Cover Letter_Precinct E2_CDA_FINAL

          Comment: The majority of changes relate to the same parcel of land as the current development
          approval. However, the realignment of the proposed internal private road to facilitate construction of the
          maintenance building and improve site circulation has resulted in the private road encroaching into the
          south east corner of a new parcel of land, being the adjoining Lot 7 on SP178340 which forms Precinct F.
          Whilst the proposal apples to both the existing parcel and a new parcel of land (albeit a minor part), it is
          considered that this of itself does not make the development “substantially different development”. We
          contend that, having regard to the individual circumstances, the inclusion of an additional land parcel
          does not result in substantially different development, based on the following:
               No change to external access to the site is proposed.
               Inclusion of the additional land relates to a minor encroachment into Precinct F to facilitate
                  realignment of the internal private road to improve circulation and to accommodate the new
                  maintenance building within Precinct E2.
               A separate but concurrent Minor Change application has been lodged with Council in respect of
                  Precinct F to ensure the new internal road alignment is consistent between the two precincts.
               The amended private road alignment will be reflected in future access easements associated with
                  the related reconfiguration application which is currently being assessed by Council.

     3. The proposed changes do not dramatically change the built form in terms of scale, bulk and
        appearance.

          Comment: Built form does not substantially differ from the existing approval, with buildings sited and
          oriented in similar locations. Likewise, individual building footprints do not significantly change as a
          consequence of the proposed changes.

     4. The proposed changes do not change the ability of the proposal to operate as intended.

          Comment: The proposed changes will not affect the ability of the proposal to operate as intended i.e. as
          an integrated residential community.

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

          Comment: The proposed changes do not seek to remove any components from the previous permissible
          change approval. Instead, the changes seek to reduce the overall number of units, whilst maintaining the
          existing approved gross floor area.

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

          Comment: As demonstrated in the response to point 1. above, the proposed changes result in an overall
          reduction in density and as such are not anticipated as generating significant impacts on traffic flow or
          the existing road network beyond what was already anticipated under the existing development approval.

     7. The proposed changes do not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts.



JFP Ref: M2652/E2                                                                                                Page 11