Information Response - Lodgement

1.1 Development Sequencing

At this stage, it is proposed that up to 26 individual building format plans (i.e. BFP phases) be registered with the
delivery of the development; however, it is likely that multiple BFP phases would register concurrently depending
on the status of construction of the multiple dwellings and associated infrastructure provision. In all
circumstances, sealing of BFPs will not occur in the absence of necessary infrastructure and access (as required by
the associated MCU approvals) for individual units.

Sequencing of development will be dictated by the physical construction and servicing constraints for individual
units and market response. It is therefore intended that a particular sequence of development not be nominated
by the reconfiguration approval, with this being controlled by what is physically delivered ‘on the ground’ in line
with the associated MCU approvals. In making this request, however, Council can be assured that the intent of
current condition 4 of 132005.1133.5 will be fulfilled, as the common resort facilities will be completed and
operational prior to or at the time of the construction of the 64th Unit within Precinct F of the development.

In relation to condition 4 of 132005.1133.5, we note that there appears to be some disconnect in terms of the
intent of this condition as described below:-
• Condition 4 states “….. Where the development is staged, the common resort facilities must be completed and
     operational as part of the first stage or after construction of the 64th Unit”.
• As part of the current request for a permissible change (Council Ref. 132005.1133.5), the applicant requested
     that the condition be amended to enable these facilities to be in place prior to the commencement of the 64th
     dwelling unit
• The Council assessment report dated 6 December 2016 states that this was ”…considered reasonable and
     ensures that the facilities will be constructed almost halfway through the development”.

Our client intends to delivery these facilities within this timeframe (i.e. prior to the 64th dwelling unit). Whilst we
note that a condition similar to condition 4 could be included on the reconfiguration approval, we contend that it
unnecessary given that the matter is addressed by condition 4 of the MCU approval in any case.


1.2 Need for Reconfiguration Approval

Registration of the individual (or concurrent) BFPs (and associated CMS’s) does not itself trigger an application for
a Reconfiguration of a Lot (ROL) pursuant to the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and the
Land Title Act 1994 (LTAct).

It is the ‘balance lot’ that is created as a consequence of the registration of the BFP that necessitates ROL
approval, as indicated below.

We note that, if the BFP’s were to be registered across the entire development at the same time, no
reconfiguration application would be triggered to be lodged pursuant to the provisions of SPA. As such, we
contend that the proposed reconfiguration is primarily an administrative response to the requirements of SPA
and the LTAct in order to realise the staged delivery of building format plans (which results in creation of up to 26
balance lots) and the preferred titling outcome for our client.




JFP Ref: M2652                                                                                                    Page 2