Request to Change Development Approval

Page 2

     Entertainment & dining business Type 1 Food & beverages.
Three formal changes (ie permissible changes) have been made to the approval since it was issued.

3.0      Summary of the proposed changes to the approval
As per our various discussions and written communications, our client intends to change the facade
treatment of the northern elevation of the industrial building. The changes are shown on the revised
Elevations Plan prepared by Powe Architects and include significant beautification treatments to the
wall including a “green wall” component, timber battens and painted graphics (as per the current
approved plans).

The landscape elements of the proposed wall treatments have been detailed on the landscape
operation works plans which are currently before council for approval (refer the RFI response under
OPW16/0231).

Amended Plans
As a result of the changes described above, the plans listed in Table 1 supersede the approved plans.

Table 1
Plan No.              Rev.    Plan Name                                          Date
DA-03-01              G       Elevations, prepared by Powe Architects            15 Nov 2016
DA-03-02              G       Sections, prepared by Powe Architects              15 Nov 2016

Referenced Documents
Not applicable.

Changes to Conditions of the Decision Notice
The abovementioned changes cause a consequential amendment to Condition 2 of the decision
notice. Condition 2 should be amended to reference the revised plan described in Table 1 above.

4.0      Sustainable Planning Act 2009
The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 permits an assessment manager to consider a change to an
approval where the change is a “permissible change”. The definition of "permissible change" is as
follows:

“1) A permissible change for a development approval, is a change to the approval that would not-
(a) result in a substantially different development; or
(b) if the application for the approval were remade including the change-
    (i) require referral to additional concurrence agencies;
    (ii) for an approval for assessable development that previously did not require impact assessment
         - require impact assessment; or
(c) for an approval for assessable development that previously required impact assessment - be likely,
    in the responsible entity’s opinion, to cause a person to make a properly made submission
    objecting to the proposed change, it the circumstances allowed; or
(d) cause development to which the approval relates to include prohibited development”

In relation to the above definition, it is relevant to note the following:

Page 3

Substantially different development
The statutory guideline 06/09 provides examples of what may be considered to be substantially
different development. These examples are provided below:

A change may result in a substantially different development if the proposed change:
  involves a new use with different or additional impacts
  results in the application applying to a new parcel of land
  dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance
  changes the ability of the proposal to operate as intended. For example, reducing the size of a
    retail complex may reduce the capacity of the complex to service the intended catchment
  removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development
  significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site
  introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts
  removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative impact of the
    development
  impacts on infrastructure provision, location or demand.

In our opinion, the changes proposed do not result in a substantially different development.

Concurrence agencies
There were no concurrence agencies for the original application and no referrals would be triggered by
the changes proposed.

Assessment levels and likelihood of objections
The original application was impact assessable. The proposed changes will not affect the level of
assessment. Only one objection was recorded against the original application. That objection was
primarily concerned with parking supply associated with the possible tyre and mechanical shop. The
changes proposed would not likely cause a person to object.

Prohibited development
The proposed amendments do not involve prohibited development.

For these reasons it is considered that the proposed changes constitute a Permissible Change to the
approved development. On this basis it is considered that the request can be dealt with pursuant to
sections 369 – 377 of SPA. We look forward to Council’s decision on this request.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Peter Folker
Director
Email: [email protected]