2019-09-30 Special Meeting Agenda

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                         30 SEPTEMBER 2019


3.    STAUTORY PROCESS
The applicant has made an Originating Application to the Planning and Environment Court to make
a minor change to a development approval under s78 of the Planning Act 2016. As the original
approval was issued by the Planning and Environment Court and properly made submissions were
received, the Court is the assessment manager for subsequent ‘minor change’ applications.
Council is an ‘affected entity’ and the Court is required to seek comment from Council when
considering a minor change application. However, an applicant may seek a pre-request from an
affected entity prior to lodging the minor change application with the Court.
Part of the criteria to determine whether an application is a minor change is to determine whether
the change would result in a substantially different development.
A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
change:
     (a) involves a new use; or
     (b) results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or
     (c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or
     (d) changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; or
     (e) removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development; or
     (f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic
         to the site; or
     (g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts; or
     (h) removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative impact
         of the development; or
     (i) impacts on infrastructure provisions.
The proposed change has been reviewed by the consulting planning expert who Council engaged
for the appeal. The planning expert provided the following comments:
The proposed change to the staging would result in the removal of the motel building from
Stage 1. Deferring the motel (visitor accommodation) to a later stage does not create certainty
about the timing of its delivery following Stage 1 and may affect the ability of the proposed
development to operate as intended. It is noted that in the Economic Need Joint Expert Report
(JER) Justin Ganly stated that the "proposed motel which will have a particular focus on its
conferencing facilities to help assist with viability" (p30). The Economic Need JER also noted:
     there is relatively little commercial accommodation provided within Peregian Beach
      (paragraph 112);
     It is evident that the seven properties – which would generally be regarded as small resorts
      or motels – are generally dated and small (paragraph 115); and
     there is some need for motel-style accommodation and related conference facilities,
      particularly given the site owner’s expertise with similar facilities elsewhere on the Sunshine
      Coast (paragraph 177).
Deferring the motel to a later stage with no certainty about the timing of its delivery following Stage
1, may result in the removal of the component of the development which is integral to the operation
of the development.
... On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal to change the condition
to delete the requirement that the motel building be constructed in the first stage has the potential
to at least arguably result in ‘substantially different’ development, as it would:
     potentially change the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; and
      potentially remove (through its later and uncertain provision) a component that is integral to
      the operation of the development.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed change may not be a minor change but rather
represent an "other change" under the Planning Act 2016.


                                                                                         Page 8 of 17