Minor Change Cover Letter Assessment_060620 · MCU13/0081.01

Page 2

In relation to the “owner’s consent”, in accordance with Council’s advice of 10 March 2020 via email, we
enclose a copy of the Minutes of the Body Corporate meeting held on 1 June 2020 wherein Item 4 of
the official minutes confirms that the Body Corporate provides its consent to the making of this change
application (refer attached).

CHANGES SOUGHT

The applicant is seeking to undertake a significant refurbishment of the existing Netanya development
in order to refresh Netanya’s image and to rectify a number of the building’s compliance issues with
respect to fire and evacuation codes, DDE compliance and shade protection. This proposal is significant
for Noosa because the proposed changes will improve the existing visitor accommodation,
entertainment and dining premises and allowing this iconic development to continue to remain
successful and relevant into the future.

The Architectural Plans prepared by Sprout (accompanying this report as Attachment 1) illustrate that
the changes sought are predominately aesthetic in nature with some additional built form proposed as
a direct consequence of the improvements. The extent of the changes are listed below:

    1.  The extension of the outdoor dining area for the Providore tenancy – refer to details and images
        on plans SD60.01 and SD60.02;
    2. A new awning over the Hastings Street side of Belissima tenancy for increased weather
        protection for the shop and general public – refer to details and images on plan SD60.00;
    3. A new roof over the western side of the Bellissima tenancy and service yard for increased
        weather protection for the shop and general public – refer to details and images on plan
        SD60.00;
    4. A new roof over the foyer entry and car set down area adjoining lobby for increased weather
        protection and convenience for residents and guests – refer to details and images on plan
        SD60.01;
    5. The extension of the existing fire exit stairs from level 3 to the roof level to meet fire and
        evacuation codes – refer to details and images on plan SD60.07;
    6. The extension of the eastern lift from level 3 to the roof level to meet DDE standards – refer to
        details and images on plan SD60.07;
    7. New covered walkway links to the fire stairs on Level 4 for increased weather protection for
        residents and guests – refer to details and images on plan SD60.07;
    8. New pergolas to the rooftop terraces for increased shade protection and useability of the roof
        tops – refer to details and images on plan SD60.06;
    9. A new cantilevered awning above the north facing units on the beach side for increased weather
        protection for residents and guests – refer to details and images on plan SD60.06;
    10. A new awning structure above the U205 terrace for increased weather protection – refer to
        details and images on plan SD60.03;
    11. A new rear entry structure between the building and the beach for increased weather protection
        for residents and guests – refer to details and images on plan SD60.04;
    12. A new day bed pergola structure between the building and the beach – refer to details and
        images on plan SD60.04; and
    13. New stair, substation, amenities and roof structure to the eastern side of the building / “Sails”
        entry and significant improvements to the presentation to the street as shown on plan SD60.09.
    14. New shopfront and roof over 'Rumba Bar' as well as extension of Fire Stair 01.

These improvements and additions result in a small consequential increase to the gross floor area of
the Providore (café – outdoor dining) and Sails (restaurant) tenancies of 28m2 and 25m2, respectively,
and a minor increase to overall site cover (2.3%). The site cover increases occur largely at the ground
plane as a result of additional roof and awning cover adjacent to the western tenancies and reception,
and therefore do not contribute to the scale and bulk of the building.




                                                   2

Page 3

With regard to setbacks, the changes will result in:
    • the reconfiguration of the outdoor dining area of the Providore café increasing the amount of
        outdoor dining area that is closer to the boundary, however, not technically proposing to
        encroach any closer to the boundary from that approved under TPC1008. Council will note the
    • inclusion of the 1.1m wide planter in front of the outdoor dining area as requested at the pre-
        lodgement – refer to details and images on plan SD60.01;
    • a new awning to the Hasting Street side of the Belissima tenancy extending to 3.45m from the
        Hasting Street boundary – the current awning is setback approx. 5.3m. This will improve weather
        protection for the general public along Hastings Street – refer to details and images on plan
        SD60.00;
    • a new awning around the western side of the Belissima tenancy extending to approx. 0.5m from
        boundary – the current awning is setback approx. 2.3m. This will improve weather protection for
        the general public using the public walkway between Hastings Street and the beach – refer to
        details and images on plan SD60.00; and
    • the new stair access to Sails Restaurant extending to within 0.9m of Park Road at the closest
        point which is generally consistent with the existing access structure; and 0.54m to the new
        amenities building above the existing sub-station which is currently at approx. 0.83m from the
        boundary – refer to details and images on plan SD60.09. With the removal of the imposing
        screens to the sub-station and the high masonry wall along this frontage, the streetscape
        amenity along this section of Park Road will be significantly enhanced by these changes.

