2014-08-19 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda - Pages 1-101

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                 19 AUGUST 2014


    The extension of time is required to overcome an inconsistency of conditions associated
      with the subdivision and the later Material Change of Use application for a dwelling;
    The additional time is required to enable State agencies to comment on the requested
      changes to conditions.
    The subdivision is consistent with the form of development in the area and represents a
      logical extension to Riverpark Drive.
2.    BACKGROUND
The original application was made in 2006 under the Superseded Planning Scheme and sought
to subdivide 2 lots into 6 lots. Following a lengthy assessment process, negotiation by the
applicant with a State agency and amendments to the proposal, a Development Permit to
Reconfigure a Lot – 1 Lot into 2 Lots was issued on 22/3/2010 and took effect on 17/5/2010 with
the issue of a Negotiated Decision Notice. The approved lots are 5.6ha and 56.6ha in size,
shown as Lot 1 and Lot 2 respectively on the approved plan at Attachment 1.
In December 2011, Council issued a separate Material Change of Use approval (MCU11/0204)
for a dwelling house on the site within a 2,000m 2 cleared area of the site, approximately 450m
from the riverbank. The approved plan for that development is included as Attachment 2.
3.    STATUTORY PROCESS
Request to Change Conditions of Existing Approval
The applicant has requested to make a permissible change to a development approval under
s369 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. A request to change a development approval under
s369 can only be made in circumstances where that change would constitute a ‘permissible
change’.
The proposed change to the development approval requested by the applicant is considered to
constitute a permissible change on grounds that:
    The changes to conditions will not result in a substantially different development because
      they align with the existing development approval for a material change of use;
    The change would not require the application to be referred to additional concurrence
      agencies;
    The original application was code assessable and the change would not cause the
      application to become impact assessable;
    The change would not cause the approval to involve prohibited development.
On this basis, the applicant has followed lawful process in making a request under s369 of the
Act.
Extension to Relevant Period
Section 388 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 applies to requests to extend the relevant
period, it states that in deciding a request the assessment manager must only have regard to:
(a)   the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with current laws and policies
      applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure
      contributions, or infrastructure charges payable under an infrastructure charges schedule;
(b)   the community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
(c)   whether, if the request were refused-
      (i)    further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development
            application; and
      (ii)   the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
(d)   the views of any concurrence agency for the approval.
Details of the assessment against these provisions are provided later in this report.


                                                                                   Page 30 of 155