Original source · versioned page text
M2915 - Notice of change_09082022
Attached to the e-mail MCU21/0228 & OPW21/0364 - 245 David Low Way Peregian Beach - Notice of Change.
BRISBANE | SUNSHINE COAST | CENTRAL QLD KON-TIKI BUSINESS CENTRE TOWER 1, LEVEL 2, SUITE T1.209, 55 PLAZA PARADE, MAROOCHYDORE QLD 4558 JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ABN 79 050 414 045 9 August 2022 Job Ref: M2915P Noosa Council By email: [email protected] Att: Patrick Murphy – Planning Coordinator Re: M2915 – Notice of change to development approval at 245 David Low Way, Peregian Beach (Council ref: MCU21/0228 & OPW21/0364) Dear Patrick, Further to our recent discussions regarding the development application over land at 245 David Low Way Peregian Beach (Council ref: MCU21/0228 OPW21/0364), our client Altum Property Group has considered Council’s feedback and has decided to proceed with the Dual Occupancy in a mixed use format including 100m2 of Commercial GFA on ground (refer to Attachment A). The revised proposal maintains much of the previously approved built form and façade treatments, with only the internal floor layouts being amended to accommodate the new (small dwelling) residential units and increase in office floor space. Notwithstanding this, we have updated the key criteria table below, which illustrates the resultant built form outcomes in light of the planning scheme’s relevant assessment benchmarks. Item Proposal details Planning Scheme Comment provisions Site area 582m2 - - Site cover 251.1m2 or 43.1% 261.9m2 or 45% Complies Plot Ratio 0.5:1 0.5:1 Complies Building height 8.055m above natural 8.0m above natural Generally Complies – the non- compliance is considered negligible. Proposed Level 1 The commercial has slightly increased to development Commercial 100m2 100m2 and the residential has decreased Level 2 from 3 to 2 units 2x small dwellings (2bds) 95m2 + 96m2 = 191m2 Building Front 6m 6m Complies (Shade screen 5.4m) setbacks Southern Side 2.27m 1.5m/2m/2.5m Complies Northern Side 1.5 1.5m/2m/2.5m 2nd storey eave encroaches the 2m setback Rear 5.1m 6m The roof and Unit 2 balcony encroach into the rear setback Carparking Commercial 5 1/20m2 GFA = 5 Complies
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 3 pages
Page 2
.
Residential 2 2 covered spaces Complies
Visitor 1 1 visitor Complies
Service vehicles - Kerb side
collection
Landscaping Total 35% or 203.7m2 35% or 203.7m2 Complies
Percentage 64.4% or 131m2 60% or 122m2 Complies
soft
Private open Ground N/A 20m2 N/A
space Above 14m2 9m2 Complies
Table 1 – Built form key criteria
This change notice is provided in accordance with the s52 of the Planning Act (the Act), as the proposed change to the
mixed use development, albeit minor, constitutes a change of use from Multiple dwelling units to a Dual occupancy. We
consider this loss of one dwelling unit in the context of the overall development does not result in substantially different
development. Accordingly, we believe the proposed change is a minor change as defined in the Act, an extract of which is
reproduced below:
Minor change means a change that—
(a) for a development application—
(i) does not result in substantially different development; and
(ii) if the application, including the change, were made when the change is made—would not cause—
(A) the inclusion of prohibited development in the application; or
(B) referral to a referral agency if there were no referral agencies for the development application; or
(C) referral to extra referral agencies; or
(D) a referral agency, in assessing the application under section 55(2), to assess the application against, or
have regard to, a matter, other than a matter the referral agency must have assessed the application
against, or had regard to, when the application was made; or
(E) public notification if public notification was not required for the development application;
Assessment against the applicable provisions of the Planning Act
In accordance with the above minor change definition, below is an assessment of the proposed change against the ‘minor
change’ criteria as outlined in the definition.
Criteria Response
Minor change means a change that— (a) for a
development approval—
i) Would not result in ‘substantially different Complies refer to Table 2 below.
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 Complies – The proposed change does not introduce
development in the application; or prohibited development.
JFP Ref: M2915P Page 2
Page 3
.
b) Referral to a referral agency, other Complies – The proposed change does not require the
than to the chief executive, if there development to be referred to a referral agency nor
were no referral agencies for the additional matters prescribed by a regulation under
development application; or section 55(2).
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 Complies – The proposed amendment is minor in nature
notification was not required for the and will not trigger the requirement for public
development application. notification.
Table 1 – ‘minor change’ criteria
The proposed change is also required to demonstrate that the development is not substantially different development, as
defined in Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules, we provide an assessment below:
Substantially Different Criteria Response
A change may be considered to result in a substantially
different development if the proposed change:
a) involves a new use Complies –The definition of what constitutes substantially
different is not prescriptive and is a question of degree
that requires consideration of the circumstances of the
change. Therefore, the inclusion of a new use does not
automatically mean a change results in substantially
different development. In this instance, the changed
development from multiple dwelling to dual occupancy
remains a mixed use development with residential being
located above ground and commercial at ground. The
only amendment is the reduction of 1 unit, which triggers
a change of use by definition, although we do not
consider this to constitute substantially different
development. The proposed use remains residential in
nature and does not material effect the way the use was
intended to operate.
b) results in the application applying to a new parcel Complies – the proposed change will not result in any
of land; or new parcels of land being included as part of the
application
JFP Ref: M2915P Page 3
Page 4
.
c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of Complies – the proposed change maintains the buildings
scale, bulk and appearance; or domestic built form character in terms of scale bulk, roof
lines and appearance from the street.
d) changes the ability of the proposed development Complies – the proposed development doesn’t change
to operate as intended; or the ability for the proposed development to operate as
intended i.e. a mixed use development with commercial
on ground and residential above.
e) removes a component that is integral to the Complies – the proposed change does not remove a
operation of the development; or component that is integral to the operation of the
development.
f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the Complies – no significant changes to the transport
transport network, such as increasing traffic to network are expected.
the site; or
g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity Complies The proposed amendment will not result in
of known impacts; or increased severity of known impacts.
h) removes an incentive or offset component that Complies – not applicable
would have balanced a negative impact of the
development; or
i) impacts on infrastructure provisions. Complies – not applicable
In terms of the above and in accordance with s52 (3) of the Act, the proposed change does not affect the development
assessment process. Therefore, we trust this is to Council’s satisfaction and look forward to Council’s favourable decision
and the granting of a development permit for the changed proposal in due course.
The amended proposal plans prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design architects are included in Attachment A for your
review.
I trust this assist and please do not hesitate to give me a call should you have any questions.
Yours faithfully,
TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS
CC/- Altum Property Group
Attachments:
Attachment A - Amended proposal plans
JFP Ref: M2915P Page 4