16134ms.ms

Page 2

3.0      Proposed Changes to the Approved Design
The proposed changes are shown on the submitted drawings, prepared by Harry Poulos
Architects, which are provided in Attachment A. It should be noted that the revised design
continues to respect the approved front and rear setbacks but the key changes to the
original design are summarised briefly below:

            the proposed level of the ground floor is 540mm lower that the approved design
            at 23.76mAHD. The internal space has been reconfigured and the minimum
            setback to both the southern and northern boundaries has been increased from
            1.5m to 2m. Also, the master bedroom no longer extends into the rear deck;

            the first floor level has also been lowered. As a result, the kitchen, living and
            dining areas will now be 210mm lower at 26.79mAHD and the garage will be
            300mm lower at 27.51mAHD;

            a small additional floor of 50.74m2 is proposed which sits partly above the
            garage and partly above the kitchen area. This additional space
            accommodates a master bedroom with an ensuite bathroom and also provides
            additional height for the atrium on the floor below. The new floor complies with
            the 8m maximum height limit above natural ground level but the master
            bedroom technically constitutes a third storey. The ensuite bathroom which sits
            above the garage, is setback more than 6m from the street frontage and the
            floor has a minimum setback of 2.5m to the side boundaries;

            the profile of the roof has been altered so that majority of the area has a pitch
            of 1%; and

            the proposed site cover of the two original floors remains consistent with the
            approval. The additional storey has a floor area of 50.74m2 which equates to a
            site cover of less than 9%.

4.0     Changes to Conditions and Advice Note
As mentioned above, condition 3 and the list of approved drawings need to be amended
to reflect the new building design. Where changes are proposed to the Decision Notice,
any suggested new words are highlighted in bold, while any words to be deleted are shown
as struck out.

Condition 3 – Building Height
The condition currently reads as follows:

        “The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres above the
        finished ground level and the natural ground surface and 2 storeys”.

Section 6 – Approved Plans
The list of Approved Plans needs to be replaced with the following:




December 2014                Bell Allen Holdings P/L – Permissible Change Request     Page 2
                                      56 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach

Page 3

     Drawing Description                                   Drawing          Rev     Drawing
                                                           No.                      Date
     Proposed 1st Floor Street Entry Level – Floor         5456 A-01        10      12.10.14
     Plan
     Proposed Ground Floor                                 5456 A-02        12      12.10.14
     Proposed 1st Floor Plan                               5456 A-03        04      15.12.14
     Proposed Roof & Site Plan                             5456 A-04        03      15.12.14
     Proposed Front Elevation                              5456 A-05        05      15.12.14
     Proposed RHS (South) Elevation                        5456 A-06        05      15.12.14
     Proposed Rear (East) Elevation                        5456 A-07        05      15.12.14
     Proposed LHS (North) Elevation                        5456 A-08        06      15.12.14

5.0      Sustainable Planning Act 2009
The proposed changes comply with the definition of a “permissible change” as defined in
section 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The Act 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; or
               (ii) for an approval for assessable development that previously did not
                    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”

The amended proposal is assessed against section (a), (b) and (d) of the definition below.
Section (c) is not relevant as the original application was code assessable.

a) Would not result in a substantially different development
For the following reasons, it is considered that the proposed amendments would not result in
the development being substantially different:

                the site will remain in residential use;

                the intensity of the use will continue to be consistent with a large residential
                property;

                the maximum height of the building will continue to be 8m. The issue
                associated with the number of storeys is discussed below;

                the front and rear setbacks remain consistent with the original approval;


December 2014                Bell Allen Holdings P/L – Permissible Change Request        Page 3
                                      56 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach

Page 4

                the amended design either retains, or improves, the approved side
                boundary setbacks;

                the site cover of the original floors remains consistent with the approval while
                the area of the additional floor is less than 9% of the total site area;

                the extent of the proposed cut and fill will not exceed 2m in depth and
                remains consistent with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
                Investigation report prepared by Golder Associates; and

                at least 20% of the site will continue to be provided as soft landscaping and
                the layout continues to provide sufficient space for a 5m landscape buffer
                to the rear boundary

The proposed amendments will result in a small part of the building being defined as three
storeys and will alter the roof profile. Both of these issues are discussed further below.

       Building Height (Storeys)
       As mentioned above, the small area associated with the proposed master bedroom
       site will be defined as a third storey and as such, this element of the design is not
       consistent the specific requirements of the Detached House Code. Nonetheless, it is
       considered that it can be supported in this case for the following reasons:

                    the overall height of the building still complies with the Council’s
                    preferred maximum 8m height limit;

                    given the location of the three storey element, the dwelling will continue
                    to be read as a two storey building from Seaview Terrace and as such,
                    will continue to be consistent with the height of other properties within
                    the street;

                    it considered that the amended design will not alter the impacts that
                    the approved building will have on views, or vistas, from properties
                    adjoining the site or on the opposite side of Seaview Terrace as it
                    continues to comply with the maximum 8m height limit and also
                    complies with the minimum 2.5m side boundary setbacks sought for
                    those parts of the building above 7.5m;

                    it should be noted that a complying two storey building could be
                    designed to have the same, scale and mass as the current design
                    and as such, it is considered that any impacts on the adjoining
                    properties in terms of overshadowing and overlooking, will be
                    consistent with the expected outcomes of the Detached House
                    Code; and




December 2014                Bell Allen Holdings P/L – Permissible Change Request        Page 4
                                      56 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach

Page 5

                      the proposed amendments to the approved design of the dwelling
                      will not alter the impacts that the development will have on the
                      vegetation or topography of the site.

        Roof Form
        Although some of the roof complies with the Council’s preferred 5 degree roof
        pitch, the majority has a 1 degree pitch. Nonetheless, it is considered that the
        proposed roof pitch is consistent with the character of the local area as the
        majority of the surrounding dwellings were constructed under the superseded
        planning scheme which did not include any provisions relating to roof pitch.
        Furthermore, the elevations show that the proposed eaves and sunhoods will
        provide shading to the building. Overall, it is considered that the proposed roof
        form can be supported as the dwelling has an attractive modern appearance, is
        well articulated, will not present as excessively bulky to the adjoining residents
        and is consistent with the character of the prevailing area.

b) result in additional referrals or change level of assessment
There were no referral agencies for the original application and a review of the Sustainable
Planning Regulations 2009, has identified that if this application were re-made under the
“applicable law” with, or without, the proposed changes, no referrals would be triggered.

d) Prohibited development
The proposed amendments do not involve prohibited development.

For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed changes to the approved
detached house satisfy the criteria for a Permissible Change. On this basis, it is considered
that this request can be dealt with pursuant to sections 369 – 377 of SPA.

As you will be aware, Section 375 of SPA states that the Council’s decision on the permissible
change request must be made within 30 business days after receipt of the request. We
therefore look forward to receiving Council’s decision on this request on, or around, 11
February 2015.

Please do not hesitate to contact the writer on 5443 5566 should you have any queries.

Yours faithfully
DFS Group Pty Ltd




Mick Sheppard
Director

Encl.   Request forms and amended plans

cc:     client c/- Harry Poulos Architects by email




December 2014                    Bell Allen Holdings P/L – Permissible Change Request   Page 5
                                          56 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach