RE_ 88A Goodchap St Noosaville - Pre-request response - Minor Change_.eml · 132007.12.8

Subject: RE: 88A Goodchap St Noosaville - Pre-request response - Minor Change?
From: Lisa Pienaar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:00:35 +0000
To: Shane Adamson <[email protected]>

Hi Shane,
As discussed, we are generally supportive of the proposal to include the Type 3 (Veterinary) & Office Type 1 & Education Type 3 – Adult uses on this site. Submission of an impact assessable application through the ‘other changes’ provision under the Planning Act is suggested. It is a new application, but you will receive a compiled decision notice, incorporating the old and new conditions. You would need to withdraw the current application.
The fees for an ‘other changes’ application is the same as what it would be for a new MCU. With regard to fees, we agree that the difference between the fees paid for the minor change ($4,302) and the fee for the ‘other changes’ application ($10,942) is acceptable. Therefore, when the ‘other changes’ application is lodged a fee of $6,633 is payable.
From: Shane Adamson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017 9:10 AM
To: Lisa Pienaar <[email protected]>
Cc: Kerri Coyle <[email protected]>; 'NC OLIVER NOOSA PTY LTD ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'norm' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 88A Goodchap St Noosaville - Pre-request response - Minor Change?
Hi Lisa,
I have spoken to the client about this matter, but am seeking clarification about certain aspects of your email (below) before providing a formal response.
By way of background information the following advice is provided:
a new application for material change of use code assessable could be lodged over the land to allow for the new multi-level carpark and additional office floorspace, where used for Commercial Business Types 2 (Medical) and Type 3 (Veterinary) and not requiring public notification, but would have to comply with the relevant codes;
while the height of the building is technically three (3) storeys, this is the same situation for both Building A (in part) and Building B, which is a matter that has been addressed in the minor change application, with the proposed development being lower in height than Building B, including the proposed lift (refer Attachment 1);
it is accepted that Commercial Business Type 1 – Office and Education Type 3 – Adult are impact assessable uses within the Community Services Zone; however, all Commercial Business uses and Community Uses are consistent uses on the subject land under specific outcome O172. While it is stated under specific outcome O176, that …Lot 1 on RP900855 is developed as a community centre with limited office or retail uses, the development already has limited floor areas for some of the uses, including retail; however there is currently no restriction for the office or medical uses, which allows for maximum flexibility;
the above (O176) refers to an office use and not Education Type 3 – Adult, being an entirely consistent use on the subject land and should be allowed subject to adequate parking being provided;
the existing Telecommunications Volumetric Easement is located at RL30.8 and RL63.3 (AHD) according to the survey provided by Jones Flint & Pike (Attachment 2), with the development having a maximum height of RL17.5 (AHD), well below the easement level;
the client is happy to demonstrate that there are no visual amenity impacts caused by the third storey office when viewed from the adjoining residential properties or from Goodchap Street. This issue has been addressed in the application for a minor change, with the location of the third storey office not being visible by adjoining residents, removed from Goodchap Street and located behind the existing Telstar Depot;
the other infrastructure issues remain the same as was the case when the multi-level carpark structure was approved on the land (Attachment 3), with the same conditions of approval expected to be applied with respect to stormwater drainage and sewerage relocation;
the matter of the provision of carparking while the building is being constructed remains the same as it was previously when the former development approval required the construction of the multi-level carpark. It seems odd that this is issue is now being raised when Council recently opposed the removal of the condition requiring the construction of the multi-level carpark, which resulted in the appeal lodged with the Planning & Environment Court. In any event, the current development application made over 101 & 105 Eumundi Noosa Road discusses this issue with this site (101 & 105) proposed to be used as a temporary carpark for staff and students while the development is being constructed, which is reasonable in the circumstances. The client is happy to provide a Traffic Management Plan for the development, when required.
Given the above, the client might be prepared to lodge an other changes application, pay the additional fees and undertake public notification, provided the Commercial Business Type 1 – Office and Education Type 3 – Adult use (administration only) are likely to be supported, otherwise a code assessable application could simply be lodged to achieve the same outcome. This includes making provision for the new Commercial Business Type 3 – Veterinary use over the entire development.
It is accepted that an assessment is required to be undertaken before a definitive answer could be provided; however it would obviously be a superfluous exercise to lodge an other changes application, but then have the impact assessable uses (Commercial Business Type 1 – Office & Education Type 3 – Adult (administration only)), not be supported. This is particularly the case given a three level, two storey multi-storey carpark has previously been advertised and approved on the land (refer Attachment 3).
It is preferable to make a changes application rather than lodge a new application in order to maintain one approval for the development. Could you please provide advise whether the two impact assessable uses (Commercial Business Type 1 – Office & Education Type 3 – Adult (administration only)) are likely to be supported as part of the proposed development, otherwise there is little point in proceeding on this basis, given a code assessable application could simply be lodged top achieve the same outcome.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss the matter further.
Should you require further information please contact me.
Kind regards,
Shane Adamson |Town Planning Specialist
M| 0437 754 420 |P 5430 6671 F| 5430 6677
Professional Address: ‘Noosa Boardroom’ 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville QLD 4566
Mail: PO Box 78, Peregian Beach, QLD 4573
www.adamsontownplanning.com.au
NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this communication is expressly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd does not warrant or represent that this communication (including any enclosed files) is free from electronic viruses, faults or defects.
From: Lisa Pienaar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 3:13 PM
To: Shane Adamson <[email protected]>
Cc: Kerri Coyle <[email protected]>
Subject: 88A Goodchap St Noosaville - Pre-request response - Minor Change?
Hi Shane,
In addition to my email sent 26 October 2017 (attached - where we will also need to consider the implications relating to this application), I offer some advice with regard to the proposal.
We don’t believe the proposal is a minor change to the development approval for the following reasons:
· Introduces a new use (Commercial Business Type 3) which is not part of the existing approval
· Includes a moderate increased amount of GFA.
· Includes a 3 storey building where the maximum building height is 2 storeys and 8 metres under Noosa Plan.
· Dramatically changes the built form for the neighbouring residential property from the current approval and previously approved plans for the site.
We suggest that you consider lodging an “other changes” application. We are supportive of the proposal in principle, providing the following items are considered if your client decides to lodge a new application for an Impact Assessable MCU:
Provide some analysis of the visual impacts from the street and from the neighbouring residential properties. Outline any other impacts such as noise attenuation and lighting.
Consider and provide details on how car parking will be managed during construction. Provide a car park management plan. If the plan involves an alternative site during the construction process, consider that the site will need approval for a car park.
Impacts/ potential challenges/permissions) on the Telstra site with regard to relocating infrastructure and existing easement (particularly volumetic) provisions around the Telstra infrastructure.
Comment – for information only: Although it is acknowledged there is a need for office space relating to the Education component on site (Education Type 3), the Specific outcome 0176 of the Noosaville Locality code specifies that the subject lot ‘is developed as a community centre, with limited office or retail uses’. Future approvals may include a cap of office space for the development as a whole. The strategic intent of this site is to support the function of the Noosa Hospital (acknowledging education and other components have been approved on site).
The fees will total $10,942 based on 675m2.
Lisa Pienaar
Development Planner, Environment and Sustainable Development I Noosa Council
Phone: 07 5329 6514
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.noosa.qld.gov.au
Location: Level 2, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Mail: PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565
Please consider the environment before printing this email