FINAL-Letter-170822-BA4480 Change Application - Minor Change - Responsib... · MCU16/0084.03

Page 2

Figure 1 – Approved Development with Notes via GIA Request




Since the approvals outlined above were issued, the Applicant has commenced the detailed design
phase of the approval. During this process, it was identified that there was a condition that was
contrary to the design of the proposal and not required. The details of the condition are outlined in the
section below.



The purpose of the minor change is to ensure that the approved fuel station can proceed in
accordance with the approved plans – with a Stormwater360 system for storm water treatment and a
canopy that aligns with the extent of the fuel dispensing area below. Condition 62 states the following:
        Condition 62: The canopy installed over FDA must be designed to minimize the amount of
        rain entering the dispensing area and shall overhang by a horizontal distance of at least one-
        quarter of the roof height out from the vertical above the boundary of the demarcated fuel
        dispensing area as per drawing B16239-CSK01.
It is requested that condition 62 be deleted as it is not required for this development.
The reason why the condition is not required is because the development is providing a
Stormwater360 system instead of a containment vessel (i.e. blind sump). Given the ability of the


                                                                                                         2

Page 3

Stormwater360 system to treat any contaminated runoff continually before discharge to the
stormwater drainage, it is considered that the canopy over the fuel dispensing area should not need to
overhang the Fuel Dispensing Area (FDA) by one-quarter of the overall height of the canopy. The
purpose of this requirement is to minimise the volume stormwater runoff from entering the FDA when
discharging to a blind sump to ensure that the containment vessel is not full in the event of a fuel spill.
With the use of a Stormwater360 system, this is not a concern.
Based on the above, we therefore request condition 62 to be deleted. We note that Condition 28
endorses the use of a Stormwater360 system as follows:
        Condition 28: Any proprietary stormwater quality improvement product must be:
        a. designed and installed in accordance with its relevant Technical Design Guide;
        b. incorporate adequate high flow bypass for peak flows that exceed the design capacity of the
        system;
        c. include energy dissipation to prevent resuspension of accumulated sediment;
        d. include for activation of any necessary components following key rainfall events for the
        device (i.e. for Stormwater 360, the design must include for activation of the siphon following a
        5mm rainfall event over the catchment area.




Consideration has been given to the relevant matters for assessing a minor change in the PAct,
having regard to the definition of minor change in Schedule 2 and the assessment criteria in Section
81.

Schedule 2 Assessment Criteria
Schedule 2 of the PAct, outlines the definition of a minor change for a development approval (see
below).
The proposed change, as outlined above, have been assessed against these criteria, as follows:
Schedule 2 - 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 to assess the application against, or have regard to,
                             matters prescribed by regulation under section 55(2), other than matters



                                                                                                          3

Page 4

                             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 notification was not required for the
                             development application; or
        (b) for a development approval—
                (i) would not result in substantially different 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 development in the application; or
                         (B) referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there
                             were no referral agencies for the development application; or
                         (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 notification was not required for the
                             development application.
The proposed change as outlined above has been assessed against these criteria, as follows:
The response to (b)(i) of the above definition is:
In respect to Schedule 2 (b)(i) of PAct of what constitutes a substantially different development, it is
appropriate to have regard to the Development Assessment Rules, Schedule 1, for further information
about the substantially different development. An assessment of the proposed changes against the
substantially different development criteria in the Development Assessment Rules is included in the
table below.

 Guideline Criteria                                  Response

 Involves a new use                                  The proposed change does not alter the uses
                                                     approved. The proposed change involves the
                                                     deletion of Condition 62 to reflect the provision of
                                                     a Stormwater360 system instead of a
                                                     containment vessel (i.e. blind sump) for
                                                     managing contaminated stormwater runoff.

                                                     No new uses are introduced and the changes do
                                                     not involve any different or additional impacts
                                                     which were not addressed by the Applicant and
                                                     Council through the assessment process for the
                                                     original application.



                                                                                                        4

Page 5

Results in the application applying to a new       The proposed changes do not involve the
parcel of land.                                    addition of any new land to the development
                                                   application.

Dramatically changes the built form in terms of    The proposed change involves the deletion of
scale, bulk and appearance.                        Condition 62 to reflect the provision of a
                                                   Stormwater360 system instead of a containment
                                                   vessel (i.e. blind sump) for managing
                                                   contaminated stormwater runoff. The change will
                                                   not change the built form of the approved
                                                   development.

                                                   The height and setbacks of the approved
                                                   buildings have been maintained.

Changes the ability of the proposed development    The proposed change involves the deletion of
to operate as intended. For example, reducing      Condition 62 to reflect the provision of a
the size of a retail complex may reduce the        Stormwater360 system instead of a containment
capacity of the complex to service the intended    vessel (i.e. blind sump) for managing
catchment.                                         contaminated stormwater runoff. The change will
                                                   not change the built form of the approved
                                                   development.

                                                   The inclusion of the Stormwater360 system will
                                                   improve the efficiency and management of
                                                   stormwater runoff from the FDA in comparison to
                                                   a blind sump.

Removes a component that is integral to the        The proposed changes do not result in a removal
operation of the development.                      of any component of the development. Rather,
                                                   the changes proposed will ensure that the
                                                   development can proceed in accordance with the
                                                   approved plans.

Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the      The proposed change to the condition affecting
transport network, such as increasing traffic to   the extent of the canopy will not impact the traffic
the site.                                          flow and transport network.

Introduces new impacts or increases the severity   It is considered that the changes to the condition
of known impacts.                                  affecting the extent of the canopy will not
                                                   introduce new impacts to the site.




                                                                                                        5

Page 6

 Removes an incentive or offset component that        The development as originally approved did not
 would have balanced a negative impact of the         include any incentive or offset component.
 development.

 Impacts on infrastructure provision.                 The proposal does not impact the infrastructure
                                                      provision.



The response to (b)(ii)(A) of the above definition is:
The proposal does not include any prohibited development.
The response to (b)(ii)(B)(C) of the above definition is:
The original application was referred to any referral agencies.
The response to (b)(ii)(E) of the above definition is:
The original development application was impact assessment. The proposed change does not alter
the level of assessment.




Approval Package Amendments
A condition will need to be removed or amended as a result of the proposed change. The suggested
amendment is outlined as follows, with deletions in blue and struck out and additions in blue and
underlined.

 Condition                                                              Timing

 Condition 62                                                           Prior to the commencement of
                                                                        the use and then to be
 The canopy installed over FDA must be designed to minimise the         maintained.
 amount of rain entering the dispensing area and shall overhang by
 a horizontal distance of at least one-quarter of the roof height out
 from the vertical above the boundary of the demarcated fuel
 dispensing area as per drawing B16239-CSK01.

 Deleted.




                                                                                                        6

Page 7

In accordance with Noosa Shire Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2017/18, a request to
change a development approval requires a fee of $1,904.00. As the minor change relates only to
changing one condition of approval. The base fee is considered appropriate in this instance.
The fee will be paid upon receipt of Council’s fee quote.




In summary, we consider that the above assessment demonstrates that the proposed changes can be
considered a minor change to the approval under PAct. The changes do not result in a substantially
different development, do not significantly alter the external built form, and do not increase potential
adverse impacts from the development.
We trust the supplied documentation is sufficient in order for Council to undertake an assessment of
this request. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Penny
Milton on (07) 3007 3800.


Yours sincerely,




Cameron Stanley
Director




                                                                                                       7