not exceed the overall height limit of 8 metres from natural ground,
some sections of the building exceed 8 metres in height from finished ground, due to the cut occurring within
the site required to demolish the existing house and associated pool structure. Irrespective, the scale and bulk
of the built form is consistent with large Dwelling Houses which seek to capitalise on high value land adjacent to
Sunshine Beach. Further, given the slope of the site, the built form appears as a single storey Dwelling from the
street and therefore does not visually dominate the street or the existing skyline. It is also noted that, due to the
north-south slope of the surrounding land, the proposed Dwelling is located at a lower topography than the
adjoining site to the south and matches the height of the Dwelling to the north over the walkway, preserving
the amenity of surrounding land, including access to sunlight and breezes. Overall, due to the context of the site,



Our ref: 220202                                                                                              Page 3 of 8

Page 4

adjoining a walkway to the north and a similar scaled built form to the south, the development consistent with
structures on adjoining and surrounding land.




Figure 2 Demonstration of 2 Storey Built Form (Source: Clare Design 2022)



As shown on the Revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 2, the significantly reduced front setback of 0m in
lieu of 6m remains to be a part of the proposed development. As outlined in the Development Application for
the original approval, the reduced front setback is necessary due to the slope of sites along Arakoon Crescent
and is reflected consistently throughout the streetscape (refer to Figure 3 below).




Figure 3 Current streetscape outcome of built to boundary Dwellings (ASTP 2022)


With respect to the reduced setback to the 2.8m high pergola on the southern boundary, this outcome is
appropriate when considering that the neighbour’s solid built to boundary wall is considerably higher at the
street than the proposed outcome. This existing outcome mitigates any amenity or privacy concerns that could
arise from having the pergola in this location. Please refer to Figure 4 below, which depicts the existing built
form outcome along the adjoining southern boundary.




Our ref: 220202                                                                                        Page 4 of 8

Page 5

Figure 4 Interface with adjoining Dwelling to the south (ASTP 2022)

Further, the adjoining uses to the north include a public access pathway directly adjoining the site and a Dwelling
to the north of this (refer to Figure 5 below).




Figure 5 Interface with adjoining access pathway and adjacent Dwelling to the north (ASTP 2022)

Overall, the reduced side setbacks that remain in the design are an appropriate outcome when considering the
bulk and scale of built forms surrounding the site and the fact that the site adjoins a public access pathway to
the north, rather than another built form.

Additionally, the approved and proposed developments both contain balcony structures that are seaward of the
coastal building line. The development is capable of complying with Table 13.20 Coastal Protection Areas of the
Natural Resources Overlay Code, which requires a 5 metre wide native deep planting zone along the rear of the
boundary to protect the dunal system. It is noted that the approval has already been conditioned to comply with
this requirement.

It is also pertinent to highlight that the development results in an improved outcome relating to the extent of
earthworks and retaining required to be undertaken. The previous design required considerable cut and
retaining works in order to accommodate the built form. The proposed redesign steps down gradually with the
site to work with the natural topography of the land. This revised outcome is illustrated in Figure 6 below for
ease of reference.




Our ref: 220202                                                                                          Page 5 of 8

Page 6

Figure 6 Earthworks comparative analysis (Clare Design 2022)


In summary, the proposed redesign of the Detached House does not create any additional impacts or worsen
any existing impacts, and achieves an approved design from a compliance, functionality, visual amenity and
slope stability point of view. It is requested that the Revised Building Design Plans in Attachment 2 be supported
by Council as a Minor Change to the approved development accordingly.


Proposed Changes to Conditions
The proposed changes to the approved plans trigger the need to change Conditions 2 and 6 of the Development
Permit (Council ref MCU19/0008).

Condition 2
Naturally, Condition 2 which lists the Approved Plans associated with the Development Permit, is required to be
updated to refer to the Revised Building Design Plans prepared by Clare Design in Attachment 2 (Dwg DA00 –
DA18, dated 31/01/22).

