Minor Change Assessment Letter.pdf

Page 2

pressure. Further detail is provided in Attachment 4. Since then, the applicant has worked
with QFES and Unitywater to develop a compliant solution. A number of alternative locations
for the fire equipment were assessed; however, due to the physical constraints of the site, no
other location was identified that could satisfy both operational requirements and compliance
obligations. The proposed location is therefore considered the only practical and appropriate
solution.

This application seeks approval for the works required to implement that solution, which are
outlined below. As the proposed works are located within the common property of the Rise
Apartments, body corporate consent has been obtained and lodged with the application.

DETAILS OF PROPOSED WORKS
Full details of the proposed works are provided in the Proposal Plans in Attachment 1 and the
Hydraulic Plans in Attachment 2. An extract from the proposal plans is provided below.




Figure 1 – Extract from proposed plan (Attachment 1)

The proposed works comprise:

    •   relocation of the existing fire hydrant and booster cabinet from the northern to the
        southern side of the basement driveway
    •   redesign of the existing planter and introduction of a wall trellis
    •   construction of a new fire pump enclosure on the southern side of the driveway
    •   installation of above-ground pipework to minimise excavation and protect existing
        trees.

Perspectives of the proposed outcome are provided in Attachment 1 and reproduced below.

Given the proximity of the works to the existing Weeping Fig trees, the application is supported
by an Arborist Report prepared by Consult Arborist and included as Attachment 3.

The Arborist Report supports retention of the existing Weeping Fig trees and confirms that the
proposed works can proceed without adverse long-term impacts, subject to tree protection
measures including arborist supervision, hydro-vac excavation, root pruning where required,
ground protection and site-specific Tree Protection Zone management.


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT
URBAN

pressure. Further detail is provided in Attachment 4. Since then, the applicant has worked
with QFES and Unitywater to develop a compliant solution. A number of alternative locations
for the fire equipment were assessed; however, due to the physical constraints of the site, no
other location was identified that could satisfy both operational requirements and compliance
obligations. The proposed location is therefore considered the only practical and appropriate
solution.

 

This application seeks approval for the works required to implement that solution, which are
outlined below. As the proposed works are located within the common property of the Rise
Apartments, body corporate consent has been obtained and lodged with the application.

DETAILS OF PROPOSED WORKS
Full details of the proposed works are provided in the Proposal Plans in Attachment 1 and the
Hydraulic Plans in Attachment 2. An extract from the proposal plans is provided below.

 

INDICATIVE LOCATION OF ABOVE GROUND!
‘SURFACE MOUNTED PIPEWORK TD NEWBOOSTER
ASSEMBLY SHOWN IN DIAGONAL HATCH

    
 

INDICATIVE LOCATION OF NEW BELOW GROUND
PIPEVIORK TO NEWDUAL FIRE HYDRANT AND
BOOSTER ASSEMBLY, SHOWN INCROSS HATCH

    
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

INDICATIVE LOCATION OF EXISTING FOOL
7 EQUIPMENT TO RENAIN SHOWN DASHED

RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT BOOSTER |
ASSEMBLY |

NEW RAISED PLANTER BED
WALLS, TOP OF WALL HEIGHT
TOMATCH EXISTING

     

BONoPaE |

| emma #
7
.

   

REINSTATE PLANTING 70 MODIFIED
RAISED PLANTER, REFER TO.
INDICATIVE PLANTING SCHEDULE

       

NEW FIRE PUMP ENCLOSURE

  

Figure 1 — Extract from proposed plan (Attachment 1)
The proposed works comprise:

e relocation of the existing fire hydrant and booster cabinet from the northern to the
southern side of the basement driveway

e redesign of the existing planter and introduction of a wall trellis

e construction of a new fire pump enclosure on the southern side of the driveway

e installation of above-ground pipework to minimise excavation and protect existing
trees.

Perspectives of the proposed outcome are provided in Attachment 1 and reproduced below.

Given the proximity of the works to the existing Weeping Fig trees, the application is supported
by an Arborist Report prepared by Consult Arborist and included as Attachment 3.

The Arborist Report supports retention of the existing Weeping Fig trees and confirms that the
proposed works can proceed without adverse long-term impacts, subject to tree protection
measures including arborist supervision, hydro-vac excavation, root pruning where required,
ground protection and site-specific Tree Protection Zone management.

