102995-10 Permissible change request

We understand Council's desire for the indemnity in the conditions, to ensure that it is protected
for future legal liability, however the registration of the covenant on Lot 102 will ensure that
Council is sufficiently protected and indemnified from risk.

That is, the covenant will attach to Lot 102 at the time of registration and identifies the
geotechnical requirements necessary to achieve long term stability of the site. If the requirements
of the covenant (set out in the geotechnical report attached to the document) are satisfied, and
subsequently there are stability issues for the purchaser, then it is Douglas Partners who is liable,
not Council.

Refer to Section 4 of the Coors Chambers Westgarth Lawyers advice on compliance with
conditions of ROL Permit included in Attachment B.

2. Permissible Change Test
The following table demonstrates that the proposed change is consistent with the permissible
change test under Section 367 of SPA.
                                               Tests under Section 367 of SPA


Permissible Change tests                                    Comments
The change to the approval does not result                  The proposal does not result in a substantially
in a substantially different development, or                different development – exactly the same
                                                            development would be approved (1 into 2 lot
                                                            reconfiguration).
                                                            This is further confirmed below, where the
                                                            proposal’s consistency with the State’s
                                                            guideline for identifying ‘substantially different
                                                            development’ has been demonstrated.
If the application for the approval were                    If the application were remade, the application
remade      including  the change, the                      would not require referral to additional
application would not require referral to                   concurrence        agencies.      Development
additional concurrence agencies.                            authorised by the approval is unchanged.
If the application for the approval were                    The original application was not subject to
remade including the change for an                          impact assessment. The proposed amendment
approval for assessable development that                    does not alter the level of assessment.
previously did not required impact
assessment – require impact assessment.
For an approval that previously required                    The application was previously subject to code
impact assessment – not be likely, in the                   assessment.
Council’s opinion, to cause a person to
make a submission objecting to the
proposed change.
The change to the approval does not cause                   The proposed amendment does not introduce
development to which the approval relates                   any prohibited development.
to include any prohibited development.



Further to the above, Statutory Guideline 06/09 – Substantially different development when
changing applications and approvals provides guidance to assist in determining whether a
change may constitute substantially different development and whether a change is therefore a
minor change.




102995-10 Permissible change request v2.docx                                                               Page 3