Council archive · source document
Minor Change Request report clearwater 295 · 51987.2963.01
15 September 2026 Noosa Council [email protected] RE: Minor Change to Existing Approval –TPC1906 & TPC1966 (97) – 295 Weyba Rd, Noosaville This Minor Change Application seeks to amend the existing approvals for the addition of a managers unit within the existing games room at Clearwater units in Noosaville. 1. Background In 1987, Council approved 15 multiple dwelling units at 295 Weyba Rd, Noosaville. There are no proposed changes to conditions, however Council may want to add a new condition endorsing the site plan associated with this change. Figure 1. Aerial photo and complex as seen from Weyba Rd (Source: Noosa Maps and Streetview) 2. Proposal The applicant seeks amendments to separate the existing ‘games’ room to an ‘office’ associated with the management of the units. The manager’s office is then to be separately titled and owned by the body corporate and not associated with the adjoining three-bedroom unit. A copy of the proposed internal plan change is marked in red on the approved plan.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 4 pages
Page 2
Figure 2. Proposed change to ‘Office’ marked in red. Figure 3. Existing Built Unit Plan with ‘Unit 1’ marked in Yellow.
Page 3
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, There is no built form changes.
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
Response: The original and current application did not include any concurrence agency
assessment.
Page 4
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.
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.
Page 5
5. Assessment The original approval provided for this room to be used by all residents as a ‘games’ area, however the room has been used as an ‘office’ associated with the management of the site since the development was constructed. The site is unique in that the development is set over two sites with two different pools and a shared entrance. Unit 1 is currently on the market as an individual unit, rather than a manager’s unit. There were no existing conditions or notations on the original approval seeking for a manager’s unit. The Body Corporate will still employ a manager to attend the site during business hours and has agreed to purchase this area from the owner of Unit 1. There are no additional parking implications or impacts as a result of the change. 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
Used in these records
Minor Change Request report clearwater 295.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 718 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.