Page 3

Perspective 1 – Works on Southern Side of Driveway




Perspective 2 – Works on Northern Side of Driveway

The applicant met with Council in February 2026 to discuss the proposed works. At the pre-
lodgement meeting, Council indicated in-principle support for the proposal proceeding as a
minor change, subject to appropriate landscaping, vegetation protection and supporting
technical documentation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DECISION NOTICE
To formalise the proposed changes, it is requested that the list of approved drawings be
amended to include the following Proposal Plans prepared by Cayas + Ward Architects.

                       Drawing Title                 Drawing   Issue      Date
                                                       No.
          Proposed Site Plan – Application           A200.00   B       27.03.2026
          Existing Part Plan                         A200.01   C       27.03.2026
          Demolition Part Plan                       A200.02   B       27.03.2026
          Proposed Part Plan                         A200.03   B       27.03.2026


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT

 

|G NEW WALL TRELLIS AND PLANTING

RELOCATED DUAL FIRE HYDRANT ——~

     

ENFRERAPLORIONE 77

hae

    

Perspective 1 —- Works on Southern Side of Driveway

 

 

Pi ‘spe: 2 -Works ‘on Northern Side of Driveway

The applicant met with Council in February 2026 to discuss the proposed works. At the pre-
lodgement meeting, Council indicated in-principle support for the proposal proceeding as a
minor change, subject to appropriate landscaping, vegetation protection and supporting
technical documentation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DECISION NOTICE

To formalise the proposed changes, it is requested that the list of approved drawings be
amended to include the following Proposal Plans prepared by Cayas + Ward Architects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing Title Drawing | Issue Date
No.
Proposed Site Plan — Application A200.00 B 27.03.2026
Existing Part Plan A200.01 Cc 27.03.2026
Demolition Part Plan A200.02_ |B 27.03.2026
Proposed Part Plan A200.03 B 27.03.2026

 

Page 4

                Detail Section Pipework Cover              A200.04   B        27.03.2026
                Perspective 01                             A200.10   B        27.03.2026
                Perspective 02                             A200.11   B        27.03.2026

No changes to the conditions of the approval are required.

MINOR CHANGE
The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as:

A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that —

      i.         would not result in a substantially different development; and

           In this respect, the DA Rules state that “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”.

           The DA Rule also includes the following tests to help determine if a change would result
           in substantially different development:

            Description / Provisions                  Comment / Response
            A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the
            proposed change:

            •     Involves a new use; or                    No new land use is proposed in this
                                                            change application.

            •     Results in the application applying to No new land is included in             the
                  a new parcel of land; or               development by this application.

            •     Dramatically changes the built form in The proposed works may have a minor
                  terms of scale, bulk and appearance; visual effect on the site, but they will not
                  or                                     materially alter the scale, bulk or overall
                                                         appearance of the existing built form.

            •     Changes the ability of the proposed       The proposed changes will not impede
                  development to operate as intended        the development’s operation. Rather,
                  (for example, reducing the size of a      they are necessary to support the
                  retail complex may reduce the             ongoing operation of the hotel and
                  capacity of the complex to service the    apartments.
                  intended catchment); or

            •     Removes a component that is integral The proposed changes do not remove
                  to the operation of the development; any components that are integral to the
                  or                                   development’s operation.

            •     Significantly impacts on traffic flow The proposed changes will not increase
                  and the transport network, such as traffic generation and will have no
                  increasing traffic to the site; or    impact on the external road network.


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT
URBAN

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detail Section Pipework Cover A200.04 B 27.03.2026
Perspective 01 A200.10 B 27.03.2026
Perspective 02 A200.11 B 27.03.2026

 

No changes to the conditions of the approval are required.

MINOR CHANGE
The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as:

 

A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that —
i. would not result in a substantially different development; and

In this respect, the DA Rules state that “/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”.

The DA Rule also includes the following tests to help determine if a change would result
in substantially different development:

 

Description / Provisions

Comment / Response

 

A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the
proposed change:

 

Involves a new use; or

No new land use is proposed in this
change application.

 

Results in the application applying to
a new parcel of land; or

No new land is included in the

development by this application.

 

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

The proposed works may have a minor
visual effect on the site, but they will not
materially alter the scale, bulk or overall
appearance of the existing built form.

 

Changes the ability of the proposed
development to operate as intended
(for example, reducing the size of a
retail complex may reduce the
capacity of the complex to service the
intended catchment); or

The proposed changes will not impede
the development’s operation. Rather,
they are necessary to support the
ongoing operation of the hotel and
apartments.

 

Removes a component that is integral
to the operation of the development;
or

The proposed changes do not remove
any components that are integral to the
development’s operation.