The provision of deep planted landscaping would also increase by 16.5m2 or 0.5% however overall
planting would decrease by 39.5m2 or 1.1%. This decrease has mainly occurred in the area directly
outside of the reception and near to the existing Providore café outdoor dining area. Considerable
planting remains with this whole forecourt area being redesigned to be more efficient and user friendly.
There are increases in landscaping along the Park Road in concert with the changes outside Sails entry
and in front of Providore and Belissima tenancies along the frontage.

There is no change to the approved land uses or density and only marginal increases to building
height, none of which exceed the approved maximum or the current code requirement.

Overall, we are of the view that the changes proposed are not substantially different to the existing
development insofar as:

    •   There is no change in use;
    •   The building’s structure is not fundamentally different;
    •   The proposed changes are predominately aesthetic and the new additions represent
        embellishments to the existing layout; and
    •   There is only a minor increase to gross floor area and site cover.

Finally, you will note that Sprout Architects has provided details of each key area of change and
supporting these detailed plans with 3D imagery to provide Council with the best opportunity to
understand the nature of the proposal changes. The imagery particularly shows a clear intent to
modernise and significantly improve the visual amenity of the development.
Some of the key 3D images from the architectural set are included below.




                                                   3

Page 4

PROJECT
URBAN

 

New Awnings to Bel a

Select feature timber
decking over existing
‘concrete Slab /tfoctpath

 

Page 5

Park Road Frontage Improvements




A detailed assessment of the changed proposal against the original and current assessment benchmarks
is provided below.

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Planning Act 2016 defines a minor change as:

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

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

           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.

            Description / Provisions                        Comment / Response
            A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
            change:

            •    Involves a new use; or                     No new land use is proposed.

            •    Results in the application applying to a   No new land is included as part of the
                 new parcel of land; or                     application.

            •    Dramatically changes the built form in     The proposed changes do not dramatically
                 terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or    change the built form in terms of scale, bulk
                                                            and appearance.

            •    Changes the ability of the proposed        No changes are made to the proposed
                 development to operate as intended (for    development to impede its operations.
                 example, reducing the size of a retail
                 complex may reduce the capacity of the
                 complex to service the intended
                 catchment); or




                                                     5

Page 6

            •     Removes a component that is integral to      The proposed changes do not involve
                  the operation of the development; or         removal of a component that is integral to
                                                               the operational of the development.

            •     Significantly impacts on traffic flow and    The proposed changes do not result in
                  the transport network, such as increasing    significant impacts on traffic flow and the
                  traffic to the site; or                      transport network, such as increasing traffic
                                                               to the site.

            •     Introduces new impacts or increases the      The proposed change does not introduce
                  severity of known impacts; or                any new impacts, nor will it increase the
                                                               severity of known impacts.

            •     Removes an incentive or offset               No incentive      or    offset     components
                  component that would have balanced the       incorporated.
                  negative impact of the development; or

            •     Impacts on infrastructure provisions.        The proposed development does not impact
                                                               upon infrastructure provisions.

      ii.        if a development application for the development, including the change, were made
                 when the change application is made would not cause—

            Description / Provisions                           Comment / Response

            A. the    inclusion    of      prohibited          No prohibited development proposed.
               development in the application; or

            B. referral to a referral agency, other than       The original application did not trigger
               to the chief executive, if there were no        referral. The changed application, had it
               referral agencies for the development           been made at the time, would not have
               application; or                                 triggered referral either. If the application
                                                               were made today, it would not trigger
                                                               referral.