Condition 3
Condition 3 of the Development Permit reads as follows:

      Building Height and Storeys
      3. The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres above the finished ground
      level and the natural ground surface.

As detailed above, the proposed development exceeds 8 metres in height from finished ground level in some
areas. As such, it is requested to amend the above condition as follows:

      Building Height and Storeys
      3. The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres above the finished ground
      level and the natural ground surface.

Condition 6
Condition 6 of the Development Permit reads as follows:

      Built form
      6. No structures or buildings are to be located within the 15 metre setback to the eastern boundary.



Our ref: 220202                                                                                         Page 6 of 8

Page 7

This condition is contradictory to the approved plans which clearly show a balcony on the upper level that is
setback 12 metres from the rear boundary. The proposed new design comprises a similar outcome, with the
only built form component that is located seaward of the costal building line (15m setback) being the mid level
balconies that are setback 12.8 metres from the rear boundary. This built form component is considered
appropriate on the basis that the balcony does not seek to locate any footings or support posts in the ground
seaward of the coastal building line (15m setback). As such, the intent behind the setback requirement is upheld
in the design. Further, as stated above, the proposed development has already been conditioned to comply with
Table 13.20 Coastal Protection Areas of the Natural Resources Overlay Code, and therefore is provided an
exception to the setback rule under Table 1-2—Exceptions for specific premises of Schedule 1 – Minimum
Boundary Setbacks for Buildings and other Structures. It is therefore requested that Condition 6 be deleted from
the Decision Notice as part of the change approval.


Change Application - Planning Act 2016
The proposed changes to the approved plans and associated conditions of MCU19/0008 are considered a ‘Minor
Change’ under section 78 of the Planning Act 2016, as:
     •    The proposed changes remain generally compliant with the approval conditions imposed by Council
          under MCU19/0008, with the required changes to the approval conditions largely relating to the need
          to provide consistency with the new plans and the relevant Code provisions;
     •    The proposed changes do not result in prohibited development;
     •    The proposed changes do not trigger referral to any referral agencies;
     •    The proposed changes do not trigger public notification; and,
     •    The proposed change will not result in a substantially different development, compared to what was
          approved.

For certainty, to ensure that the changes to the approved development will not result in a substantially different
development compared to what was approved, a test against Schedule 1 of the DA Rules has been carried out.
Overall, it is determined that the proposed change will not result in a substantially different development to that
which was approved, given the proposal:
     •    Does not seek to alter the approved land use and will not impact the ability for the Detached House to
          operate or be used as intended;
     •    Does not seek to introduce a new land use;
     •    Does not seek to introduce a new parcel of land;
     •    Will not dramatically change the built form in terms of overall scale, bulk or general appearance, as the
          revised proposal maintains the key built form elements approved including building height, number of
          storeys, roof form and site layout;
     •    Does not remove a component that is integral to the development; and,
     •    Does not introduce any new impacts or increase the severity of any known impacts, given that the
          change largely improves upon the key compliance issues that were present in the previous design,
          including reduced side setbacks and considerable earthworks and retaining required to construct the
          development.

For these reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed changes constitute a Minor Change to the
approved development. On this basis, it is considered that the request should be dealt with pursuant to
provisions outlined within Section 81 of the Planning Act 2016.



Our ref: 220202                                                                                          Page 7 of 8

Page 8

Proceeding
We trust the information provides you with sufficient information in relation to the proposal and we look
forward to receiving a positive decision from Council at your earliest convenience. Should you have any further
questions in relation to this matter, please feel free to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully,
ADAMS + SPARKES
TO WN P L ANN ING




Aspen Storey
TOWN PLANNER

Encl:     Attachment 1 - Approved Building Design Plans prepared by James Russell Architect
          Attachment 2 - Proposed Building Design Plans prepared by Clare Design




Our ref: 220202                                                                                        Page 8 of 8