Cover Letter.pdf

Page 2

                                                                             	
  

 2. PROPOSAL

Subsequent to the completion of the building works, a final survey of the
buildings undertaken by Max Watterson and Associates has determined that
the development has a maximum height of 8.85m. The maximum height of
the development occurs along the roof ridgeline of the building located in
the northeast corner of the site. Other buildings also incorporate minor
intrusions above 8m in height, with the levels of the buildings being as follows:

Building            Level of Roof Ridge (AHD)       Height above Nat Surf
South-east          117.14                          8.3m
Building
South-west          116.88                          7.9m
Building
North-east          117.8                           8.85m
Building
North-west          117.34                          8.3m
Building

Condition 4 of the development approval requires that the maximum height
of the development does not exceed 8 metres above the finished ground
level and the natural ground level.

Subsequently, the proposal seeks to change Condition 4 of the development
approval to require that the development does not exceed 8.9 metres above
the finished ground level and the natural ground level.


[OCR of page images]
Noosa Town Planning

2. PROPOSAL

Subsequent to the completion of the building works, a final survey of the
buildings undertaken by Max Watterson and Associates has determined that
the development has a maximum height of 8.85m. The maximum height of
the development occurs along the roof ridgeline of the building located in
the northeast corner of the site. Other buildings also incorporate minor
intrusions above 8m in height, with the levels of the buildings being as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Level of Roof Ridge (AHD) Height above Nat Surf
South-east 117.14 8.3m

Building

South-west 116.88 7.9M

Building

North-east 117.8 8.85m

Building

North-west 117.34 8.3m

Building

 

 

Condition 4 of the development approval requires that the maximum height
of the development does not exceed 8 metres above the finished ground
level and the natural ground level.

Subsequently, the proposal seeks to change Condition 4 of the development
approval to require that the development does not exceed 8.9 metres above
the finished ground level and the natural ground level.

Page 3

                                                                              	
  

 3. STATUTORY PROCESS:

This request is considered to constitute a minor change in accordance with
Section 81 of the Planning Act 2016.

Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as follows:
A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval
that —
i. would not result in a substantially different development; and

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
    B. referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there
         were no referral agencies for the development application; or
    C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
    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
    E. public notification if public notification was not required for the
         development application.	
  

In response to the above, it is submitted that the proposed change to
Condition 4 to allow for a maximum building height of 8.9m, would not:
    • result in substantially different development;
    • include prohibited development;
    • require the application to be referred to any referral agencies; and
    • cause the need for public notification as the original application was
       impact assessable.

Further to the above, Schedule 1 of 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.

A change may be considered to result in a substantially different
development if the proposed change:
(a) involves a new use; or
(b) results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or
(c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
appearance; or
(d) changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as
intended; or
(e) removes a component that is integral to the operation of the
development; or


[OCR of page images]
Noosa Town Planning

3. STATUTORY PROCESS:

This request is considered to constitute a minor change in accordance with
Section 81 of the Planning Act 2016.

Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as follows:

A minor change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval
that —

i. would not result in a substantially different development; and

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

B. referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there
were no referral agencies for the development application; or

C. referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or

D. areferral 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

E. public notification if public notification was not required for the
development application.

In response to the above, it is submitted that the proposed change to
Condition 4 to allow for a maximum building height of 8.9m, would not:
¢ result in substantially different development;
¢ include prohibited development;
* require the application to be referred to any referral agencies; and
* cause the need for public notification as the original application was
impact assessable.

Further to the above, Schedule 1 of 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.

A change may be considered to result in a substantially different
development if the proposed change:

(a) involves a new use; or

(b) results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or
(c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
appearance; or

(d) changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as
intended; or

(e) removes a component that is integral to the operation of the
development; or

Page 4

                                                                              	
  
(f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site; or
(g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts; or
(h) removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a
negative impact of the development; or
(i) impacts on infrastructure provisions.

In response to the above, the proposed change would not:
    (a) involve a new use
    (b) result in the application applying to a new parcel of land
    (c) dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
        appearance. The portions that exceed 8m in height only relate to
        small portions of a roof ridgeline and do not create excessive bulk or
        appearance. The roof ridgeline is over-height as a consequence of
        maintaining traditional roof forms that are steeply pitched and
        sympathetic to the character of Cooroy.
    (d) Change the ability of the development to operate as intended.
    (e) Remove an integral component of the development.
    (f) Impact on traffic flows.
    (g) Increase the severity of known impacts. The over-height portions of the
        building are located centrally along the ridgeline of the buildings and
        would not present additional building bulk or affect the visual amenity
        of the adjoining properties in any way.
    (h) Remove an offset component of the development that would
        balance impacts.
    (i) Impact on infrastructure provisions.

On this basis, it is considered that a lawful process in making the request
under s79 & 81 of the Act has been followed.

In accordance with Section 81 of the Act, in assessing and deciding
applications for minor changes, the responsible entity:

(3)
      (a) must assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when
          the development application was made; and
      (b) may assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when
          the change application was made

The planning scheme remains unchanged since the development
application was made. An assessment of the proposal against the planning
scheme is provided below:-

 4. PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW

The proposed change involves changing Condition 4 of the development
approval to allow the development to have a maximum height of 8.9m
instead of 8m.


[OCR of page images]
Noosa Town Planning

(f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
increasing traffic to the site; or

(g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts; or
(h) removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a
negative impact of the development; or

(i) impacts on infrastructure provisions.

In response to the above, the proposed change would not:

(a) involve a new use

(b) result in the application applying to a new parcel of land

(c) dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
appearance. The portions that exceed 8m in height only relate to
small portions of a roof ridgeline and do not create excessive bulk or
appearance. The roof ridgeline is over-height as a consequence of
maintaining traditional roof forms that are steeply pitched and
sympathetic to the character of Cooroy.

(d) Change the ability of the development to operate as intended.

(e) Remove an integral component of the development.

(f) Impact on traffic flows.

(g) Increase the severity of known impacts. The over-height portions of the
building are located centrally along the ridgeline of the buildings and
would not present additional building bulk or affect the visual amenity
of the adjoining properties in any way.

(h) Remove an offset component of the development that would
balance impacts.

(i) Impact on infrastructure provisions.

On this basis, it is considered that a lawful process in making the request
under s79? & 81 of the Act has been followed.

In accordance with Section 81 of the Act, in assessing and deciding
applications for minor changes, the responsible entity:

(3)
(a) must assess against, or have regard fo, the matters that applied when
the development application was made; and
(b) may assess against, or have regard to, the matters that applied when
the change application was made

The planning scheme remains unchanged since the development
application was made. An assessment of the proposal against the planning
scheme is provided below:-

4. PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW

The proposed change involves changing Condition 4 of the development
approval to allow the development to have a maximum height of 8.9m
instead of 8m.

Page 5

                                                                             	
  
The subject site is located within the Open Space Recreation Zone of the
Cooroy and Lake Locality. Probable Solution S7.1 of the code seeks for
development within the Open Space Recreation Zone to have a maximum
height of 8m. While the proposed development would exceed 8m by 850mm
at its maximum point, the development would achieve Specific Outcome O7
of the code for the following reasons:-
    • Each building remains a low rise structure and presents a height that is
        consistent with the height of the 2 storey unit building on the adjoining
        land to the east and other 2 storey dwellings present throughout the
        streetscape (notably 14 Opal Street and 64 Kauri Street).
    • The development maintains a maximum height of 2 storeys.
    • The dwellings do not visually dominate the street, surrounding spaces
        or the skyline as only a small portion along the ridgeline of three of the
        buildings exceeds 8m in height. Further, the development comprises of
        a variety of reclaimed weatherboard dwellings that have a small
        footprint, are well articulated, and consistent with the traditional
        character of Cooroy. The steeply pitched traditional roof are a
        contributing factor to the development being over-height, however
        are sympathetic to the desired local character of the area.
    • The over-height portions of the ridgelines occur centrally within the
        footprint of the buildings and would not impact on the privacy,
        amenity or sunlight received by the adjoining properties.
    • The development did not involve excessive filling, however, was
        required to be raised by approximately 1m for stormwater drainage
        purposes, which is another factor contributing to the over-height
        portions of the development.

Overall, a review of the planning scheme has determined that the proposed
changes do not result in any significant issues against the outcomes of the
relevant codes.

It is therefore requested that Condition 4 of the development approval be
changed as follows.

       Building Height

4.     The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 8.9
       metres above the finished ground level and the natural ground level.


4. CONCLUSION

This report identifies that the proposed development constitutes a minor
change and does not raise any significant issues against the current Noosa
Plan. Subsequently it is requested that Council make the change and issue a
changed approval.


[OCR of page images]
Noosa Town Planning

The subject site is located within the Open Space Recreation Zone of the
Cooroy and Lake Locality. Probable Solution S7.1 of the code seeks for
development within the Open Space Recreation Zone to have a maximum
height of 8m. While the proposed development would exceed 8m by 850mm
at its maximum point, the development would achieve Specific Outcome O7
of the code for the following reasons:-

¢ Each building remains a low rise structure and presents a height that is
consistent with the height of the 2 storey unit building on the adjoining
land to the east and other 2 storey dwellings present throughout the
streetscape (notably 14 Opal Street and 64 Kauri Street).

* The development maintains a maximum height of 2 storeys.

¢ The dwellings do not visually dominate the street, surrounding spaces
or the skyline as only a small portion along the ridgeline of three of the
buildings exceeds 8m in height. Further, the development comprises of
a variety of reclaimed weatherboard dwellings that have a small
footprint, are well articulated, and consistent with the traditional
character of Cooroy. The steeply pitched traditional roof are a
contributing factor to the development being over-height, however
are sympathetic to the desired local character of the area.

* The over-height portions of the ridgelines occur centrally within the
footprint of the buildings and would not impact on the privacy,
amenity or sunlight received by the adjoining properties.

* The development did not involve excessive filling, however, was
required to be raised by approximately 1m for stormwater drainage
purposes, which is another factor contributing to the over-height
portions of the development.

Overall, a review of the planning scheme has determined that the proposed
changes do not result in any significant issues against the outcomes of the
relevant codes.

It is therefore requested that Condition 4 of the development approval be
changed as follows.

Building Height
4, The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 8.9
metres above the finished ground level and the natural ground level.
4. CONCLUSION
This report identifies that the proposed development constitutes a minor
change and does not raise any significant issues against the current Noosa

Plan. Subsequently it is requested that Council make the change and issue a
changed approval.

Page 6

Noosa Town Planning

Should you have any questions in relation to the proposal, or any aspect of
the development, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0423952928.

Yours faithfully,

~

-

QI -—

Callie Brennan
Town Planner