L01 To NC -Request to Change · REC15/0011

Page 2

    
 Page 2

    Boundary Encroachments
    13. Certification must be submitted to Council from a Registered Cadastral Surveyor which certifies that:

            a. the boundary clearances for any existing buildings remaining on the site must either comply
               with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme and the Building Act 1975, or
               a $20,000 uncompleted works bond shall be taken prior to sealing of the survey plan for the
               house on lot 9 to remain onsite until either of the following occurs:
            • the building is modified to comply with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme and the
               Building Act; or
            • the building is removed entirely within 6 months from the sealing of the survey plan.


    The amendment is consistent with the email communication with Council’s Jack Lewis and Mark Lewis and in
    particular an email sent by Council on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 4:38 PM. The only additional change is
    to replace the term of “Licensed Surveyor” with the term “Registered Cadastral Surveyor” which is in
    accordance with the Surveyors Act 2003.

    In an effort to obtain a timely amended decision notice, the landowner has simply adopted the $20,000 figure
    estimated by Council to cover the cost to remove part of the house within the complying setback.




                                                                                       0.906 m setback
0.885 m setback




2.457 m setback




    Figure 1:         A Plan Showing the Location of the Existing Dwelling House


    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

    In accordance with section 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, a change to a development approval is
    defined as:

                  (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; or

Page 3

 Page 3
                             (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, if the circumstances
                    allowed; or
                    (d) cause development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited
                    development.

The changes to the existing approval as proposed in this request are considered to be consistent with the
approved development and to comply with the definition for permissible change because the proposed
changes to the approval would not: require referral to additional concurrence agencies; change the level of
assessment; cause a person to make a properly made submission; or cause the development to include any
prohibited development.


CONCLUSION

The applicants request that Condition 13 in the existing development permit be amended to that that quoted
above. The relevant IDAS Form – Request to change an existing approval in enclosed.

Council is request to provide a link for the applicant’s direct payment of the Council’s fee for this request which
is understood to be $1656.00.

Please contact me at our Noosa office if you require any further information or clarification.


Yours faithfully,




Greg Martoo
Principal
martoo consulting pty ltd


Enc: (1)

IDAS Form for requesting a change to an existing development approval



C/C
[email protected]