06/0823 - Proposed change to development approval · 132006.823.04

Sunshine Coast Regional Council
7 November 2008

he

 

but does not include visitor accommodation Type 1 Home Hosted or Type 3 Rural as
separately defined.”

The specific form of use is supported by condition 23 of the development permit which is in the
following terms:

"23. The Resort (comprising the Restaurant and Conference Room Facility Building V,
Health Spa, Resort Accommodation Buildings (dwelling units & accommodation units),
Reception Area and Shop) shall be operated and maintained as a Resort. The
accommodation in the Resort will not be used for the purpose of permanent residential
accommodation, with the exception of the Manager’s Accommodation. The resort shall
operate in accordance with the defined use of ‘Visitor Accommodation — Type 4
Conventional’ in the Noosa Plan which provides for short term visitor accommodation.
The community management statement for any or all bodies corporate having contro!
of the Resort or any part thereof shail incorporate this condition.”

Our client wishes to remove the permanent residency restriction on the $4 villas and townhouses
and has written to the Council requesting a change to the development permit through attering
condition 23. However our client did not see to change the description of the permitted use in the
development permit. In our view, our client needs to do both of these things in order to effectively
remove the restriction on permanent residency, because otherwise condition 23, once amended, will
be inconsistent with the approval.

In our view it is necessary to change the land use description so that it reads as follows:

“1.1 Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional (Resort) in respect of (insert number)
1 bedroom and 2 bedroom dwelling units described as {insert plan references) and
Multiple Housing Type 4 Conventional (Resort) in respect of 54 2 bedroom and
3 bedroom dwelling units described as (insert plan references).”

Concurrently condition 23 should be changed to exciude the villas and penthouses from the
restriction on permanent use. Preferably those villas and penthouses should be referenced to unit
numbers on the approved plans rather than by introducing another pian, as suggested in the land
use description above.

We have advised our client that these requests should be made in accordance with ss 3.5.24 and
3.5.33 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) respectively and the requirements of those two
sections need to be complied with carefuily. The request should be made on the forms used by the
Council for those purposes accompanied by owners’ consents and should follow. exactly the
processes set out respectively in each of the sections.

We now turn to the issue of whether the Council has jurisdiction to process such requests under

- $8 3.5.24 and 3.5.33 for the above purposes. We will deal with s. 3.5.24 first. The pre-condition to
the use. of that section to change a development approval is that the change is a “minor change”.
This involves an analysis of the effect of the alteration proposed. !n this regard we make the
following observations:

1. Nothing will physically change in terms of the built form. The relevant villas and penthouses
have been designed for independent living and their design remains exactly the same.
Therefore they will function in the same way and will house the same number of people.

2. The change does not introduce any new use. The use before and after remains that of a
dwelling unit used for residential purposes within a resort.

There are no changes to the parking or traffic circulation facilities.
There are no new works proposed.

There are no amenity impacts as a result of the alteration either on or off the site.

oak Ww

No use is removed or deleted because although 54 units may be permanently occupied, they
remain available to the resort through the letting pool and are likely to be predominantly
operated in that way notwithstanding the change.

2581459_1.D0C Page 2 of 5