2016-03-01 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   1 MARCH 2016


3.   ASSESSMENT


3.1. Applicant’s Requested Changes
An assessment of the applicant’s requested changes is provided below.
Condition 2 – Approved Plans
2.   Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
     approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed below and are as amended
     by the conditions herein.
       Plan No.           Rev.    Plan/Document Name                             Date
       OGSS-001-01        G       Site Plan Stage 2                              18/9/14

       …. [continues]

Applicant’s Request
The applicant requests endorsement of the 12 amended proposal plans for the development.
Copies of the current approved plans and new proposal plans are included as Attachments 1 &
2. In relation to the test under the Sustainable Planning Act as to whether the change is
permissible, the applicant submitted:
… the proposal results in only 1 less dwelling compared to the approval and the access layout is
broadly consistent with the approved layout.
The revised plans result in a reduction in overall GFA of approximately 4,401m2 or 20%. Whilst
the reduction in GFA is significant, it is does not result in “substantially different development”,
particularly when considered in context with the overall changes.
Similarly, whilst the changed proposal results in an additional 65 persons (equating to an
increase of about 15 people per hectare), this change is not considered to result in “substantially
different development”.
Furthermore, the bulk, massing and scale of the proposed development remains broadly
consistent with the approved development and provides additional opportunity for landscaping
between buildings to further minimise visual impact of the development particularly on elevated
parts of the site.
The changed proposal replaces the approved hardstand comprising internal roads, parking and
landscaping which was located close to Resort Drive in the south western part of Precinct F and
replaces these with buildings P, Q and R and associated landscaping. It is considered that these
changes result in an improved interface with Resort. …
It is generally agreed that the changes to the development shown on the proposed plans do not
significantly differ from the approved development. A comparison of key built form elements of
both developments are provided in the table below:




                                                                                     Page 48 of 79