Australia ● Belgium ● Canada ● Ecuador ● Germany ● Indonesia ● Italy ● Kenya ●

New Zealand ● Papua New Guinea ● Peru ● Tanzania ● United Arab Emirates ● United Kingdom ● United States ● Operations in 85 countries

Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd ABN 57 051 074 992

3/42 East Gordon Street Mackay QLD 4740 Australia

PO Box 244 Mackay QLD 4740 Austraila

Phone: +61 7 4953 2877

Fax: +61 7 4953 2577

www.cardno.com

www.cardno.com.au/cardnohrp

Our Ref: MJ:LD HRP14197 Contact: Liam Donald

2 April 2015

Chief Executive Officer Mackay Regional Council PO Box 41 MACKAY QLD 4740

Attn: Shane Kleve, Acting Manager Development Assessment Dear Shane,

S369 REQUEST TO CHANGE A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL –

RECONFIGURATION OF A LOT (VOLUMETRIC FORMAT 4 LOTS) – 64

WOOD STREET, MACKAY – LOT 3 SP164370 (FORMERLY LOT 1 RP743741)

– DA-2008-425 – SINADEL PTY LTD

We act on behalf of Sinadel Pty Ltd, owner of the site, regarding the abovementioned approval and in accordance with s369 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), hereby request a Change of Conditions of the Approval. Council’s application fee of $975 was paid on 1 April 2015 (Receipt No: 3594110). Background and Overview Council granted a Development Permit for a Reconfiguration of a Lot (Volumetric Format 4 Lots) (DA-2008-425) on 14 July 2008 (refer Attachment A – Current Approval). Change to Conditions The following changes to conditions contained within DA-2008-425 are sought as part of the Request to Change the Development Approval. Requested additional text is highlighted in bold with deletions noted by strikethrough. Existing Condition 1 – Plan of Development The approved reconfiguration of land creating four (4) Volumetric Lots must generally comply with the Plan of Development (identified n Table below) and supporting documentation which forms part of this application, except as otherwise specified by any condition of this approval.

2

www.cardno.com

Drawing No Title of Plan Rev Prepared By Date

SP164370 Sheets 1-7

Plan of Lots 1-4 - Whitsunday Surveys Pty Ltd

Proposed Condition 1 – Plan of Development The approved reconfiguration of land creating four (4) Volumetric Lots must generally comply with the Plan of Development (identified n Table below) and supporting documentation which forms part of this application, except as otherwise specified by any condition of this approval.

Drawing No Title of Plan Rev Prepared By Date

SP164370 Sheets 1-7

Plan of Lots 1-4 2 and 4

- Whitsunday Surveys Pty Ltd

30783PO1 Sheets 1-3

Volumetric RoL Proposed Amendments Ground Floor Lots 1 and 3 SP164370

B WSG Group Pty Ltd

01.04.15

Justification The proposed changes are to facilitate the changes between the lot boundaries of Lot 1 and 3. The purpose of these changes are to appropriately allocate parts of the building which should be included within the respective lots, to reflect current maintenance and management operations. The proposed changes include:

- Including amenities on ground floor within Lot 3; - Including amenities on level 1 within Lot 3; and - Including external antennae on the roof within Lot 1

Permissible Change Test Section 367 of the SPA defines a permissible change in relation to a development approval. This definition also sets out a number of requirements that the change to the development approval must meet in order to be a permissible change. One of these requirements is that the change to the development approval must not result in a substantially different development to that which was approved. For this assessment, reference is made to the Statutory Guideline 06/09- Substantially Different Development When Changing Applications and Approvals for assessment. TEST 1 – Involves a new use with different or additional impacts Response: The proposed change to the development does not involve a new use. TEST 2 - Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land Response: The proposed change is located over the same parcels of land. TEST 3 - Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance Response: The proposed change does not alter the built form.

3

www.cardno.com

TEST 4 - 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 Response: The proposed changes do not change the ability to operate as intended. TEST 5 - Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development Response: The proposed change will not remove a component that is integral to the development. TEST 6 - Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site Response: The proposed change will not impact on traffic flows or the transport network, as the proposal is for a volumetric subdivision. TEST 7 - Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts Response: The proposed change will not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts. TEST 8 - Impacts on infrastructure provision, location or demand Response: The proposed change will not detrimentally impact upon infrastructure provision, location of demand. Other Assessment Factors Section 367 further sets out a number of requirements that the change to the development approval must meet in order to be a permissible change. (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 – 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, if the circumstances allowed; or (d) cause development to which the approval relates to include any prohibited development.

(a) Refer to discussion above. (b) (i) The application including the proposed change were re-made, would not require referral to

any concurrence agencies.

(ii) The application if re-lodged would not require impact assessment. (c) The current approval did not require impact assessment. (d) The proposed change will not result in prohibited development.

4

www.cardno.com

Conclusion As demonstrated above, by the various assessments required under section 367, the proposed change is considered to meet the criteria for a Permissible Change. This application should therefore be accepted by Council, assessed and a Decision Notice issued in accordance with s376 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Council support for our request is sought and we look forward to a favourable reply. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact myself or Liam Donald on (07) 4953 2877. Yours faithfully,

Michael Jewell Office Manager and Principal Planning For Cardno HRP Enc: Attachment A – Current Approval Attachment B – Amended Plans

5

www.cardno.com

ATTACHMENT A – CURRENT APPROVAL

6

www.cardno.com

ATTACHMENT B – AMENDED PLANS