 

Significantly impacts on traffic flow
and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site; or

The proposed changes will not increase
traffic generation and will have no
impact on the external road network.

 

Page 5

          •    Introduces new impacts or increases The proposed changes do not introduce
               the severity of known impacts; or   new impacts or increase the severity of
                                                   existing impacts.

          •    Removes an incentive or offset No incentive or offset components
               component that would have balanced formed part of the original approval.
               the   negative   impact   of   the
               development; or

          •    Impacts on infrastructure provisions.   The proposed changes will not result in
                                                       any different impacts on infrastructure
                                                       provision.


    ii.       if a development application for the development, including the change, were
              made when the change application is made would not cause—

          Description / Provisions                     Comment / Response

          A. the   inclusion   of    prohibited No prohibited development is proposed
             development in the application; or as part of this change application.

          B. referral to a referral agency, other No referrals are triggered by the
             than to the chief executive, if there proposed works.
             were no referral agencies for the
             development application; or

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

          D. a referral agency to assess the As above
             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 The proposed changes do not alter the
             notification was not required for the level of the assessment.
             development application.


Based on the assessment set out above, the proposed changes are consistent with the
definition of a minor change in the Planning Act 2016.


[OCR of page images]
ii.

PROJECT
URBAN

  

 

e Introduces new impacts or increases
the severity of known impacts; or

The proposed changes do not introduce
new impacts or increase the severity of
existing impacts.

 

e Removes an incentive or offset
component that would have balanced
the negative impact of the
development; or

No incentive or offset components
formed part of the original approval.

 

e Impacts on infrastructure provisions.

The proposed changes will not result in
any different impacts on infrastructure
provision.

 

if a development application for the development, including the change, were
made when the change application is made would not cause—

 

Description / Provisions

Comment / Response

 

 

A. the inclusion’ of _ prohibited
development in the application; or

No prohibited development is proposed
as part of this change application.

 

B. referral to a referral agency, other
than to the chief executive, if there
were no referral agencies for the
development application; or

No referrals are triggered by the
proposed works.

 

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

As above.

 

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

As above

 

E. public notification if public
notification was not required for the
development application.

The proposed changes do not alter the
level of the assessment.

 

Based on the assessment set out above, the proposed changes are consistent with the
definition of a minor change in the Planning Act 2016.

Page 6

ASSESSMENT
The Planning Act 2016 includes the following requirements for the assessment of change
applications:

       “Pursuant to Clause 81 (4) & (5) the responsible entity must consider the
       statutory instrument, or other document, as in effect when the development
       application for the development approval was properly made.

       However, the responsible entity may give the weight the responsible entity
       considers is appropriate, in the circumstances, to—
          (a)    the statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the
                 change application was made; 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”.

As outlined above, the proposed works involve critical upgrades to the fire hydrant pump and
booster system along the Noosa Drive frontage. The upgrades are necessary to improve fire
safety and ensure the system performs effectively in an emergency.

Under the Noosa Plan 2020, the site is within the Tourist Accommodation Zone and the Noosa
Heads Local Plan area. Given the minor scale of the proposed works, Council advised at the
pre-lodgement meeting that acceptable outcomes AO13.1, AO18.4 and AO22.4 in the Tourist
Accommodation Zone Code are relevant to the assessment and these are discussed below.

Acceptable Outcome 13.1
AO13.1 reads as follows:

       “Except where otherwise specified in a local plan code, buildings and structures meet
       the following minimum boundary setbacks:

       In the Noosa Heads Local Plan Area (excluding the Hastings Street Mixed Use
       Precinct):

          a) 6 metres from the front boundary for up to two storeys;
          b) 10 metres from the front boundary for the third and fourth storey;
          c) From side boundaries:
               i)     1.5 metres setback up to 4.5 metres height;
               ii)    2 metres setback between 4.5 metres - 7.5 metres height; and
               iii)   2 metres plus 500 millimetres for every 3 metres or part thereof above
                      7.5 metres height;
          d) 6 metres from the rear boundary for up to two storeys; and
          e) 8 metres from the rear boundary for the third and fourth storey".


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT &
URBAN
ASSESSMENT

The Planning Act 2016 includes the following requirements for the assessment of change
applications:

  

 

“Pursuant to Clause 81 (4) & (5) the responsible entity must consider the
statutory instrument, or other document, as in effect when the development
application for the development approval was properly made.

However, the responsible entity may give the weight the responsible entity
considers is appropriate, in the circumstances, to—
(a) the statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the
change application was made; 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”.

As outlined above, the proposed works involve critical upgrades to the fire hydrant pump and
booster system along the Noosa Drive frontage. The upgrades are necessary to improve fire
safety and ensure the system performs effectively in an emergency.

Under the Noosa Plan 2020, the site is within the Tourist Accommodation Zone and the Noosa
Heads Local Plan area. Given the minor scale of the proposed works, Council advised at the
pre-lodgement meeting that acceptable outcomes AO13.1, AO18.4 and AO22.4 in the Tourist
Accommodation Zone Code are relevant to the assessment and these are discussed below.

Acceptable Outcome 13.1
AO713.1 reads as follows:

“Except where otherwise specified in a local plan code, buildings and structures meet
the following minimum boundary setbacks:

In the Noosa Heads Local Plan Area (excluding the Hastings Street Mixed Use
Precinct):

a) 6metres from the front boundary for up to two storeys;
b) 10 metres from the front boundary for the third and fourth storey;
c) From side boundaries:

i) 1.5 metres setback up to 4.5 metres height;

ii) 2 metres setback between 4.5 metres - 7.5 metres height; and

iii) 2 metres plus 500 millimetres for every 3 metres or part thereof above
7.5 metres height;

d) 6 metres from the rear boundary for up to two storeys; and
e) 8 metres from the rear boundary for the third and fourth storey".

Page 7

Applicant’s Response
While AO13.1 refers to buildings and structures, the proposal does not alter the siting of the
approved buildings or introduce any change to the established building setbacks. The proposal
is more properly characterised as fire services plant with associated minor ancillary works, and
as such, AO22.4 is the most relevant control. To the extent any ancillary elements, such as
the booster enclosure, planter walls or trellis, may be regarded as structures, the works are
minor in scale and do not result in any material change to the established setback character
of the frontage.

Acceptable Outcome AO18.4
AO18.4 reads as follows:

       “The area of land between the front fence and the boundary is landscaped to screen
       the fence from the street, however, landscaping does not encroach more than 500
       millimetres into the road reserve or within 1.5 metres of a sealed footpath”.

Applicant’s Response
The proposal maintains a landscaped frontage to Noosa Drive by retaining the existing
Weeping Fig trees and incorporating new planting and trellis elements. This landscaping will
continue to soften and screen the frontage from the street, while remaining clear of the road
reserve and maintaining the existing relationship to the footpath. The proposal therefore
achieves the outcome sought by AO18.4.

Acceptable Outcome AO22.4
AO22.4 reads as follows:

       “Mechanical plant is:

       a) located at least 2 metres from side or rear property boundaries
       b) where located at ground level, screened by fencing 1.5 metres in height or dense
          vegetation of at least 1.5 metres in width incorporating grouped trees and shrubs
          with a maximum separation distance of 1 metre measured from the centre of the
          plant;
       c) where located above ground level, enclosed or screened such that it is not visible
          from the street frontage nor adjoining properties; and
       d) visually integrated into the line and plane of the building and roof design and does
          not project beyond the height or width of the building when viewed from the street
          and adjoining properties”.

Applicant’s Response
As the proposal does not comply with the minimum setbacks sought by AO22.4, the proposal
must be assessed against the associated Performance Outcome, PO22, which reads as
follows:

       “Development, including mechanical plant, vehicle manoeuvring, commercial kitchens,
       and communal outdoor recreation uses:

           a. do not have an adverse effect on the amenity enjoyed by users of adjacent or
              nearby premises through emission of noise, light, fumes or smoke;
           b. do not cause unreasonable disturbance to local fauna through light or smoke
              emissions”.


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT &
URBAN
Applicant’s Response

While AO13.1 refers to buildings and structures, the proposal does not alter the siting of the
approved buildings or introduce any change to the established building setbacks. The proposal
is more properly characterised as fire services plant with associated minor ancillary works, and
as such, AQ22.4 is the most relevant control. To the extent any ancillary elements, such as
the booster enclosure, planter walls or trellis, may be regarded as structures, the works are
minor in scale and do not result in any material change to the established setback character
of the frontage.

  

Acceptable Outcome AO18.4
AO718.4 reads as follows:

“The area of land between the front fence and the boundary is landscaped to screen
the fence from the street, however, landscaping does not encroach more than 500
millimetres into the road reserve or within 1.5 metres of a sealed footpath”.

Applicant’s Response

The proposal maintains a landscaped frontage to Noosa Drive by retaining the existing
Weeping Fig trees and incorporating new planting and trellis elements. This landscaping will
continue to soften and screen the frontage from the street, while remaining clear of the road
reserve and maintaining the existing relationship to the footpath. The proposal therefore
achieves the outcome sought by AO18.4.

Acceptable Outcome AQ22.4
AO22.4 reads as follows:

“Mechanical plant is:

a) located at least 2 metres from side or rear property boundaries

b) where located at ground level, screened by fencing 1.5 metres in height or dense
vegetation of at least 1.5 metres in width incorporating grouped trees and shrubs
with a maximum separation distance of 1 metre measured from the centre of the
plant;

c) where located above ground level, enclosed or screened such that it is not visible
from the street frontage nor adjoining properties; and

d) visually integrated into the line and plane of the building and roof design and does
not project beyond the height or width of the building when viewed from the street
and adjoining properties”.

Applicant’s Response

As the proposal does not comply with the minimum setbacks sought by AO22.4, the proposal
must be assessed against the associated Performance Outcome, PO22, which reads as
follows:

“Development, including mechanical plant, vehicle manoeuvring, commercial kitchens,
and communal outdoor recreation uses:

a. donot have an adverse effect on the amenity enjoyed by users of adjacent or
nearby premises through emission of noise, light, fumes or smoke;

b. do not cause unreasonable disturbance to local fauna through light or smoke
emissions”.

Page 8

The proposal involves relocation of the existing booster cabinet and installation of a new fire
pump enclosure as part of a fire services mechanical plant upgrade. While the plant will be
relocated closer to the boundary, that boundary presents to Noosa Parade as a road frontage
rather than a conventional side or rear boundary. Importantly, the siting has been designed to
respond to QFES requirements for this type of critical infrastructure and to minimise impacts
on the existing Weeping Fig trees.

The proposal is consistent with PO22 because the plant will not adversely affect the amenity
of adjacent or nearby premises through noise, light, fumes or smoke, nor will it cause
unreasonable disturbance to local fauna through light or smoke emissions. The infrastructure
is modest in scale, will not generate light, fumes or smoke, and is not expected to give rise to
any material noise impacts beyond the normal operation of essential fire services
infrastructure. The proposal therefore achieves the outcome sought by PO22.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed works remain consistent
with the original development approval and satisfy the outcomes sought by the current Noosa
Plan.

CONCLUSIONS
This application seeks approval for minor changes to the approved plans for The Reef Hotel
and The Rise Apartments at 37–49 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, Qld 4567, legally described
as Lot 0 on SP147914. The proposed works involve upgrades to the fire hydrant pump and
booster system along the Noosa Drive frontage to improve fire safety and ensure effective
operation in an emergency.

As set out above, the proposed changes satisfy the definition of a minor change under the
Planning Act 2016 and remain consistent with Development Approval 22776 DA and the
outcomes sought by Noosa Plan 2020.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that Council approve this minor change application and
amend Development Approval 22776 DA to include the Proposal Plans in Attachment 1 as
approved plans.

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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT
URBAN

The proposal involves relocation of the existing booster cabinet and installation of a new fire
pump enclosure as part of a fire services mechanical plant upgrade. While the plant will be
relocated closer to the boundary, that boundary presents to Noosa Parade as a road frontage
rather than a conventional side or rear boundary. Importantly, the siting has been designed to
respond to QFES requirements for this type of critical infrastructure and to minimise impacts
on the existing Weeping Fig trees.

  

The proposal is consistent with PO22 because the plant will not adversely affect the amenity
of adjacent or nearby premises through noise, light, fumes or smoke, nor will it cause
unreasonable disturbance to local fauna through light or smoke emissions. The infrastructure
is modest in scale, will not generate light, fumes or smoke, and is not expected to give rise to
any material noise impacts beyond the normal operation of essential fire services
infrastructure. The proposal therefore achieves the outcome sought by PO22.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed works remain consistent
with the original development approval and satisfy the outcomes sought by the current Noosa
Plan.

CONCLUSIONS

 

This application seeks approval for minor changes to the approved plans for The Reef Hotel
and The Rise Apartments at 37-49 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, Qld 4567, legally described
as Lot 0 on SP147914. The proposed works involve upgrades to the fire hydrant pump and
booster system along the Noosa Drive frontage to improve fire safety and ensure effective
operation in an emergency.

As set out above, the proposed changes satisfy the definition of a minor change under the
Planning Act 2016 and remain consistent with Development Approval 22776 DA and the
outcomes sought by Noosa Plan 2020.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that Council approve this minor change application and
amend Development Approval 22776 DA to include the Proposal Plans in Attachment 1 as
approved plans.

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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN

j

M teed

Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]