Minor Change Request report 35 oasis noosa springs · 132007.2399.03

Page 2

   3. 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.)


Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules set outs provisions for a substantially different
development. A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the
proposed change results in any of the following outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - Substantially different development
 Provisions of Schedule 1 of the DA Rules                         Response

     a.    Involves a new use                                     There is no new use proposed onsite

     b.    results in the application applying to a new parcel of No new parcel of land is introduced
           land; or

     c.    dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, Minor built form changes and floor layout.
           bulk and appearance; or

     d.    changes the ability of the proposed development to No change to the use approved.
           operate as intended; or

     e.    removes a component that is integral to the operation No essential component of the development is proposed
           of the development; or                                to be removed.

     f.    significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport The proposal does not trigger any additional traffic or
           network, such as increasing traffic to the site; or     intensity of movements to that originally approved.

     g.    introduces new impacts or increase the severity of No new impacts or the severity of impacts is likely to result
           known impacts; or                                  from the plan modifications.

     h.    removes an incentive or offset component that would Does not remove an offset or incentive components of the
           have balanced a negative impact of the development; development.
           or

     i.    impacts on infrastructure provisions.                  There are no additional impacts on infrastructure.




          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 application was assessed by Noosa Council with no referral agencies
          applicable.

                  C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or

Page 3

       Response: The original and current application did not include any concurrence agency
       assessment.

              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

      4. 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.

      5. Assessment


The proposal includes minor amendments to the approved floor layout and elevations, while
remaining consistent with the established Mediterranean architectural character of the Oasis and the
broader Noosa Springs estate.
The development generally complies with the applicable built-form provisions of the Noosa Plan
2020 (September 2025), however a minor variation to the 6-metre internal road setback and height
is required.
Assessment against PO9 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code is provided below.


Setback PO9
Buildings and structures are designed and sited to:
(a)      provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises, including
         provision of visual and acoustic privacy and access to sunlight;
(b)      not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable
         areas of adjoining premises;
(c)      provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
(d)      preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
(e)      allow for soft landscaping to be provided between buildings and the site boundaries to provide
         for trees and shrubs;
(f)      contribute to open streetscapes by avoiding buildings and structures within the front 6 metres
         of the property; and
(g)      protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such
         as national parks, waterways and wetlands.

Page 5

The proposal fully complies with PO9 for the following reasons-

   •   Will have little to no visual or acoustic impact on the surrounding properties as it is a minor
       portion of roof form which sits behind existing vegetation.
   •   Is not a habitable space, so there will be no overlooking or impact on neighbouring
       properties.
   •   The site is located at the end of a ‘Y’ cul de sac and is unlikely to be seen from the road,
       given its alignment.
   •   Does not obstruct views as it is the ground floor roof.
   •   Existing soft landscaping containing mature shrubs and a trees will be retained within the
       internal road effectively screening the small portion of roof.




    Figure 2 - Setback variation for portion in red


In summary, the siting variation, illustrated in red in Figure 2 above, is small in scale and will be
effectively screened by the existing mature vegetation within the internal road reserve and hidden
because of the road alignment. As a result, the reduced setback will have negligible impact on the
internal streetscape or neighbours and will positively add to the character of the surrounding built
form.

Page 6

Building Height PO7
Buildings and structures:
            a)     are low rise and present a building height consistent with structures on adjoining
                   and surrounding premises and with the predominant character of the area;
            b)     are designed to provide an interesting streetscape and complement landform
                   changes;
            c)     do not visually dominate the street or surrounding area;
            d)     respect the scale of surrounding vegetation and maintain a vegetated skyline;
            e)     do not unreasonably obscure views or lead to overshadowing of neighbouring
                   properties; and
            f)     do not exceed two storeys; and
            g)     elevations do not appear to visually exceed two storeys when viewed from the
                   surrounding area.


The proposal fully complies with PO7 for the following reasons-

   •   The roof form is varied across the site including multiple pitched roof elements, with the
       main roof including an 18 degree pitch. The area of encroachment is contained to the
       middle of the site and will not be readily visible to neighbouring properties.
   •   The design does not exceed two storeys.
   •   The roof pitch is consistent with neighbouring buildings within the Oasis Dr development.
   •   Existing soft landscaping borders the site with the golf course adjoining on the northern
       boundary. The existing vegetation is in excess of 15m and the house will not be readily
       visible from the golf course or houses on Noosa Springs Dr.




                                      Figure 3 – Nearmap Oblique view

 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 RPIA
 Planner/Director
 Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
 0406 334 227
 Regards,