Original source · versioned page text
Minor Change STP3977
Our ref: STP3977 Contact: Chloe Gordon | [email protected] Website: www.steffanharries.au Phone: O07 3317 0042 i Friday, 21 June 2024 STEFFAN HARRIES Chief Executive Officer Noosa Shire Council PO Box 141 Tewantin QLD 4565 Attention: Andrew Gaffney | Noosa Shire Council Via email: [email protected] RE: CHANGE APPLICATION (S81) Dwelling house in Landslide and Biodiversity overlay COUNCIL REF: MCU22/0133.01 8 Hinterland Close, Tinbeerwah QLD 4563 Lot 8 on RP162815 To whom it may concern, This written representation is for a change to the existing approval at 8 Hinterland Close, Tinbeerwah QLD 4563 (Council reference: MCU22/0133.01 - decision date 23 of May 2024). As per s81 of the Planning Act 2016 we wish to change the existing development approval to stage the application. Please find the following letter and subsequent attachments that form part of this request: e Appendix A - Approved Proposal Plans; e Appendix B - Revised Proposal Plans (Stage 1); e Appendix C - Revised Proposal Plans (Stage 2); e Appendix D - Tree Comparison; e Appendix E - Geotechnical Investigation Report (MCU22/0133.01); and e Planning Act Form 5 - Change Application Form. Proposed change This change application proposes a phased approach to separate the construction of the two core buildings into two stages: e Stage 1: Construct ‘Building 1’ on the site and commence occupancy. e Stage 2: Construct ‘Building 2’ while residing in ‘Building 1’. Once ‘Building 2’ is operational, modify ‘Building 1’ by removing the kitchen (specifically the cooktop) and connecting both buildings via the middle walkways. Finally, transition to living in both buildings as a single dwelling. Page 1 of 4
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 3 pages
Page 2
STEFFAN '4 HARRIES For clarity, stage 1 primarily removes ‘Building 2’ off the plans. As a result, a kitchen has been added to ‘Building 1’ to allow it to operate as self-contained dwelling only whilst ‘Building 2’ is constructed, and the middle walkway has been slightly reconfigured. Overview of components in the stages: e Stage 1= Building 1 fe) fe) fe) fe) fe) 2x Bedrooms 2x Bathrooms 1x Kitchen (Including dining) 1x Living area Garage e Stage 2 = Building 1 and Building 2 Match MCU22/0133.01 except with the removal of the cooktop in ‘Building 1’. fe) Additionally, sewer will continue to operate via the approved effluent disposal plan and water tanks will be included as per the proposal plans. TP.OO1 TP.OO2 TP.OO3 TP.OO4 TP.OO5 STAGE 1 Tree Removal Comparison —- prepared by The Outside Perspective Demo + Proposed Site Plan - prepared by The Outside Perspective Proposed Floor Plan — prepared by The Outside Perspective Garage Details - prepared by The Outside Perspective Elevations — prepared by The Outside Perspective STAGE 2 Elevations 2 of 2 - prepared by The Outside Perspective 15.03.2024 17.06.2024 17.06.2024 17.06.2024 17.06.2024 28.03.2024 As we are proposing to split the development into 2 stages, we request condition 17 is removed for stage 1: Page 2 of 4
Page 3
STEFFAN ‘4 HARRIES Assessment of proposed change The development will continue to operate as per approval MCU22/0133.01, including the removal of the cooktop when ‘Building 2’ is constructed. Since the building form, scale and operation align with approval MCU22/0133.01, we have determined that staging the development will not cause adverse impacts. verview of Floor Plan Chan © = Figure 1: Stage 1 - Proposed Floor Plan Source: The Outside Perspective PARKING SPACE Figure 2: Stage 2 - Proposed Floor Plan. Note removal of cooktop in ‘Building 1’. Source: The Outside Perspective edited by SH. The proposed changes are considered to minor in nature as it does not result in a substantially different development. The representations provided are an improvement on the current conditions imposed under the approval. The proposed development is compliant with the definition of a Minor Change as outlined within Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016, as outlined below. Definition Response (i) would not result in substantially different The proposed development won't result in development; substantially different development. Please refer to the below for further justification. (ii) if a development application for the (A) The proposed development won’t result in development, including the change, were made prohibited development. when the change application is made would not (B) The proposed development will not require cause— referral to a referral agency. (A) the inclusion of prohibited development (C) No additional referral agencies have been in the application; or identified. (B) referral to a referral agency, other than (D) This change does not require a referral. to the chief executive, if there were no Page 3 of 4
Page 4
referral agencies for the development application; or (C) referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive (D) a referral agency, in assessing the application under section 55(2), to assess the application against, or have regard to, a matter, other than a matter the referral agency must have assessed the application against, or had regard to, when the application was made; or (E) public notification if public notification was not required for the development application. STEFFAN ‘4 HARRIES (E) The proposed development remains the same level of assessment and does not require additional public notification. Pursuant to the definition of a Minor change under Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016, the proposed must not result in a substantially different development. As a result, please find a response to the substantially different ‘test’ taken from Schedule 1 of the DA Rules [s68(1) - Planning Act 2016]. Involves a new use Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land. Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance. Changes the ability of the proposal 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. Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development. Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site. Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts. Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact of the development. Impacts on infrastructure provision from a location or demand. The proposed changes do not involve a new use or create additional impacts. The proposed changes will only apply to site subject to the approved development. This application will not dramatically change the build form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance. This change will not alter the ability for the approved development to operate as intended. This change does not remove any integral components of the development. The proposed changes do not have any impacts on the immediate traffic network. No new impacts or increase in the severity of any known impacts will be created as part of this change. This change will not remove an incentive or offset a component that would have balanced any negative impacts of the development. The proposed changes do not impact on any infrastructure servicing the subject site and surrounding lots. Based on the insignificant changes to the existing approval, Steffan Harries respectfully requests a favourable decision from Noosa Shire Council with regards to this s81 Minor Change application. If additional information is required, please contact our office via the contact details below. Kind regards, N"lhees Mike Harries | Director Steffan Harries Email: [email protected] (Gad) Chloe Gordon | Town Planner Steffan Harries Email: [email protected] Page 4 of 4