210093 - Change Application

Page 2

                                                                          Viva Property Group Pty Ltd
                                                                          Level M1
                                                                          88 Creek Street
                                                                          Brisbane Qld 4000

                                                                          T: 07 3831 5577
                                                                          E: [email protected]
                                                                          W: www.vivapropertygroup.com.au
Our Ref:     210093

Date:      9 June 2021


The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565

Via:       email ([email protected])

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE:        CHANGE APPLICATION – MINOR CHANGE TO EXISTING APPROVAL
           18/24 MUNNA CRESCENT, NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566

We act on behalf of Juliet Bates regarding a Request for a Minor Change to an existing Development
Approval for a Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwelling (38 Units) over land at 18/24 Munna
Crescent, Noosaville QLD 4566, formally described as Lot 18 on BUP8454.


REQUEST FOR MINOR CHANGE TO AN EXISTING APPROVAL

Pursuant to Sections 78 and 81 of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act), we request a Minor Change to the
existing development approval (TPC 1844).

Background

On 18 November 1986, Council resolved at its meeting to refuse the development application for a
number of reasons. Subsequent to Council’s refusal of the development application, the applicant
appealed the decision with the Local Government Court. As a result of the applicant’s appeal, Council
resolved to approve the development, subject to conditions.

As outlined in the letter dated 22 December 1986 from the Shire Clerk (D.J. Philpot) to Neilsen, Stanton
and Parkinson, Council resolved to approve the development prior to the matter being heard in Court.
As such, and in accordance with Section 78A of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act) it is considered that
Noosa Council is the responsible entity for the change application.

It is unknown whether the application required referral any referral agencies as there is no mention
within the approval documents of such. Notwithstanding, a review of the proposed building works has
been undertaken against Schedule 10 of the Planning Regulation 2017 (the Regulation). It is noted that
the proposed building works would not trigger referral under the Coastal Management District



           Viva Property Group Pty Ltd | ABN 28 161 458 822                                             1

Page 3

provisions as the works do not involve operational works, reconfiguration of a lot or a material change
of use. The subject site also adjoins a Queensland Heritage Place; however, building work on a site
adjoining a Queensland Heritage Place does not trigger referral under Schedule 10 of the Regulation.
As such, it is considered that there are no affected entities for the application under Section 80 of the
Act.

It is also unknown whether the application required Public Notification as the approval documents make
no reference to Public Notification and the historical Planning Scheme that was in force at the time of
the application assessment is not available on Council’s website. It is noted that there were objectors to
the development application; however, it is considered that the minor nature of the proposed changes
would not change the level of assessment or result in additional objectors.

Changes to the Existing Approval

Alterations and additions are proposed for Apartment 18 in the form of an operable louvre roof. The
proposed operable louvre roof will replace an existing shade sail in order to provide amenity for
residents in the form of weather protection as the existing shade sail does not provide any protection
during rain events.

For Council’s reference, and to provide context to the proposal, Figures 1 and 2 below depict the existing
shade sail which is proposed to be replaced by an operable louvre roof.




FIGURE 1 PROPOSED LOUVRE ROOF SMALLER IN SCALE AND HEIGHT THAN ADJOINING




       210093 | Change Application – Minor Change to Existing Approval                                 2

Page 4

FIGURE 2 SHADE SAIL TO BE REPLACED DOES NOT PROVIDE WEATHER PROTECTION

It is considered that the proposed operable louvre roof is an appropriate development outcome for the
site and poses no issues of concern. Specifically, it is noted that the proposed operable louvre roof will:

       Be substantially similar height as the existing shade sail and will not protrude above the existing
        roof line;
       Not protrude above the dividing wall between units;
       Be smaller in scale and lower in height than the existing shade sail of the adjoining unit which
        will result in less impact on visual amenity (refer Figure 1);
       Utilise the existing steel posts;
       Have a substantially similar plan area as the existing shade sail;
       Not be visible from the Munna Crescent streetscape;
       Not adversely impact on visual amenity from the water as it will be substantially the same height
        and scale as the existing shade sail structure; and
       Be powder coated to match the existing roof colour and to avoid glare.

Minor Changes under the Planning Act 2016

It is considered that the changes to the existing development approval as outlined above meet the
assessment benchmark for a minor change to a development approval in accordance with Schedule 2
of the Act. Specifically, the proposed changes:

    (i) Would not result in a substantially different development – The proposed changes to the
        design as described above do not result in a substantially different development. Specifically, it
        is noted that the changes do not include any of the changes outlined in Schedule 1(4) of the
        Development Assessment Rules. As such, and as demonstrated below, the proposed changes
        are not considered to result in a substantially different development:




    210093 | Change Application – Minor Change to Existing Approval                                     3

Page 5

    a.   Involves a new use – The proposed changes will not result in a new use. The development
         will still function as per the existing approval.

    b.   Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land – The proposed changes to
         the existing approval do not apply over a new parcel of land.

    c.   Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance – The
         proposed changes to the existing approval will not dramatically change the built form in
         terms of scale, bulk and appearance.

         The proposed development will be of substantially similar height as the existing shade sail,
         will not protrude above the existing roof line, will have a substantially similar plan area and
         bulk and scale as the existing shade sail, and will be powder coated to match the existing
         roof colour.

         For all intents and purposes, the proposed operable louvre roof will not be discernibly
         different to the existing built form when viewed from the public realm or adjoining
         premises.

    d.   Changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended – The
         proposed changes to the existing approval are not considered to change the ability of the
         development to operate as intended.

    e.   Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development – The
         proposed changes will not result in the removal of any component that is integral to the
         operation of the development.

    f.   Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing
         traffic to the site – The proposed changes to the existing approval will not have any impact
         on traffic flow and the transport network.

    g.   Introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts – The proposed
         changes to the existing approval will not introduce any new impacts or increase the severity
         of known impacts. The proposed operable louvre roof will be substantially similar in height,
         plan area, and bulk and scale as the existing shade sail structure, and will not be visible
         above the existing roof line or dividing wall.

    h.   Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative
         impact of the development – The proposed changes to the existing approval do not
         remove an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative impact of
         the development.

    i.   Impacts on infrastructure provisions – The proposed changes to the existing approval
         will not result in any additional impacts on infrastructure provisions. The intensity or density
         of the existing development will not be increased.

(ii) If a development application for the development, including the change, were made when
    the change application is made would not cause –


210093 | Change Application – Minor Change to Existing Approval                                       4

Page 6

           (A) The inclusion of prohibited development in the application – The proposed changes to
                the existing approval would not result in the inclusion of prohibited development.

           (B) Referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were no referral
                agencies for the development application – It is unknown whether the existing approval
                required referral to a referral agency. However, it is noted that the proposed changes to the
                existing approval would not result in a requirement for any referrals to a referral agency,
                other than to the chief executive, if there were not referral agencies for the development
                application.

           (C) Referral to extra referral agencies, other than the chief executive – The proposed
                changes to the existing approval would not result in the development triggering referral to
                any additional referral agencies.

           (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 – The proposed changes would not require a referral agency to
                have to assess the application against any additional matters.

           (E) Public notification if public notification was not required for the development
                application – It is unknown whether the application required Public Notification as the
                approval documents make no reference to Public Notification and the historical Planning
                Scheme that was in force at the time of the application assessment is not available on
                Council’s website. It is noted that there were objectors to the development application;
                however, it is considered that the proposed changes would not change the level of
                assessment of the application and, therefore, would not require public notification if public
                notification was not required for the development application.

Given the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed changes meet the assessment
benchmark for a minor change to a development approval as defined in the Act.

Referrals

It is unknown whether the application required referral any referral agencies as there is no mention
within the approval documents of such. Notwithstanding, a review of the proposed building works has
been undertaken against Schedule 10 of the Planning Regulation 2017 (the Regulation). It is noted that
the proposed building works would not trigger referral under the Coastal Management District
provisions as the works do not involve operational works, reconfiguration of a lot or a material change
of use. The subject site also adjoins a Queensland Heritage Place; however, building work on a site
adjoining a Queensland Heritage Place does not trigger referral under Schedule 10 of the Regulation.
As such, it is considered that there are no affected entities for the application under Section 80 of the
Act.




       210093 | Change Application – Minor Change to Existing Approval                                    5

Page 7

Recommended Amendments to Approval Documentation

Approved Drawings and Documents

It is recommended that the approved drawings and documents be updated to include the proposed
plans for the operable louvre roof.

Conditions

A review of the Conditions attached to the existing development approval has been undertaken. No
changes to the existing Conditions of Approval are recommended.

Conclusion
In summary, the proposed changes are considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Act relating
to a minor change to the existing approval.

Council endorsement of the proposed changes is therefore recommended.


SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The following supporting documentation is attached for your consideration:

          Attachment 1 – Proposal Plans.

We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes. Should you require any further details or wish
to discuss these matters, please contact the undersigned or Jason King on (07) 3831 5577.

Yours faithfully,




James Stott

Director




    210093 | Change Application – Minor Change to Existing Approval                                   6