Minor Change Request report 61 Noosa Springs · 132003.221035.1

Page 2

   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, Minor built form changes from a pergola to a small room.
           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 3

               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.

   5. Assessment


The proposal seeks a minor setback variation to the 6m road setback. While this is technically
required the approved plans show a pergola in the proposed location meaning that Council has
already approved a structure in this location. The only difference being the proposal is a store room
and not an open structure. The proposal, as demonstrated in Figure 2 below, will be well hidden by
existing mature vegetation and given its minor nature will have little to no bearing on the streetscape.
The proposal is required to be assessed against PO9 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code
which is provided below and an assessment provided thereafter.

Page 4

Setback
PO9
Buildings and structures are designed and sited to:
(a)       provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises, including
          provision of visual and acoustic privacy and access to sunlight;
(b)       not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable
          areas of adjoining premises;
(c)       provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
(d)       preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
(e)       allow for soft landscaping to be provided between buildings and the site boundaries to provide
          for trees and shrubs;
(f)       contribute to open streetscapes by avoiding buildings and structures within the front 6 metres
          of the property; and
(g) protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such as
    national parks, waterways and wetlands.


The proposal fully complies with PO9 for the following reasons-

         Will have little to no visual or acoustic impact on the surrounding properties as it is a small
          scale non-habitable room which sits behind existing vegetation.
         Does not obstruct views as it sits lower than surrounding and neighbouring buildings.
         A separation of more than 10m to the nearest building is provided which is more than
          enough to retain amenity.
         No vegetation will be removed for the construction. The proposal retains the existing soft
          landscaping containing mature shrubs and a tree.
         There is conjecture whether this is a street frontage as the road sits separately to Noosa
          Springs Drive and could be deemed a private road where in that case only requires a 1.5m
          setback.
         Council has already approved a structure in this location as a pergola is approved.

Page 5

 Figure 2 - Frontage of the subject lot. The existing beige awning will be replaced with a small 2m wide x 5m long enclosed
 room.




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
 Regards,