Original source · versioned page text
Minor Change Request
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
Local and International Development Planning
4/59 Mary St, Noosaville
QLD, Australia 4565
[email protected]
+61 0406 334 227
1 October 2020
Planning
Noosa Council
[email protected]
RE: Minor Change Request – TPC1845 – Renovate Pool Landscaping
On the 21 November 1986, Council approved nine (9) Multiple Dwelling Units and four (4)
Shops at 37-39 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. The original approval includes 34
conditions, with condition 21 specifically requiring landscaping to be established and
maintained in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by Council.
A subsequent landscaping plan was provided and approved by Council. The planting
appears to be planted generally in accordance with elements of the plan (see Figures 1
& 2).
Figure.1 Existing Approved Landscaping Plan
Figure. 2 Site Photos (L to R – Looking west, looking east and looking south towards the site)
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 4 pages
Page 2
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
Local and International Development Planning
4/59 Mary St, Noosaville
QLD, Australia 4565
[email protected]
+61 0406 334 227
Proposal
The applicant seeks to change the existing pool and landscaping areas, including:
- Construction of new 12.5m lap pool and spa along boundary edge
- Improve gate access to pool from units
- Improve seating and decking around the pool
- Upgrade landscaping to match in with the new pool
- Remove existing steps in coastal reserve
The proposed pool is to remain at the same podium level as the existing pool and include
a glassed edge to the ocean.
The existing mature vegetation within the coastal reserve with all construction to occur
from within the site. A new 200L Pandanus tectorius is proposed along the western
boundary and 87 new plants surrounding the pool. The existing landscape hedging
varieties along the terraces of the units are also to remain and be protected.
Minor Change Test
An assessment against the meaning of minor change and a response about the proposed
application is provide below. The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as a change
to the approval that:
i. would not result in a substantially different development*;
(*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
Response: The proposed development does not change the existing use.
- Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or
Response: No new parcels of land are applicable.
- Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
appearance; or
Response: The changes are consistent with the bulk, scale and appearance of the
existing development.
- Changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as
intended; or
Response: The site will still be used for residential purposes.
- Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the
development; or
Page 3
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
Local and International Development Planning
4/59 Mary St, Noosaville
QLD, Australia 4565
[email protected]
+61 0406 334 227
Response: There are no components being removed from the development integral
to the operation of the development.
- Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site; or
Response: No change
- Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts; or
Response: No new impacts are introduced.
- Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced
the negative impact of the development; or
Response: The proposal does not remove an incentive or offset.
- Impacts on infrastructure provisions.
Response: No 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
Response: The change does 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
Response: No referral agencies were applicable to the original application.
C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
Response: No referral agencies are applicable to the current development. The site
is located outside of the Coastal Management District.
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
Response: The proposed change would not result in the chief executive having to
consider matters additional to those considered when the application was made.
E. public notification if public notification was not required for the
development application.
Response: The change does not require the application to be publicly notified.
Given the above, the proposed change to the existing approval is a minor change in
accordance with Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 and Schedule 1 of the Development
Assessment Rules.
Page 4
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
Local and International Development Planning
4/59 Mary St, Noosaville
QLD, Australia 4565
[email protected]
+61 0406 334 227
Deciding the Request
In accordance with S81 of The Planning Act 2016, Council must only consider the
information provided and any other matter considered relevant, including — all matters
Council would or may assess against or have regard to, if the change application were a
development application.
Council must only consider the statutory instrument, or other document, as in effect when
the development application for the development approval was properly made. However,
may give weight they consider appropriate, in the circumstances, to—
(a) the statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the change
application was made (Superseded Planning Scheme); or
(b) if the statutory instrument or other document is amended or replaced after the
change application is made but before it is decided—the amended or replacement
instrument or document; or
(c) another statutory instrument—
(i) that comes into effect after the change application is made but before it is
decided; and
(ii) that the responsible entity would have been required to consider if the
instrument had been in effect when the development application for the
development approval was properly made.
The proposed changes are in keeping with the existing approval and provides for
landscaping consistent with the existing approval and provides for a similar sized
landscaping area along the coastal frontage. The species have been chosen in accordance
with Council’s Policy for Landscaping and will complement and enhance the existing
appearance from within the site and from the beachfront, consistent with the requirements
of The Noosa Plan 2020.
If you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
myself.
Regards,
Jack Lewis B.Sc Hons UNSW M.Plan Otago MPIA Planner/Director
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
0406 334 227
Page 5
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
Local and International Development Planning
4/59 Mary St, Noosaville
QLD, Australia 4565
[email protected]
+61 0406 334 227
FM6002Q/1-01/07/2017 Page 2 of 2