11428_Council_Change to DA_190515 · MCU13/0030

Page 2

     o New reception area within the existing veranda entrance fronting the Miva Street entry
        driveway.
   Extension of existing Topaz Street Portico roofing and conversion of part of area to a screened
    veranda for resident use and part to a covered ambulance bay
   Roofing over existing bin area at the Topaz Street frontage.


Permissible Change Assessment

Section 367 of Sustainable Planning Act 2009 states:

(1) A permissible change, for a development approval, is a change to the approval that
    would not—
       (a) result in a substantially different development; or

        In respect to what constitutes a ‘substantially different development’, specific reference is
        made to the statutory guidelines pursuant to section 769 of the SPA (Statutory Guideline
        06/09):

        “Although it will depend on the individual circumstances of the development, the following list
        identifies changes that may result in a substantially different development and would,
        therefore, not be a minor change or permissible change under the SPA. This list is intended as
        a guide to assist assessment managers and applicants to determine whether a change will
        result in a substantially different development and is not intended to be exhaustive.

           Involves a new use with different or additional impacts.

            Comment: The proposed changes do not establish any new uses with different or
            additional impacts.

           Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land.

            Comment: The proposed changes do not involve any new parcels of land

           Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance

            Comment: The proposed changes will not dramatically change the built form in terms of
            scale, bulk and appearance

           Changes the ability of the proposal to operate as intended.

            Comment: The proposed changes will not change the ability of the proposal to operate as
            intended.

           Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development

            Comment: The proposed changes do not remove a component that is integral to the
            operation of the development.

           Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic
            to the site.

            Comment: The proposed changes will not significantly impact on traffic flow and the
            transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site.

Page 3

          Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts.

           Comment: The proposed changes do not introduce new impacts or increases the severity
           of known impacts.

          Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact
           of the development.

           Comment: The proposed changes do not remove an incentive or offset component that
           would have balanced the negative impact of the development.

          Impacts on infrastructure provision from a location or demand.

           Comment: The proposed change will have the same impact on infrastructure provision.


       (b) if the application for the approval were remade including the change—
                (i)    require referral to additional concurrence agencies;

               Comment: The proposed change would not require the application to be referred to
               additional concurrence agencies.

               or

               (ii)     for an approval for assessable development that previously did not
                       require impact assessment—require impact assessment; or

               Comment: The original application required code assessment and the proposed
               change does not change this assessment level.

       (c) for an approval for assessable development that previously required impact
           assessment—be likely, in the responsible entity’s opinion, to cause a person to
           make a properly made submission objecting to the proposed change, if the
           circumstances allowed; or

           Comment: The original application required code assessment.

       (d) cause development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited
           development.

           Comment: The proposed change does not propose the inclusion of any prohibited
           development.

(2) For deciding whether a change is a permissible change under subsection (1)(b) or (d),
    the planning instruments or law in force at the time the request for the change was
    made apply (the applicable law).

   Comment: There has been no change to the planning scheme or applicable law since the original
   approval.


Conclusion

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed changes to the development comply with the
provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as they are minor in nature and do not offend the
intent of the original approval. Approval of the request to change the development approval is
therefore warranted.

Page 4

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


Yours faithfully
KHA DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]