Cover Letter_Precinct F_CDA_final

2.0       DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The proposed changes to the existing development approval can be described as follows (refer enclosed dwg no.
7038-MP01):

         General redesign of building layouts and siting of buildings to increase efficiency and viability of the
          development;
         Minor redesign of site entry, visitor parking areas and communal building/recreation areas;
         Consolidation of non-residential components including a convenience store, café/restaurant, and
          gym/playground/pool/BBQ area in a central location;
         Removal of the theatre and function room components of the development.

The proposal will require consequential changes to conditions to reflect the amended site layout and updated
building number references. We request that Council also amend conditions to require updated floor plans and
elevations to be submitted prior to operational works stage.

We note that condition 4 of the development approval requires the ancillary uses ie. shop, restaurant, theatre,
function rooms to be operated and maintained as a Resort. Further, this condition requires a letting pool be
established on site and made available to all owners of multiple dwelling units.

We note that it is likely that some permanent residential accommodation will occur on the site, however it is still
intended to operate the ancillary uses ie. convenience store, café/restaurant, gym and outdoor recreation areas
as part of an integrated residential/resort facility.

3.0       ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECTION 367 OF THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009

The proposed changes have been assessed against the requirements of s367 of SPA with respect to the definition
of “permissible change”. In this regard, the following comments are provided:

         The proposed changes will not result in a substantially different development (refer Section 3.1 below for
          further discussion).
         If the application for the proposal were remade including the change, it would not:
               o require referral to additional concurrence agencies;
               o result in a change to the level of assessment from code to impact (under the approved Master
                   Plan);
               o in our opinion, be likely to cause a person to make a submission objecting to the proposed
                   change; and
               o cause any development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited development.

We therefore contend that this application meets the definition of permissible change and does not require a
new application to be lodged.




JFP Ref: Z2150-486                                                                                                   Page 2