            C. referral to extra referral agencies, other      No extra referrals are required.
               than to the chief executive; or

            D. a referral agency to assess the                 No referral was triggered for the original
               application against, or have regard to,         application.
               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   The original application required public
                  was not required for the development         notification.
                  application.


Accordingly, the subject change is a minor change.




                                                          6

Page 7

AFFECTED ENTITIES

We are not aware of any referral agencies for the original development and on this basis there are no
affected entities.

ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to S.81 (4) & (5) the responsible entity must consider the statutory instrument, or other
document, as in effect when the development application for the development approval was
properly made.

Comment: S.81 of the Planning Act 2016 identifies that when assessing an application to change a
development approval, it must have regard to the scheme that was in effect at the time the original
application was properly made. Given the age of the development, Netanya has approvals granted under
a number of different planning schemes; schemes which are between 35 and 41 years old. Further, as
mentioned previously, the changes proposed do not change the approved land uses or fundamentally
change the operation of the approved uses and are primarily cosmetic in nature. Therefore, a full
assessment of the changed proposal against the superseded planning schemes is not considered
necessary in this case, nor would it likely add value to the assessment of the minor change. However,
pursuant to s.81(5), the proposed minor change has been assessed against the more relevant assessment
benchmarks – the Noosa Plan 2006, refer below.

However, the responsible entity may give the weight the responsible entity considers is
appropriate, in the circumstances, to —
   (a)     the statutory instrument or other document as in effect when the change application
           was made; 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.

Comment: S.81(5) above allows the assessment manager to give the weight it considers appropriate to
the current planning scheme, any schemes which may come into effect before the change application is
decided. Accordingly, the proposal has been assessed against the current Noosa Plan 2006 below. It is
noted that in accordance with s.81(5), an assessment against the draft new Noosa Plan is not yet
required.

An assessment against the current scheme is set out below:

NOOSA PLAN (2006)

Use
A Resort is defined by the Noosa Plan 2006 as Visitor Accommodation – Type 4 Conventional.

        Two or more dwelling units or accommodation units, for the purpose of providing short-term
        visitor accommodation. The use may include common recreation or dining facilities and includes
        an ancillary dwelling unit for onsite manager. The use includes a guesthouse, visitor hostel,
        motel, resort and serviced rooms, but does not include Visitor accommodation Type 1 Home
        hosted or Type 3 Rural as separately defined.

        The resort definition does not make reference to integrated commercial uses. The shops along
        the Hastings Street frontage are defined separately as Entertainment and Dining Business




                                                  7

Page 8

        Type 1 Food and Beverages (Providore and the gelato shop) and Retail Business Type 2 Shop
        and Salon (clothes stores).

        Comment: this application seeks no fundamental changes to the approved uses, no further
        assessment is considered necessary.

Zoning & Level of Assessment
The site is in the Visitor Mixed Use zone of the Noosa Heads Locality. Here, the level of assessment
for the site’s existing uses are:

                                                         Consistency          Level of Assessment
  Visitor Accommodation – Type 4 Conventional            Consistent           Impact
  Entertainment and Dining Business Type 1               Consistent           Impact
  Retail Business Type 2 Shop and Salon                  Consistent           Impact

        Comment: The current planning scheme identifies that public notification would be required if
        an application for the existing uses, including the changes, was made today. As the existing
        development followed a similar assessment process, and no additional uses are proposed, no
        further assessment of this part if considered necessary.

The Assessment Table for the Visitor Mixed Use zone identifies that the following Codes applicable to
the development, including:

    •   Noosa Heads Locality Code                           •   Business Uses Code
    •   Visitor Mixed Use Zone Code                         •   Landscaping Code
    •   Residential Uses Code                               •   Engineering Words Code

An assessment of the proposal against these codes is summarised overleaf:

NOOSA HEADS LOCALITY CODE

Overall Outcomes
On the basis that the use is existing, there are no changes proposed to the approved land uses and the
changes are predominately cosmetic, the proposal is considered to be remain consistent with the overall
outcomes of the Locality Code. Furthermore, the proposed changes will assist to advance the area’s
tourism focus by improving the existing visitor accommodation, entertainment and dining premises and
allowing the iconic site to continue to remain successful and relevant into the future.

Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions
The proposal has been assessed against the specific development criteria of the Locality Code and is
found to comply with all Probable Solutions, with the exception of O8 Setbacks, O10 Site Cover, O13
Gross Floor Area and O15 Roof Form. In these instances, an Alternative Solution is proposed. It should
be noted that the existing approved development, without the proposed changes, would not comply
with these specific code provisions. As such, the proposed changes need to be considered in this context.

Each Alternative Solution and its compliance with the corresponding Specific Outcome is discussed
below. The alternative solutions proposed in these instances and their compliance with the
corresponding specific outcomes are discussed in detail in Attachment 2 and have been summarised
below. All other outcomes are considered to have been met.

O7 Height

S7.1 Buildings and other structures have a maximum building height of—
        b) for the Visitor Mixed Use Zone—
                 i. Northern side of Hastings Street—
                          A. within 7m of the Hastings St alignment - 6m;
                          B. balance area of site - 15m with a 12m presentation to the beach; or



                                                   8

Page 9

Compliance Summary: Whilst none of the proposed changes will exceed the maximum allowable
height for the site under the Probable Solution, it is considered necessary to discuss the Scheme’s
requirement for a “12m presentation to the beach”. As mentioned, nothing about the overall height of
the building changes, however, the applicant is proposing new pergolas on the roof tops which will be
visible from the beachfront generally.

The code permits buildings and structures to stand 15m tall, but requires a 12m presentation to the
beach – noting that the planning scheme provides no further guidance as to what exactly this means. At
roughly 12m above natural ground level, the proposed pergolas would not exceed the maximum
allowable height limit and nor do they exceed the highest elements that exist. Further, the top of the
pergolas will be approximately 11m above the ground floor level on the beach side and in the absence
of any greater definition of the requirement to have a “12m presentation to the beach”, it is submitted
that the proposal complies.

It will be clear that the construction materials will be lightweight with an ‘open’ design and therefore
would not contribute significantly to massing and bulk the way that solid elements would. The existing
development clearly presents as 3 storeys maximum to the beach (refer North Elevation in the drawings).

Furthermore,
 the structures are intended to mainly provide protection from excessive solar exposure, which is a
    major shortcoming for the development; and
 increase the usability of the roof top terraces, which will increase the activation Netanya provides
    for the beach and surrounding premises.

The proposed pergolas are therefore considered to comply with the Probable Solution. As the pergolas
comply with both parts of the Probable Solution, an assessment against the Specific Outcome is not
required.

O8 Setbacks

S8.1 “Buildings and structures comply with the minimum setbacks identified in Schedule 1 - Minimum
Boundary Setbacks.”

Compliance Summary: An assessment of the proposal against Schedule 1 finds that generally the
proposed changes meet the Probable Solution, however setback variations are proposed for the outdoor
dining area extension, the shop front awnings and the feature awning on the beach side. In these
instances, an assessment against the Specific Outcome has found that the proposal will comply on the
basis that:
     • there is unlikely to be any significant negative impacts as a result of encroachments from the
         proposed structures;
     • side boundary awning largely maintains the height and form of the existing building and is
         setback in line with the existing awnings. To this extent, the structure will not create any
         significant impacts with regard to access to light, privacy or ventilation.
     • The awning merely seeks to provide increased weather protection.
     • The majority of site landscaping will be maintained and enhanced.
     • The proposed changes present similarities in setbacks, height and colour to the existing entry
         pavilion as well as to the height and rectangular form of the existing raised garden bed and to
         this extent are consistent with the existing streetscape character;
     • The proposed changes improve the visual amenity of the development when viewed from the
         beach, street and adjoining properties;
     • The proposed changes provide the improvements in street activation sought by the locality
         code, and more importantly, the weather protection needed by the people who use these
         spaces.

