SARA_Information response

Third, the legislative context for the amendment to the PR is also relevant
to the assessment of consistency with the original approval. In that
sense, the planning purpose of the amendments to the PR was to provide
for the protection of koala habitat areas. Accordingly, where the
ecological outcomes for koala habitat as a consequence of the proposed
change are no worse (and indeed are likely better) than the outcomes
approved by the Development Approval, that factor is another indicator of
consistency between the proposed changed development and the
Development Approval.

In those circumstances, where the substance of the change is not
touching upon the matters relevant to ecology, or put another way it is
not changing those outcomes (at least in an adverse way), there is an
obvious level of harmony and compatibility between the Development
Approval and the change the subject of the present change application. It
follows, given that harmony and compatibility, we think it is open to
conclude that the change is “consistent” with the Development Approval.

Putting aside the question of whether the changed development is
“consistent” with the Development Approval, there are a few things to
note:

1, the whole of the development is not to be reassessed by the other
change process. Instead, it is a discrete analysis of the changes
which arise in the context of the Development Approval. By simple
reference to the site cover, we note that the site cover is increasing
from 34% to 40%. It follows then, that the assessment is not to
be carried out about the entire footprint covering 40%, but rather
by reference to the additional 6%;"°

2. in that regard we have considered the arborist report of 7 October
2022. At page 7 of that report, we note that it is identified that “as
the proposed development is for a change to an existing approval,
tree survey was limited to areas currently zoned Environmental
Management and Conservation, together with areas outside of the
building footprint indicated by the approved plans”. |In our view,
that approach is entirely appropriate and correct at law. Put another
way, the report assesses:

(a) the additional 6% of site cover; and

(b) matters arising from changes to assessment benchmarks
since the Development Approval was originally given; and

'3 assuming that 34% of the 40% now proposed is coincidental with the site cover of

the approved development.

0061 2867.DOCX