DF13075_Bell Allen_Permissible Change Request_251016

Page 2

Please note that the Council’s application fees of $871 and $1,431 will be paid directly to Council once
a request for payment has been received.

PERMISSIBLE CHANGE REQUEST
Since the previous design was approved, the design has been changed to more closely reflect the
applicant’s true aspirations for the site and other recent developments within the local area. As a
result, a number of changes are proposed to the approved design and these are shown on the
submitted drawings, prepared by Harry Poulos Architects. It should be noted that the new design
continues to respect the key development parameters established by the previous approval including
site cover, setbacks and building height but for convenience, the key changes to each floor are
summarised below.

    Ground floor
    • The under croft has been extended and as such, the footprint of the building has been
                        2       2
       reduced from 170m to 127m .

    •        The pool has also been removed and replaced with landscaping.
        st
    1 Floor
    • The garage has been moved to the southern side of site and its width reduced to 6.3m. The
       length of the boundary wall of the garage has been reduced from 7.1m to 6.6m. The garage
       setback to the street has also been increased slightly to 6m.

    •        The clothes drying deck adjacent to the laundry has been deleted;

    •        The swimming pool has been added to the first floor terrace and the southern end of the
             terrace has been extended to the setback line between the two adjoining properties.

    •        Along the northern side of the property, the side boundary setbacks have been improved by
             the removal of the garage and the clothes drying area. The setbacks are compliant with
             Council requirements.

    •        Along the southern side of the property the setbacks have been varied to include a zero
             setback at the front of the site but the balance of the building is at least 2m from the side
             boundary. Although relocated, the relationship of the garage to the adjoining property is an
             improvement on the previous design.

    •        The site cover of this level remains at 40% of the total site area.

    Upper Floor
                                                             2      2
    • The size of the upper floor has been increased from 51m to 94m . The additional floor area
                       2
       replaces the 43m lost from the ground floor.

    •        The upper level is setback 6.3m from the street and the front elevation illustrates that the
             proposal will continue to be read as a two storey building from the street.

    •        The setback to the northern boundary has reduced slightly from 2.7m – 2.5m but is still
             compliant.

    •        The setback to the southern boundary complies with the 2.5m minimum requirement.

    •        A small roof terrace and roof gardens have been added at the rear of the bedroom. As the
             floor plan shows, the roof garden will wrap around the northern, southern and eastern sides of
             the terrace and as a result, it will be setback 1.84m, 5.5m and 2m from the respective edges of
             the roof. As the building is setback 2m from both side boundaries the roof terrace will be
             3.84m and 4m from the northern and southern boundaries respectively..

Page 3

Based on a review of the Detached House Code, it is noted that it is necessary to demonstrate that the
proposed roof terrace will not create opportunities for residents to overlook the private open space of
neighbouring properties. In this respect, it is relevant to note the following:

        •   the roof terrace is setback approximately 5.5m from the rear edge of the roof;
        •   the terrace is setback at least 3.84m from the side boundaries;
        •   the roof terrace will be enclosed by a roof garden;
        •   the sections show that the proposed terrace will sit above the height of the gutters on
            both of the adjoining properties;
        •   the private open space areas on the adjoining sites are located at the rear of both
            properties and are orientated to take advantage of the sea views; and
        •   the applicant is aware that a similar roof terrace design has previously been developed as
            26 McAnally Street.

Overall, given the design and location of the proposed terrace it is considered that it will not create
opportunities for residents to overlook the private open space areas on the adjoining sites and as such,
will not have adverse impact on their amenity.

REQUESTED CHANGES TO DECISION NOTICE
The changes that need to be made to the Decision Notice as a result of the amended design are listed
below. Where changes are proposed to the Decision Notice, any suggested new words are
highlighted in bold, while any words to be deleted are shown as struck out.

Section 3 of the Decision Notice advises that the relevant period of the approval is in accordance with
the

Condition 2 – Approved Plans
The list of approved drawings needs to be replaced with the following:

      Drawing Description                              Drawing           Rev         Drawing
                                                       No.                           Date
      Proposed Ground Floor Level                      5456 A-01         30          21.09.16
                 st
      Proposed 1 Floor Street Entry Level              5456 A-02         29          26.09.16
                 st
      Proposed 1 Floor Plan                            5456 A-03         22          26.09.16
      Proposed Roof & Site Plan                        5456 A-04         12          29.09.16
      Proposed Front Elevation                         5456 A-05         14          25.05.15
      Proposed RHS (South) Elevation                   5456 A-06         16          23.09.16
      Proposed Rear (East) Elevation                   5456 A-07         16          23.09.16
      Proposed LHS (North) Elevation                   5456 A-08         16          23.09.16
      Section A-A                                      5456 A-10         25          23.09.16
      Section B-B                                      5456 A-11         28          23.09.16
      Section D                                        5456 A-13         13          16.09.16
      Proposed Site Plan                               5456 A-30         03          12.09.16

Condition 16
The wording of the condition needs to be updated to reflect the new revision of the relevant plan.