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Specific Outcome and hence the Code.




                                                   9

Page 10

O9 & O10 Site Cover

O9 The site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio of buildings and other roofed structures—
   a) results in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development;
   b) does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas
       in the vicinity of the site;
   c) maximises the retention of existing vegetation and allows for soft landscaping between
       buildings;
   d) allows for adequate area at ground level for outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes drying
       and other site facilities; and
   e) facilitates onsite stormwater management and vehicular access.

Compliance Summary: As no probable solution exists, the proposal has been assessed against O9 in
Attachment 2. A summary of the compliance is provided below:

    •   The proposed changes do not result in a discernible increase in scale given the comparative size
        and bulk of the existing building;
    •   The elements proposed do not represent excessive bulk on the basis that they:
             o present a predominately open form;
             o generally do not include solid walls;
             o utilise floating or cantilever construction styles;
             o comprise visually permeable materials including Perspex/glass and spaced timber; and
             o present a colour scheme which is also visually unobtrusive.
    •   Some of the elements contributing to site cover are merely roof overhangs or awnings which
        contribute to the amenity of the street by providing weather protection and visual interest;
    •   The majority of site landscaping will be maintained and enhanced in places where the old
        landscape planters are removed; and
    •   The proposed changes seek to enhance the spaces that are already provided and do not reduce
        the site’s ability to provide for outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes drying or other site
        facilities.

O10 Site cover—
   e) for the Visitor Mixed Use Zone does not exceed 45%.

Compliance Summary: The existing Netanya development, without any of the proposed changes has
a calculated site cover of 60.8%, which clearly already exceeds SO10. It is therefore impossible for the
proposed minor change, which is not proposing to remove any of the development, to comply with
SO10. Whilst the proposed site cover is considered to be appropriate under SO9, we have undertaken
an assessment against the Overall Outcomes in respect of SO10. This assessment finds no conflicts. The
proposal complies with all relevant overall outcomes, with the key points noted below:

   •    The proposed changes improve the development’s ability to advance tourism, economic, and
        amenity outcomes;
   •    The proposed changes will allow the development to remain relevant and competitive and
        successful into the future;
   •    The use of outdoor dining areas and cantilevered awnings promotes a mix of indoor and
        outdoor environments and diverse dining opportunities that the Code seeks; and
   •    there is unlikely to be any significant negative impacts as a result of the additional site cover.

The proposed site cover therefore is considered to comply with the Code.




                                                   10

Page 11

O13 Gross Floor Area

O13 For the Visitor Mixed Use Zone the maximum a gross floor area is equivalent to the maximum
allowable population in persons multiplied by 40m2, provided that gross floor area does not exceed a
total of 13,600m2.

Compliance Summary: Land in the Visitor Mixed Use zone is permitted to have a density of up to 280
persons per hectare. On a site of 3471.30, this equates to 97.2 people. Gross floor area is the maximum
persons multiplied by 40m2. The permitted max gross floor area is therefore 3887.86m2.

The existing building (4,035.5m2) already exceeds this figure, the additional 53m2 of gross floor area is
considered acceptable on the basis it provides much needed amenities and a significantly improved
entry for the existing Sails restaurant, which in turn greatly improves the visual amenity along Park Road,
and provides weather protection for the western tenancies.

As the proposed changes do not meet the Specific Outcome, an assessment against overall outcomes
of the code has been undertaken. The key compliances are noted below:

    •   The proposed gross floor area represents an insignificant increase to the site’s existing
        commercial and retail offering and therefore will not materially affect the existing character of
        the development (in fact we believe there will be slight improvements);
    •   The additional gross floor area seeks to contribute to a vibrant pedestrian friendly streetscape
        and improve the variety of dining spaces which are available;
    •   The changes will contribute to the ability of the active uses to be available and operate in all
        weather conditions, and into the evening;
    •   The additional GFA does not impact on the development’s ability to provide a high quality
        pedestrian and landscape outcome; and
    •   The development maintains the respect for the scale and character of the streetscape and
        surrounding development.

The proposal is considered to comply with the Overall Outcomes relevant to Gross Floor Area and
therefore complies with the Code.

O15 Roof Form

S15.2 Buildings and structures do not include roof top terraces.

Compliance Summary: the existing development approvals permitted roof top terraces and therefore
it is believed that S15.2 is not applicable to this assessment. Notwithstanding this, as there are new
elements proposed within the roof top terraces, an assessment of the corresponding Specific Outcome
O15 has been undertaken in Attachment 2, with the key compliances noted below:

    •   the proposed changes are considered to increase the appeal and usability of the existing roof
        top terraces;
    •   the improvements will contribute to the creation of a vibrant atmosphere that is visible from the
        street, adjoining premises and the beach alike;
    •   The proposed structures are not entirely different from the existing situation which currently
        provides for a mixture of shade sails and umbrellas, and to this extent the proposal will provide
        consistency and continuity for the roofline;
    •   The proposed changes do not introduce any new overlooking opportunities.

The proposed changes to the existing roof top terrace level are considered to comply with the Specific
Outcome and therefore comply with the Code.




                                                    11

Page 12

VISITOR MIXED USE ZONE CODE

O50 Character and amenity

S50.1 The number of non-residential tenancies developed on a site does not exceed the rate of 1 per
20 accommodation units or dwelling units; provided that non- Residential Uses with a use area over
100m2 are calculated as 2 tenancies.

Compliance Summary: The development has 47 units and in accordance with the rate specified above,
the site is permitted to have 2.3 commercial tenancies where it has 6. The number of tenancies is
considered to be appropriate on the basis they are existing and there are no fundamental changes
proposed. No further assessment is considered to be required.

RESIDENTIAL USES CODE

    •   There are no relevant requirements for Visitor Accommodation.

BUSINESS USES CODE

    •   There are no relevant requirements for Entertainment Type 1 (Café) or Retail Businesses Type 2
        (Shop).

CHANGES TO CONDITIONS

No changes to the conditions of approval are required. Given the age of the existing approvals, Council
may wish to update reference to the various development standards.


CHANGES TO APPROVED PLANS

It is requested that Council endorse the architectural plans prepared by Sprout (Attachment 1) as part
of the approval.

CONCLUSION

An assessment of the changes against the minor change provisions in the Planning Act 2016 finds that
the changes are indeed Minor Changes. An assessment of the planning schemes in affect throughout
various stages of the sites development finds that the assessment benchmarks are too outdated to be
considered relevant to the assessment of the changes.

Accordingly, the changes have been assessed against the provisions of the current Noosa Plan 2006. We
understand that the Act gives Council the authority to apply the weight that it considers appropriate to
these assessment benchmarks.

In this regard, the above assessment finds that the proposed changes comply with the current
assessment benchmarks, on the basis:

    •   For all development parameters generally, including height, the proposal meets the Probable
        Solution and therefore complies with the Code;
    •   With regard to density, setbacks and roof form, the proposed changes meet the relevant Specific
        Outcomes and therefore comply with the Code; and
    •   In relation to the site cover and gross floor area, the proposed development was found to be
        inconsistent with Specific Outcomes O10 and O13. However, following an assessment against
        the Overall Outcomes of the Code, the changes were found to achieve all relevant outcomes
        and therefore comply with the Code.




                                                  12

Page 13

On this basis, it is believed that there are sufficient planning grounds and merit to support the proposed
changes.

There are no affected entities.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.


Yours faithfully,
PROJECT URBAN




Peter Folker
Director
Email: [email protected]

Encl:   DA Form 5;
        “Owner’s Consent”;
        Architectural Plans, prepared by Sprout Architects (Attachment 1);
        Detailed planning assessment, prepared by Project Urban (Attachment 2); and
        Existing Approvals (Attachment 3).




                                                   13

Page 14

ATTACHMENT 1

 

Architectural Plans

Page 15

ATTACHMENT 2

 

15

Detailed Code Assessment

Page 16

ATTACHMENT 3

 

16

Existing Approvals