2. Request to Change Approval

As seen in the above photos, the building façade in its current form is still considered to be in keeping
with the heritage character of the surrounding area despite the exclusion of a small portion of
louvered screening. This is reiterated in the design commentary plan prepared by WBP Architects
(refer to Attachment 1).

As such it is the applicant’s contention that the minor amendment to the Pelican Street façade will
not adversely impact on the streetscape character or amenity on the locality and thus is considered
to be a minor change.

Statutory Requirements
The proposal seeks to change an existing development approval made pursuant to Section 78 of the
Planning Act 2016. The change relates to an amendment to Condition 34 of the development approval
to allow structures to be located in the road reserve where authorised by Council.

As detailed in section 81 of the Planning Act 2016, the Assessment Manager (responsible entity) must
be satisfied that the subject change constitutes a ‘Minor Change’. The Act defines ‘Minor Change’ as
follows:

        “A minor change, means a change that—

        b) For a development approval-
           (i)     Would not result in substantially different development; and
           (ii)    If a development application for the development, including the change, were
                   made when the change application is made would not cause –
                   (A) The inclusion of prohibited development in the application; or
                   (B) Referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there
                        were no referral agencies for the development application; or
                   (C) Referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
                   (D) A referral agency to assess the application against, or have regard to,
                        matters prescribed by regulation under section 55(2), other than matters
                        the referral agency must have assessed the application against, or have
                        had regard to, when the application was made; or
                   (E) Public notification if public notification was not required for the
                        development application”.

In summary, the submission concludes that the proposed development is not considered to be
substantially different development for the following reasons:
    •    the nature of the change does not result in substantially different development
    •    the development does not offer a minor change that would result within a referral agency or
         require any extra referral agencies
    •    the development does not require public notification as a result of the minor change
    •    the development or the minor change with regards to the development does not include any
         prohibited development
    •    The development plans attached demonstrate that the minor changes are reflective of the
         overarching approval



                                                                                               Page 5 of 6