Minor Change Request Letter · 132000.200186.1

Page 2

In line with this, we request that Condition 11 which currently reads, “Development undertaken in accordance
with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are
numbered 25.401.1 to 25.401.1 prepared by Andrew McKellar Design and dated April 2000 and as may be
amended by these conditions,” be updated to read, “Development undertaken in accordance with this approval
must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are titled/numbered as
per the following, and as may be amended by these conditions:

 Plan Number/Title                                          Dated                  Prepared By
 Site Plan WD 1.2                                           May 2022               Sparks Architects
 Proposed Residence 25.401.1 (Amended in Red)               April 2000             Andrew McKellar
 Lower Ground Floor Set Out Plan WD 1.6                     May 2022               Sparks Architects
 Proposed Residence 25.401.2                                April 2000             Andrew McKellar
 Proposed Residence 25.401.3 (Amended in Red)               April 2000             Andrew McKellar
 South Elevation WD 2.1                                     May 2022               Sparks Architects
 East Elevation WD 2.2                                      May 2022               Sparks Architects


In addition to this, we also request that Condition 4 which reads, “The driveway shall be a maximum of 4.0
metres wide where it crosses the property boundary and the balance of the driveway within the lot shall be the
minimum area required to provide access to the proposed garage. The remainder of the driveway within the
footpath shall also have a maximum width of 4.0 metres,” be removed on the basis that the existing driveway
– which was established in excess of 18 years ago – has a width (at the property boundary and within the
footpath) greater than four metres. While this four metre restriction was probably relevant/reasonable at the
time of approval, the prevalence of nearby driveway widths (at the property boundary and within the
footpath) greater than four metres (refer to Figures 1) seems to indicate that this is no longer the case.




Figure 1: >4m Wide Driveways near the Site (Green Marker)                              Source: NearMap 2021
                               Bartley Burns Town Planning Pty Ltd  ABN 36 413 954 407
                          1300 051 189  [email protected]  www.bartleyburns.com.au

Page 3

                                                         ---

The above-mentioned change is deemed to constitute a minor change, based on the following requirements
laid out in Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016:

minor change means a change that:
(b) for a development application –
(i) would not result in substantially different development; and
Response: The changes will not result in a substantially different development. This is based on the fact that
the changes will not include a new use, nor will they result in the application applying to a new parcel of land.
Further to this, the changes will not dramatically alter the development’s built form in terms of scale, bulk or
appearance. Moreover, the changes will not alter the ability of the development to operate as intended, nor
will they remove an integral component of the development. In addition, the changes will cause no impact on
surrounding traffic flows or the surrounding transport network, nor will they introduce any new impacts or
increase the severity of known impacts. And finally, the changes will not remove an incentive/offset of the
original development, nor will they impact upon surrounding infrastructure provisions.


(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

Response: If a development application were to be made today, inclusive of the change, it would not include
prohibited development.


(B) referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were no referral agencies for the
development application; or
Response: If a development application were to be made today, inclusive of the change, it would not require
referral to a referral agency other than to the chief executive.


(C) referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or

Response: The original application did not require a referral to a referral agency.


(D) a referral agency to assess the application against, or have regard to, matters prescribed by 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
Response: The original application did not require a referral to a referral agency.


(E) public notification if public notification was not required for the development application.

Response: If a development application were to be made today, inclusive of the change, it would not require
public notification.

                                                         ---

We thank you for your attention to this request and look forward to receiving a positive response through the
issuing of a negotiated decision notice, inclusive of an amended set of plans. If you have any queries or


                                Bartley Burns Town Planning Pty Ltd  ABN 36 413 954 407
                            1300 051 189  [email protected]  www.bartleyburns.com.au

Page 4

questions about these representations, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on 0481 153 265 or
1300 051 189.

Yours faithfully,




Courtney Maizey-Baker
Senior Town Planner
Bartley Burns – Building Certifiers & Town Planners




                             Bartley Burns Town Planning Pty Ltd  ABN 36 413 954 407
                         1300 051 189  [email protected]  www.bartleyburns.com.au