        “The roof must not extend seaward of a line drawn between the closest roof corner of the
         adjoining properties to the north and south as annotated by Council on the approved plan
         plan A-02 revision 14 29”.

Condition 17
As the roof line of the proposed building does not extend as far east as the original design, it is
suggested that condition 17 be amended slightly to ensure that the privacy screens on the first floor
level continue to protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. In this respect, it is suggested the
condition be amended to rea as follows:

        “The privacy screens located on the 1 first floor seaward deck must not extend beyond

Page 4

        the roof line be provided in accordance with approved plan A-01 revision 29.

Condition 18 & 19
As mentioned above the clothes drying deck at 1st floor level has been deleted and as such is it
considered that conditions 18 and 19 can be deleted.


PERMISSIBLE CHANGE ASSESSMENT

Section 367 of Sustainable Planning Act 2009 states:

(1) A permissible change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that would
    not—
       (a) result in a substantially different development; or

        In respect to what constitutes a ‘substantially different development’, specific reference is
        made to the statutory guidelines pursuant to section 769 of the SPA (Statutory Guideline
        06/09):

        “Although it will depend on the individual circumstances of the development, the following list
        identifies changes that may result in a substantially different development and would,
        therefore, not be a minor change or permissible change under the SPA. This list is intended as
        a guide to assist assessment managers and applicants to determine whether a change will
        result in a substantially different development and is not intended to be exhaustive.

        •   Involves a new use with different or additional impacts.

            Comment:
        The changes do not change the approved use of the site as a dwelling house.

        •   Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land.

            Comment:
        The changes do not include a new parcel of land into the application

        •   Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance

            Comment:
        The size, scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling remain consistent with the current
        approval.

        •   Changes the ability of the proposal to operate as intended.

            Comment:
        The proposal will continue to operate as a residential dwelling.

        •   Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development

           Comment:
        The proposed changes do result in the removal of an integral part of the approved
        development.

        •   Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to
            the site.

           Comment:
        The proposed changes will not result in significant increases in the amount of traffic
        movement generated by the site.

Page 5

       •   Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts.

           Comment:
       The proposal will not alter the existing impacts that the development will have on surrounding
       area.

       •   Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact
           of the development.

           Comment:
       The approved development did not include an incentive of offset component.

       •   Impacts on infrastructure provision from a location or demand.

           Comment:
       The revised design will not result in any additional impacts on the local infrastructure
       networks.

       (b) if the application for the approval were remade including the change—
                (i)    require referral to additional concurrence agencies;

           Comment:
           There were no referral agencies for the original application and a review of the Sustainable
           Planning Regulations 2009, has identified that if this application were re-made under the
           “applicable law” with, or without, the proposed changes, no referrals would be triggered

               or

               (ii)    for an approval for assessable development that previously did not
                       require impact assessment—require impact assessment; or

               Comment:
           The changes do not change the original level of assessment for the application which was
           code assessable.

       (c) for an approval for assessable development that previously required impact
           assessment—be likely, in the responsible entity’s opinion, to cause a person to make
           a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change, if the circumstances
           allowed; or

              Comment:
           Not applicable as the previous application was code assessable.

       (d) cause development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited
           development.

               Comment:
            The proposed amendments do not involve prohibited development.

(2) For deciding whether a change is a permissible change under subsection (1)(b) or (d), the
    planning instruments or law in force at the time the request for the change was made apply
    (the applicable law).

               Comment:
       The current approval was assessed against the Noosa Plan 2006 and this document is
       still in effect.

Page 6

EXTENSION TO RELEVANT PERIOD REQUEST
Section 388 of SPA details what must be considered by the assessment manager in deciding the
request. An assessment against each criterion is provided below.

    a) Consistency of the approval with the current laws and policies

The proposed development remains consistent with the current Noosa Plan and, although a review of
the Noosa Plan has commenced, it is not expected that a new Planning Scheme will be adopted until
after the dwelling has been built or the proposed 2 year extension has expired.

    b) The community’s current awareness of the development approval

The original application was code assessable and this level of assessment would still apply if the
application were submitted in its current form. The approved development therefore remains
consistent with the current Zoning in the Noosa Plan and the community’s expectations for future
development on the site.

    c) Whether, if the request were refused-

            (i)    Further rights to make submissions may be available for a further development
                   application; and

            (ii)   The likely extent to which those rights may be exercised.

As mentioned above, if a new application were submitted for the approved development it would be
code assessable and there would therefore be no submitter rights.

    d) The views of any concurrence agency for the approval

There was no Concurrence Agency for the original approval.

In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, it is considered that there are sufficient grounds to
support a further two (2) years extension to the current approval.


CONCLUSIONS
It is considered that the proposed changes to the development remain consistent with the Noosa Plan
and satisfy the relevant tests set out in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Furthermore, it is considered
that the request to further extend the relevant period of the approval by another two (2) years also
warrants Council’s support:

In light of the above it is considered that this request for a permissible change and a further two (2)
year extension to the relevant period of the Material Change of Use approval MCU13/0247 until 20
January 2020 satisfies the tests of SPA and should therefore be supported by Council.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]

cc.client