our ref - city of mackay · mackay regional council 73 gordon street mackay qld 4740 via email...

109821_Permissible_Change_041111.doc

Our Ref: 109821 Council Ref: DA-2010-206 Date: 4 November 2011 Attn: Leah Sorohan The Assessment Manager Mackay Regional Council 73 Gordon Street MACKAY QLD 4740 Via Email ([email protected]) Dear Leah, RE: REQUEST TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 369 AND 370 OF THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009

44 BRUCE HIGHWAY & 30 TEMPLES LANE, BAKERS CREEK Lot 12 on SP142567 and Lot 29 on SP185796

We act on behalf of Cougar Developments, regarding the Negotiated Decision Notice issued by Mackay Regional Council (MRC) on 20 September 2011. This Negotiated Decision Notice is for the following aspects of development: Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 2 Rural Lots into 262 Urban Residential

Lots, 1 Open Space Lot and 2 Balance Lots. In accordance with Sections 369 and 370 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) we are making a request to MRC under Section 369(1)(e) to make a permissible change to the development approval. REQUESTED CHANGES A list of the requested changes is summarised below: The removal of Condition 9 to reflect that the subject site is located outside of the Stormwater

Drainage Contributions area; and The removal of Condition 18(b) to reflect that Temples Lane is not required to be upgraded to

a sub-arterial standard as part of this approval. Instead, it is proposed that part (b) of the condition be replaced by the following note:

“Temples Lane will require a future upgrade to Sub-Arterial standard for the full frontage of the subject property extending to the Bruce Highway/ Temples Lane intersection. The upgrade will be required once the traffic volumes reach the threshold of 6,000 vpd. This matter will be reviewed in conjunction with development applications for each future stage of development.”

mailto:[email protected]

michellem

Received (Manual Date)

109821


JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES Condition 9 The stormwater contribution charges were incorrectly imposed upon the approved development as the subject site is located outside of the stormwater contributions area, as reflected by the Stage 1 approval (MRC Ref DA-2010-149). The removal of the condition will therefore reflect the infrastructure contributions policy of Council and rectify the error. The change will not result in any physical change to the development. Condition 18(b) Changing part (b) of condition 18 to a note will specifically identify the trigger for upgrading Temples Lane to sub-arterial standard. As outlined in the attached traffic report prepared by MRCagney, the upgrade of the road to sub-arterial standard (6,000 vpd), is not required in association with Stages 2-5 given the modelled traffic generation. Therefore, the existing configuration of Temples Lane will adequately service the development until such time as the threshold is reached. In addition to the upgrade being premature for the traffic volumes that will be generated, land acquisitions from the southern side of Temples Lane would also required to facilitate the upgrade. It is not considered reasonable to request the applicant undertake the acquisition of land that is not subject to the application and potentially delay the development of Stages 2-5. As there will be a number of further stages that could be developed before the threshold is reached, this will allow time for Council to acquire/ resume land for road widening along the frontages of Temples Lane that are not controlled by Cougar Developments. Road widening from the Cougar Developments land will be given in association with each relevant further stage of development, for example similar to condition 12 of Stage 1 and condition 32 of Stages 2-5. As construction of a sub-arterial road was not proposed with the application, the replacement of this additional requirement with a note means that the development does not change. Ultimately the sub-arterial road will be provided, just not as early as Stages 2-5. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Pursuant to Section 367 of the SPA, the proposed changes are considered to be minor in nature and will not result in a substantially different development. A “permissible change” is defined as 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.

An assessment of the proposed changes against Section 367 of the SPA is provided below.

109821


Substantially Different Development To assist in the assessment of what constitutes “substantially different development”, the State Government has released the Statutory Guideline 06/09 – Substantially different development when changing applications. The Guideline provides considerations which may give rise to ‘substantially different development’ and provide a framework in which to consider changes to applications and approvals. An assessment of these considerations as they relate to the proposed development is provided below:

Criteria Proposed Response

Any change may result in a substantially different development if the proposed change:-

Involves a new use with different or additional impacts

The approval is for Reconfiguring a Lot.

Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land

The Reconfiguring a Lot remains confined to Lots 12 & 29.

Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance

The lot layout remains unchanged.

Changes the ability of the proposal to operate as intended. For example, reducing the size of a retail complex that may reduce the capacity of the complex to service the intended catchment

The existing Temples Lane configuration will suffice until such time as the threshold of 6,000vpd is reached. As the existing road is adequate to service the approved development and existing traffic, the proposal can function with convenient vehicle access as intended.

Removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development

As outlined in the traffic report prepared by MRCagney, Temples Lane is not required to be upgraded to a sub-arterial road until traffic volumes reach 6,000vpd. Following the completion of all stages, Temples Lane is expected to reach a total of 3,300vpd-3,400vpd. An upgrade to sub-arterial route standard would therefore be premature and not integral to the operation of the development.

Significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site

The number of proposed lots does not change. As demonstrated by the MRCagney report, the existing Temples Lane is sufficient to accommodate traffic flow associated with the development. As a road widening will be granted, future upgrade to sub-arterial standard will not be prejudiced by the development.

