Original source · versioned page text
Minor Change Report
Attached to the e-mail Minor Change Application OPW17/0150.01.
Project BA PO Box 45 Noosaville 4566 (07) 5451 8784 [email protected] 10/10/2018 Attn: Mark Lewis Noosa Council [email protected] Dear Mark, RE: Minor Change – OPW17/0150 Please find attached application for a minor change to an existing development approval for Prescribed Tidal Works at Jetty 180 Gympie Tce Noosaville (OPW17/0150). The proposed jetty works were constructed in accordance with the approved designs, however an error in the original design drawings resulted in the jetty being setback 3mm from the lease boundary area in leui of the 2.6m setback shown on the approved drawings. This minor change should be supported by Council, given there is no prescribed setback in the assessable codes and the conditions of the decision notice can still be achieved. Warm regards,
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 7 pages
Page 2
PROPOSAL
The application seeks to amend condition 1 to change the word moored to berthed and amend
condition 2 – approved plans to allow fix the encroachment from what was approved and what
was constructed.
Approved Plans
1. Vessels associated with the marine use of the facility must only be moored within the
approved lease area
Vessels associated with the marine use of the facility must only be berthed within the
approved lease area.
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless
otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
26236-J1 D Jetty Plan and Details prepared by 12 October 2017
SCG Consulting Engineers
Jetty Plan and Details prepared by
26236-J1 D 12 October 2017
SCG Consulting Engineers Annotated
annotated 12th of
by Project BA
October 2018
As Constructed Survey of new Jetty &
180908 Pontoon by Geo Surveying
27 September 2018
26236-S2 C Jetty Plan and Details prepared by 12 October 2017
SCG Consulting Engineers
The concurrence agency approved plans show no setback to the northern lease boundary, and
therefore do not require amendment.
BACKGROUND
The prescribed tidal works for the Jetty was approved by the Council on 24th of October 2017.
The builder subsequently carried out the approved works relying on the approved drawings, which
appear to incorrectly locate the existing jetty within the lease boundary. This resulted in the as
constructed works not achieving the 2600mm setback to the outer lease boundary noted on the
approved drawings.
Council review of the works identified that the works had not been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans and conditions. A 2.6m setback had not been maintained between the
new pontoon and the northern lease boundary to allow vessels to be moored within the approved
lease area. Council issued a show cause notice on 10th of September 2018 referenced
COM18/0326 requiring a response by 12th of October 2018.
This minor change application is being lodged in response to the show cause notice and satisfies
the requirements of the show cause notice as a response.
Page 3
MINOR CHANGE ASSESSMENT
An assessment against the meaning of minor change and a response about the proposed
application is provided thereafter underlined. 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 minor change does not include a new 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 proposed minor change for the setback will not allow additional boates to
be moored outside of the lease area, which is considered not to change the built form in
terms of scale, bulk, or appearance, when viewed from the river or foreshore.
- Changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; or
Response: The jetty can be operated as intended with mooring occurring within the lease
boundary. Mooring is not suitable on the end of the jetty due to this area being exclusively
used for refuelling vessels and the Noosa ferry access.
- Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development; or
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: All building work is contained within the lease area and not forward of the
existing building lines or encroaching in the main shipping channels or result in additional
traffic impacts on the foreshore.
Page 4
- 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: The proposed changes will not impact on the infrastructure provisions.
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: The original application was referred to the Chief Executive as a Concurrence
Agency for tidal works. No new referral agencies are applicable to the current
development. The plans approved by the concurrence agency have no setback to the
northern lease boundary, and therefore do not require changes.
C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
Response: The original application was referred to the Chief Executive as a Concurrence
Agency for tidal works. No other referral agencies are applicable to the current
development.
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.
Page 5
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
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT CODES AND OTHER DECISIONS
In accordance with Section 81 of the Planning Act 2016, the Council must consider as part of its
assessment of the minor change’s application all matters the responsible entity would or may
assess against or have regard to, if the change application were a development application. The
Noosa Plan’s Watercourse Works code is the most relevant matter for assessment.
