Request to change development approval

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.

We note that the request technically seeks to add a new land use to the approval. In fact, the
applicant seeks to re-insert the Retail Business Type 6 Hardware store land use back into the
development permit. This land use was previously removed from the development approval as part of
a request to change the approval. While Statutory guideline 06/09 provides examples of what “may”
be considered to be substantially different development, the examples given in the statutory guideline
do not automatically trigger substantially different development. In this case, the Retail Business Type
6 Hardware store was actually part of the original approval granted by Council. There are no different
or additional impacts to those original considered by Council. Hence, the change requested is not
considered to be 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.