Minor Change Request

Page 2

There are several reasons that the 3m access and clearance zone is required, including:
• Not having planting over the major Council 600mm diam stormwater pipe that runs along the boundary;
• Providing access to maintain the bio basin and BAL zone to the east of the development;
• Providing required access for QFES from the new hardstand (12.0m x 6.0m) to service hydrants at the
  east end on the building;
• Providing access to the Council park area as required.

Subsequent operational works approval, OPW20/0007, reflects this outcome providing the hardstand which
was required by QFES over the 3m access along the north boundary and 3m of landscaping.’

This outcome has been constructed, with certificates of completion for both MCU18/0009 and OPW20/0007
issued.

Release of the development bond is however still being held by Council due to the conflict with these
conditions.

Accordingly, it is requested that condition 2.5 be amended to exclude the northern boundary and that
condition 32 a. be deleted.

MINOR CHANGE ASSESSMENT
The Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change for a development approval as a change to the approval that
would not result in a substantially different development.

The DA Rules state:

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.

    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 use is proposed.
    •   Results in the application applying to a        No new land is included as part of the
        new parcel of land; or                          application.
    •   Dramatically changes the built form in          The proposed change does not dramatically
        terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or         change the built form in terms of scale, bulk
                                                        and appearance.
    •   Changes the ability of the proposed             No change is made to the proposed
        development to operate as intended (for         development to impede its operations.
        example, reducing the size of a retail
        complex may reduce the capacity of the
        complex to service the intended
        catchment); or
    •   Removes a component that is integral to         The proposed change does not involve
        the operation of the development; or            removal of a component that is integral to
                                                        the operational of the development.
    •   Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the   The proposed change will not significantly
        transport network, such as increasing           impact on traffic flow and the transport
        traffic to the site; or                         network, such as increasing traffic to the site.
    •   Introduces new impacts or increases the         The proposed change does not introduce
        severity of known impacts; or                   any new impacts, nor will it increase the
                                                        severity of known impacts.

Page 3

    •   Removes      an    incentive    or    offset   No    incentive   or   offset   components
        component that would have balanced the         incorporated.
        negative impact of the development; or
    •   Impacts on infrastructure provisions.          The proposed change does not impact upon
                                                       infrastructure provisions.

The original application did not trigger any referral agency assessment and no referral agency assessment is
now triggered with the changes.


CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT
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.

Comment: The original application was lodged and approved under the superseded Noosa Plan 2006. The
proposed condition changes remains consistent with the intended outcome of superseded Noosa Plan 2006.

There has been no change to the development intent for the site under the current Noosa Plan 2020.

CONCLUSION
The proposed change does not compromise the intent of the original approval.

Approval of the minor change is warranted.


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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]