An assessment against Specific Outcome O5 is provided below:
O5 Prescribed tidal works are designed and
sited to ensure—
a) they are contained within the prolongation The site is used for recreational boat hire to the
of boundaries of the lot; public. The constructed works and berthed
vessels are located within the lease area
boundaries.
b) that when a vessel is berthed it does not The term ‘berth’ implies a vessel’s allotted
encroach over the prolongation of boundaries place at a wharf. The vessels that are berthed
of the lot; at the site can be located within the lease
area, as required by condition 1 of the existing
development approval.
We have requested a change to condition 1
to change ‘moored’ to ‘berthed’ to better
reflect these performance criteria.
The existing approval for 2600mm setback
from the lease boundary would
accommodate the berthing of the hire boats,
however the area is not used for this. Larger
boats such as the coast guard and ferry that
use this area could not have docked within the
lease area to ferry terminal or refuel if the
2600mm setback was achieved.
It is therefore considered that the temporary
docking of vessels on the outer pontoon does
not constitute berthing or mooring.
Page 6
c) a high level of visual amenity is maintained The encroachment is unlikely to impede the
when viewed from the watercourse and visual amenity when viewed from the
adjoining lands; watercourse and adjoining lands. The
encroaching pontoon floats on the water with
little freeboard and is therefore unlikely to
impede the visual amenity.
d) they avoid conflicts with uses in the water The proposed jetty is constructed within the
and on the foreshore and adjoining lands; lease area and vessels are not berthed on the
outside of the outer pontoon.
e) cluttering of watercourses is avoided; The proposed encroachment is unlikely to
cause further cluttering of the water course.
The end pontoon within the encroachment will
remain uncluttered as it needs to be free for
temporary docking by the Ferry and other
boats who use the refueling station.
f) excessive traffic volumes within foreshore The proposed encroachment of the pontoon
areas and adjoining lands are avoided; will not result in excessive traffic volumes within
the foreshore. The pontoon offers a refueling
station away from the foreshore.
g) materials blend with the natural surrounds; The materials are consistent with the original
and approval.
h) they reflect the character and setting of the The proposed pontoon and Jetty are
immediate surrounds or the locality. consistent with the character and setting
originally approved. The encroachment of the
pontoon will not impede the character of the
development, as the pontoon is floating fixture
with little freeboard above the water line.
The watercourse works code does not prescribe a required setback to the outer lease boundary.
The minor changes will still allow the development to comply with the code. In May 2017, Council
approved OPW17/0024 for a jetty with a setback of 1396mm to the outer lease boundary. The
area was shown to be for the mooring of tenders, and the setback was accepted as it allowed
for all vessels to be moored within the lease area, as shown below.
Page 7
The setback to the outer lease boundary is controlled by the mooring requirements of the site. The end of the jetty at 180 Gympie Tce is not used for mooring, and therefore a lessor setback should be suitable in this instance. The new setbacks will not allow for mooring at the end of the facility where the jetty encroaches as shown below. The existing approved plans are already annotated ‘No Mooring at Any Time’. The minor change to reduce the setback to the outer lease boundary from 2600mm to 3mm still allows for condition 1 on the decision notice to be satisfied. It is unlikely that future use of the site will result in non-compliance issues. The encroaching part of the jetty is used for the fueling of vessels not associated with the marine use of the facility (boat hire) and a terminal for the Noosa Ferry, which needs access 364 days a year. Any mooring of vessels along this part would impede those other operations that the jetty supports (See attached letters from Noosa Ferry and other stake holders in the attached supporting documents).
Page 8
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments are a minor change, satisfying the requirements of the Noosa Plan’s
watercourse works code and existing approval conditions. If Noosa Council were to refuse the
change and force the jetty to be rectified, it would serve a great cost to the operator and the
community by impeding the services that rely upon it for no significant benefit. In this regard the
following grounds for approval are recommended:
- The works are contained within the lease boundary,
- The vessels associated with the marine facility are berthed within the lease boundary, other
vessels that use the site are only temporarily docked on the outer pontoon and not left
unattended by the skipper of that vessel.
- The jetty will maintain a high level of visual amenity when viewed from the river or the
foreshore.
- The minor change will not cause cluttering of the waterways.
- The minor change will not result in additional or excessive traffic volumes within the
foreshore.
We are more than happy to facilitate a meeting with Council officers onsite to see the operations
and temporary mooring that occurs and that the works are contained within the lease boundary.
We request that Noosa Council approve the minor change application.