20240510_NSC_M1717P_MCU minor change request.pdf

Page 2

.


Subsequently, it was identified that some of the internal carparks had not been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans. To reconcile these minor discrepancies, a generally in accordance request was made in relation to both
the Civil and Landscape Operational works approvals to capture the ‘as constructed’ works on site and resulted in Council
endorsing the proposed changes as generally in accordance resulting in the following Council approvals:

          Civil Op works – OPW12/0096.02
          Landscaping Op works – OPW12/0110.02

The development is now complete and operational in accordance with the requirements of the related approvals. However,
a recent site inspection by Council identified that some of the development’s car parking was not located in accordance
with the existing MCU development approval (ie for reasons outlined above) and 7 additional visitor spaces had been
constructed (refer to Figure 1 below). Accordingly, Council advised that a minor change was required to address these
inconsistencies between the related approvals over the site.




Figure 1 – the location of the 7 additional visitor spaces


A review of Council’s PD online identifies that there is no record of the Civil operational works GIA (OPW12/0095.02). This
may have contributed to the confusion in resolving the past approvals over the site.

This minor change to the MCU seeks to reconcile the aforementioned ‘generally in accordance’ amendments to the civil
operational works approval and the additional 7 visitor car spaces, as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, the approved
architectural plan package has been updated to reflect these changes.




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                               Page 2


[OCR of page images]
 

jJJFOP

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

 

Subsequently, it was identified that some of the internal carparks had not been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans. To reconcile these minor discrepancies, a generally in accordance request was made in relation to both
the Civil and Landscape Operational works approvals to capture the ‘as constructed’ works on site and resulted in Council
endorsing the proposed changes as generally in accordance resulting in the following Council approvals:

= Civil Op works — OPW12/0096.02
= Landscaping Op works — OPW12/0110.02

The development is now complete and operational in accordance with the requirements of the related approvals. However,
a recent site inspection by Council identified that some of the development’s car parking was not located in accordance
with the existing MCU development approval (ie for reasons outlined above) and 7 additional visitor spaces had been
constructed (refer to Figure 1 below). Accordingly, Council advised that a minor change was required to address these
inconsistencies between the related approvals over the site.

 

Figure 1 — the location of the 7 additional visitor spaces

A review of Council’s PD online identifies that there is no record of the Civil operational works GIA (OPW12/0095.02). This
may have contributed to the confusion in resolving the past approvals over the site.

This minor change to the MCU seeks to reconcile the aforementioned ‘generally in accordance’ amendments to the civil

operational works approval and the additional 7 visitor car spaces, as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, the approved
architectural plan package has been updated to reflect these changes.

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 2

Page 3

.


Requested change and justification
To assist council with the assessment of the proposed minor change to the development approval, we have outlined the
consequential changes required to the existing condition package to reflect the proposed plan changes.

The proposed amendments to conditions are shown as strike throughs (deletions) or bold - type (additions).

Condition 1
Land use:
   1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of
        development. The approved plans are numbered:
        Revised Site Plan, prepare d by Greg Gibbs 1519 WD01, December 2015
          1.2 Road Network & Parking 0379 SK04C dated October 2004,
          1.3 Drainage Design 0379 SK 05B dated October 2004,
          1.4 Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No TP‐01 Rev P1 dated 03 December, 2020 and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.5 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐02 Rev P1 dated 16 May
          2017 and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.6 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐03 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017
          and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.7 Proposed Roof Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐04 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and
          prepared by Select Architects;
          1.8 Proposed Elevations (Building A), Drawing No TP‐05 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and
          prepared by Select Architects;
          1.9 Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐06 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017
          and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.11 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP‐07 Rev P1 dated 10 November,
          2020 and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.12 Proposed Roof Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP‐08 Rev P1 dated 10 November, 2020
          and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.13 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 (Building B), Drawing No TP‐09 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
          2017 and prepared by Select Architects;
          1.14 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 (Building B), Drawing No TP‐10 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
          2017 and prepared by Select Architects.
          1.15 Community Centre Floor Plan 0379 SK CC‐1A dated November 2004,
          1.16 Community Centre Elevations 0379 SK CC‐2A dated November 2004,
          1.17 Type A Villa 0379 Villa A Issue A dated November 2004,
          1.18 Type B Villa 0379 Villa B Issue A dated November 2004,
          1.19 Type C Villa 0379 Villa C Issue A dated November 2004,
          1.20 Type D Villa 0379 Villa D Issue A dated November 2004, and
          1.21 Type E Villa 0379 Villa E Issue A dated November 2004; prepared Greg Gibbs
          Architects;
          1.22 Landscape Concept Plan ‐ LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2001; and
          1.23 Landscape Concept Plan ‐Entry LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2005,




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                             Page 3


[OCR of page images]
   

JFOP

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

Requested change and justification
To assist council with the assessment of the proposed minor change to the development approval, we have outlined the

consequential changes required to the existing condition package to reflect the proposed plan changes.

The proposed amendments to conditions are shown as strike throughs (deletions) or bold - type (additions).

Condition 1
Land use:

1.

Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of
development. The approved plans are numbered:
Revised Site Plan, prepare d by Greg Gibbs 1519 WD01, December 2015

1.2 Road Network & Parking 0379 SKO4C dated October 2004,

1.3 Drainage Design 0379 SK 05B dated October 2004,

1.4 Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No TP-O1 Rev P1 dated 03 December, 2020 and prepared by Select Architects;
1.5 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-02 Rev P1 dated 16 May
2017 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.6 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-03 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017
and prepared by Select Architects;

1.7 Proposed Roof Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-04 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and
prepared by Select Architects;

1.8 Proposed Elevations (Building A), Drawing No TP-05 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and
prepared by Select Architects;

1.9 Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-06 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017

and prepared by Select Architects;

1.11 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP-07 Rev P1 dated 10 November,
2020 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.12 Proposed Roof Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP-08 Rev P1 dated 10 November, 2020
and prepared by Select Architects;

1.13 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 (Building B), Drawing No TP-09 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.14 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 (Building B), Drawing No TP-10 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects.

1.15 Community Centre Floor Plan 0379 SK CC-1A dated November 2004,

1.16 Community Centre Elevations 0379 SK CC-2A dated November 2004,

1.17 Type A Villa 0379 Villa A Issue A dated November 2004,

1.18 Type B Villa 0379 Villa B Issue A dated November 2004,

1.19 Type C Villa 0379 Villa C Issue A dated November 2004,

1.20 Type D Villa 0379 Villa D Issue A dated November 2004, and

1.21 Type E Villa 0379 Villa E Issue A dated November 2004; prepared Greg Gibbs
Architects;

1.22 Landscape Concept Plan - LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2001; and

1.23 Landscape Concept Plan -Entry LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2005,

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 3

Page 4

.


          prepared by Land Graphics;
          1.24 The Singleton Floor Plan, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD02, December 2015
          1.25 The Singleton Elevations, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD04, December 2015
          1.26 The Singleton Site Plan + Finishes, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD01, December
          2015

Comment
The list of approved plans needs to be updated to reflect the site works, which were endorsed by the operational works
approvals and the addition of 7 new visitor parking spaces to the east of the existing covered spaces provided as part of
the Stage 5 and abutting Eenie Creek Rd. No vegetation was cleared to accommodate these additional car parks.

It is also recommended that the approved plan ‘1.2 Road Network and Parking Plan (0379 SK04C) dated October 2004’,
be deleted, as it has been superseded by previously constructed changes to the development. The road network and
parking plan it is no longer relevant as the development is now established and does not reflect the original development
layout which was circa 2004. The additional existing visitor parking sought to be approved as part of this application is
considered inconsequential as it is provided in addition to the car parking requirements of the original approval.

In addition to the updated architectural plan set (refer to Attachment C), we also attach the existing approved MCU plans
for completeness (refer to Attachment D).



Amended Condition 1
Please amend condition 1 as follows:

Revised Site Plan, prepare d by Greg Gibbs 1519 WD01, December 2015
1.2 Road Network & Parking 0379 SK04C dated October 2004,
1.3 Drainage Design 0379 SK 05B dated October 2004,
1.4 Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No TP‐01 Rev P1P5 dated 03 December, 2020 22 April 2024 and
prepared by Select Architects;
1.5 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐02 Rev P1P3 dated 16 May
2017 22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;
1.6 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐03 Rev P1 P3 dated 16 May 2017 22 April 2024
and prepared by Select Architects;
1.7 Proposed Roof Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP‐04 Rev P1 P3 dated 16 May 2017 22 April 2024 and
prepared by Select Architects;
1.8 Proposed Elevations (Building A), Drawing No TP‐05 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and
prepared by Select Architects;
1.9 Ground Floor Plan (Building A B), Drawing No TP‐06 Rev P1 P4 dated 16 May 2017 22 April 2024
and prepared by Select Architects;
1.11 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP‐07 Rev P1 P3 dated 10 November,
2020 22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;
1.12 Proposed Roof Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP‐08 Rev P1 P4 dated 10 November, 2020




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                               Page 4


[OCR of page images]
   

JFOP

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

prepared by Land Graphics;

1.24 The Singleton Floor Plan, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WDO2, December 2015
1.25 The Singleton Elevations, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD04, December 2015
1.26 The Singleton Site Plan + Finishes, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WDO1, December
2015

Comment

The list of approved plans needs to be updated to reflect the site works, which were endorsed by the operational works
approvals and the addition of 7 new visitor parking spaces to the east of the existing covered spaces provided as part of
the Stage 5 and abutting Eenie Creek Rd. No vegetation was cleared to accommodate these additional car parks.

It is also recommended that the approved plan ‘1.2 Road Network and Parking Plan (0379 SKO4C) dated October 2004’,
be deleted, as it has been superseded by previously constructed changes to the development. The road network and
parking plan it is no longer relevant as the development is now established and does not reflect the original development
layout which was circa 2004. The additional existing visitor parking sought to be approved as part of this application is
considered inconsequential as it is provided in addition to the car parking requirements of the original approval.

In addition to the updated architectural plan set (refer to Attachment C), we also attach the existing approved MCU plans
for completeness (refer to Attachment D).

Amended Condition 1
Please amend condition 1 as follows:

Revised Site Plan, prepare d by Greg Gibbs 1519 WD01, December 2015

42 Rood Network 2g. Parking 0379 SKOAC dated October 2004.

1.3 Drainage Design 0379 SK 05B dated October 2004,

1.4 Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No TP-01 Rev-P4P5 dated 03 December 2020 22 April 2024 and
prepared by Select Architects;

1.5 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-02 Rev P£P3 dated 16-Mey
2044.22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.6 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-03 Rev 24 P3 dated 16 May 2047 22 April 2024
and prepared by Select Architects;

1.7 Proposed Roof Plan (Building A), Drawing No TP-04 Rev 22 P3 dated 16 May2017 22 April 2024 and
prepared by Select Architects;

1.8 Proposed Elevations (Building A), Drawing No TP-05 Rev P1 dated 16 May 2017 and

prepared by Select Architects;

1.9 Ground Floor Plan (Building A B), Drawing No TP-06 Rev 24 P4 dated 16-May201Z 22 April 2024
and prepared by Select Architects;

1.11 Proposed First Floor Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP-07 Rev 24 P3 dated 10-November

2020-22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.12 Proposed Roof Plan (Building B), Drawing No TP-08 Rev 24 P4 dated 10-November 2020

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 4

Page 5

.


22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;
1.13 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 (Building B), Drawing No TP‐09 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects;
1.14 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 (Building B), Drawing No TP‐10 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects.
1.15 Community Centre Floor Plan 0379 SK CC‐1A dated November 2004,
1.16 Community Centre Elevations 0379 SK CC‐2A dated November 2004,
1.17 Type A Villa 0379 Villa A Issue A dated November 2004,
1.18 Type B Villa 0379 Villa B Issue A dated November 2004,
1.19 Type C Villa 0379 Villa C Issue A dated November 2004,
1.20 Type D Villa 0379 Villa D Issue A dated November 2004, and
1.21 Type E Villa 0379 Villa E Issue A dated November 2004; prepared Greg Gibbs Architects;
1.22 Landscape Concept Plan ‐ LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2001; and
1.23 Landscape Concept Plan ‐Entry LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2005,
prepared by Land Graphics;
1.24 The Singleton Floor Plan, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD02, December 2015
1.25 The Singleton Elevations, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD04, December 2015
1.26 The Singleton Site Plan + Finishes, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD01, December
2015

No further changes to the development approval are sought.

Assessment against the applicable provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act)

In accordance with s.81 and Schedule 2 of the Act, please find below an assessment of the proposed change to approval
against the ‘minor change’ criteria of the Act.

    Criteria                                                      Response
    Minor change means a change that—
    ….
    (b) for a development approval—

         i)        Would not result in ‘substantially different   Complies refer to Table 2 below.
                   development’; and




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                           Page 5


[OCR of page images]
   

mess] Step)

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

22 April 2024 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.13 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 (Building B), Drawing No TP-09 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects;

1.14 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 (Building B), Drawing No TP-10 Rev P1 dated 01 June,
2017 and prepared by Select Architects.

1.15 Community Centre Floor Plan 0379 SK CC-1A dated November 2004,

1.16 Community Centre Elevations 0379 SK CC-2A dated November 2004,

1.17 Type A Villa 0379 Villa A Issue A dated November 2004,

1.18 Type B Villa 0379 Villa B Issue A dated November 2004,

1.19 Type C Villa 0379 Villa C Issue A dated November 2004,

1.20 Type D Villa 0379 Villa D Issue A dated November 2004, and

1.21 Type E Villa 0379 Villa E Issue A dated November 2004; prepared Greg Gibbs Architects;
1.22 Landscape Concept Plan - LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2001; and

1.23 Landscape Concept Plan -Entry LA 01 Sheet 01 of 01 Issue B dated June 2005,
prepared by Land Graphics;

1.24 The Singleton Floor Plan, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WDO2, December 2015
1.25 The Singleton Elevations, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD04, December 2015
1.26-The Singleton Site Plan + Finishes, prepared by Greg Gibbs 1514 WD01, December
2015

No further changes to the development approval are sought.
Assessment against the applicable provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act)

In accordance with s.81 and Schedule 2 of the Act, please find below an assessment of the proposed change to approval
against the ‘minor change’ criteria of the Act.

Minor change means a change that—

(b) for a development approval—

 

i) Would not result in ‘substantially different Complies refer to Table 2 below.
development’; and

 

 

 

 

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 5

Page 6

.


        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              Complies – The proposed does not introduce prohibited
                            development in the application; or      development.
                        b) Referral to a referral agency, other     Complies – The proposed development does not require
                            than to the chief executive, if there   the development to be referred to a referral agency nor
                            were no referral agencies for the       additional matters prescribed by a regulation under
                            development application; or             section 55(2).
                        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 the 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            Complies – The proposed amendment is minor in nature
                            notification was not required for the   and will not trigger the requirement for public
                            development application.                notification.
Table 1 – ‘Minor change’ criteria (Schedule 2 - Dictionary)


The proposed change represents a minor change under Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules, as the
outcome does not result in ‘substantially different’ development as outlined below.

    Substantially Different Criteria                              Response
    A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed change:
        a) involves a new use                                     Complies – the change does not involve a new use
        b) results in the application applying to a new parcel Complies – the proposed change will not result in any
           of land; or                                            new parcels of land being included as part of the
                                                                  application
        c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of        Complies – the proposed change does not involve any
           scale, bulk and appearance; or                         changes to the approved built form
        d) changes the ability of the proposed development Complies – the proposed change does not change the
           to operate as intended; or                             ability for the development to operate as intended
        e) removes a component that is integral to the            Complies – The proposed change does not remove a
           operation of the development; or                       component that is integral to the development
        f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the          Complies – The proposed amendments will not result in
           transport network, such as increasing traffic to       any additional impacts not already addressed as part of
           the site; or                                           the original approval
        g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of Complies – The proposed amendment will not result in
           known impacts; or                                      increased severity of known impacts.




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                                  Page 6


[OCR of page images]
   

IJFOP

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

 

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
Referral to a referral agency, other
than to the chief executive, if there
were no referral agencies for the
development application; or
Referral to extra referral agencies,
other than to the chief executive; or
A referral agency to assess the
application against or have regard to
matters prescribed by the 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
public notification if public
notification was not required for the
development application.

b)

e)

 

Complies — The proposed does not introduce prohibited
development.

Complies — The proposed development does not require
the development to be referred to a referral agency nor
additional matters prescribed by a regulation under
section 55(2).

Complies — The proposed amendment is minor in nature
and will not trigger the requirement for public
notification.

 

 

 

Table 1 — ‘Minor change’ criteria (Schedule 2 - Dictionary)

The proposed change represents a minor change under Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules, as the

outcome does not result in ‘substantially different’ development as outlined below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substantially Different Criteria | Response
A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed change:
a) involves a new use Complies — the change does not involve a new use
b) results in the application applying to a new parcel | Complies — the proposed change will not result in any
of land; or new parcels of land being included as part of the
application
c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of Complies — the proposed change does not involve any
scale, bulk and appearance; or changes to the approved built form
d) changes the ability of the proposed development | Complies — the proposed change does not change the
to operate as intended; or ability for the development to operate as intended
e) removes a component that is integral to the Complies — The proposed change does not remove a
operation of the development; or component that is integral to the development
f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the Complies — The proposed amendments will not result in
transport network, such as increasing traffic to any additional impacts not already addressed as part of
the site; or the original approval
g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of | Complies — The proposed amendment will not result in
known impacts; or increased severity of known impacts.

 

 

 

JFP Ref: M1717P.

Page 6

Page 7

.


      h) removes an incentive or offset component that                     Complies – the proposed change does not remove any
         would have balanced a negative impact of the                      incentive or offset component of the proposed
         development; or                                                   development.
      i) impacts on infrastructure provisions.                             Complies – the proposed minor change does not result in
                                                                           any adverse impacts on infrastructure provisions.
Table 2 – Substantially different criteria (Schedule 1 – Development Assessment Rules)


Affected Entities
Not applicable

Summary

As demonstrated above, the proposed minor change to the existing development approval represents a minor change
under s78 of the Planning Act 2016 and Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules, as the proposed change does
not result in ‘substantially different development’, require any additional referral agencies, nor changes the level of
assessment in the event the application was to be re-lodged.

The applicable application fee for a minor change to a development approval – minor matters is $2516.00 in accordance
with Council’s fees and charges register 2023/2024. This fee will be paid upon receipt of Council’s payment advice.

In support of our request, please find enclosed the following:
     Attachment A: DA Form 5
     Attachment B: Owners Consent
     Attachment C: Architectural plans
     Attachment D: Approved plan package

We look forward to receiving Council’s changed approval package for the application. Should you require any clarification
on any of the above issues please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,




TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

CC/- Country Club Living Pty Ltd




JFP Ref: M1717P.                                                                                                         Page 7


[OCR of page images]
   

IJFOP

 

 

IRMA
URBANCONSULTANTS
h) removes an incentive or offset component that Complies — the proposed change does not remove any
would have balanced a negative impact of the incentive or offset component of the proposed
development; or development.
i) impacts on infrastructure provisions. Complies — the proposed minor change does not result in
any adverse impacts on infrastructure provisions.

 

 

 

 

Table 2 — Substantially different criteria (Schedule 1 — Development Assessment Rules)

Affected Entities
Not applicable

Summary

As demonstrated above, the proposed minor change to the existing development approval represents a minor change
under s78 of the Planning Act 2016 and Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment Rules, as the proposed change does
not result in ‘substantially different development’, require any additional referral agencies, nor changes the level of
assessment in the event the application was to be re-lodged.

The applicable application fee for a minor change to a development approval — minor matters is $2516.00 in accordance
with Council’s fees and charges register 2023/2024. This fee will be paid upon receipt of Council’s payment advice.

In support of our request, please find enclosed the following:
= Attachment A: DA Form 5
= Attachment B: Owners Consent
= Attachment C: Architectural plans
= Attachment D: Approved plan package

We look forward to receiving Council’s changed approval package for the application. Should you require any clarification
on any of the above issues please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

/

TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

CC/- Country Club Living Pty Ltd

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 7

Page 8

  

|

 

= OY) ar)

DAMIAN
URBANCONSULTANTS

JFP Ref: M1717P. Page 8