Introduces new impacts or increases the severity of known impacts

The deferral of Temples Lane upgrade is a traffic issue which has been assessed above. No other impacts are created.

Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative impact of the development

Upgrade to sub-arterial standard was not proposed as part of the application at any stage.

109821


Criteria Proposed Response

Impacts on infrastructure provision, location or demand.

As outlined above, the upgrade of Temples Lane to a sub-arterial standard is not necessary for Stages 2-5 and the existing road can adequately service the development. Ultimately, the sub-arterial road will be provided, once the relevant threshold of 6,000 vpd is reached. The stormwater contributions were incorrectly imposed on the development and all necessary stormwater infrastructure to service the development will be constructed.

Additional Concurrence Agencies The original development application triggered the following referrals:

Referral Agency Trigger Department of Transport and Main Roads (Concurrence Agency)

The site adjoins a State Controlled Road being the Bruce Highway identified as 10G on the DTMR Mapping.

The proposed change to the approval would not trigger referral to any additional concurrence agencies. Therefore, in accordance with Section 372(c) of the SPA, a copy of this request for a permissible change has been forwarded to the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). Require Impact Assessment The application was subject to Code Assessment under the Preliminary Approval (DA-2008-123) and this would remain the case if re-lodged. Be Likely To Cause A Person To Make A Properly Made Submission The application was subject to Code Assessment. Prohibited Development No prohibited development is proposed

109821


Conclusion The requested changes to the approval are considered to comply with the requirements of a permissible change under Section 369 of the SPA. The removal of Condition 9 will amend the approval to reflect Council’s infrastructure contributions while the changes to Condition 18 (b) will reflect the actual traffic impacts of the development. In support of this request, please find attached:

Attachment A – IDAS Request to Change an Existing Approval Form and Owner’s Consent Letters;

Attachment B – Traffic Report prepared by MRCagney

Attachment C – Copy of notice sent to DTMR under Section 372 of the SPA. We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however should you require any further details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact James Stott or the writer. Yours sincerely, RPS JULIAN KEMP Senior Planner enc Attachments as above cc Cougar Developments ([email protected])


Attachment A

IDAS Request to Change an Existing Approval Form and Owner’s Consent Letters

1 Application details – form 1 part A —IDAS form Version 1.0 December 2009

Integrated Development Assessment System template

Department of Infrastructure and Planning

Qplan

Request to change an existing approval template(Sustainable Planning Act 2009 version 1.1 effective March 2010)

This template may be used for giving a written notice asking the responsible entity to make a permissible change to a development approval under section 369 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). It should be noted that if the responsible entity for the request has a form for the request, the request must made using that form.

This template must be lodged with the following entity (the responsible entity) as applicable:

if the change is to a condition imposed by a Minister under chapter 6, part 11, division 1 of SPA the template must be lodged with the Minister that imposed the condition

if the approval was given by a Minister under chapter 6, part 11, division 2 of SPA the template must be lodged with the Minister that gave the approval

if the change is to a condition of the approval imposed by a concurrence agency the template must be lodged with the concurrence agency

if the approval was given by the Planning and Environment Court the template must be lodged with the Planning and Environment Court

in all other cases the template must be lodged with the assessment manager for the original development application.

Attach extra pages if there is insufficient space on this template. Terms used in this template having the meaning given in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

1. Who is making the request?

Name/s (individual or company name in full)

For companies, contact name

Postal address

Contact phone number

Mobile number (non-mandatory)

Fax number (non-mandatory)

e-mail address (non-mandatory)

@

Cougar Developments c/- RPS Australia East Pty Ltd

Julian Kemp

PO Box 1559Fortitude Valley Qld 4006

3237 8831

[email protected]

bne.planning

Typewritten Text

2 Request to change an existing approval template Version 1.1 March 2010

Integrated Development Assessment System form

2. What are the details of the existing approval sought to be changed?

Type of approval Identification number Date decision notice or negotiated decision notice issued

Name of entity that issued the approval or imposed the condition sought to be changed

Development permit

Preliminary approval

3. Is the approval for a mobile and temporary environmentally relevant activity (ERA)?

No

Yes—complete table A and then go to question 5

Table A—name of each local government area in which the mobile and temporary ERA is proposed to operate/ is operating

4. Location of the premises (complete table B and/or table C as applicable. Identify each lot in a separate row)

Table B—street address/lot for the premises or street address/lot on plan for the land adjoining or adjacent to the premises

street address/lot on the plan

street address/lot on plan for the land adjoining or adjacent to the premises (appropriate for development in water e.g. jetty, pontoon)

Street address Lot on plan description

Unit no.

Street no.

Street name and official suburb/ locality name

Post-code

Lot no. Plan type and plan no.

Local government area (e.g. Logan, Cairns)

DA-2010-206 20 September2011

Mackay Regional Council

Mackay Regional CouncilTemples Lane Bakers Creek 4740Bruce Highway

3044

2912

SP185796SP142567


Integrated Development Application System form

Table C—premises coordinates (appropriate for development in remote areas, over part of a lot or in water e.g. channel dredging in Moreton Bay)

Coordinates (note: place each set of coordinates in a separate row)

Easting Northing Latitude Longitude

Zone reference

Datum Local government area (if applicable)

GDA94

WGS84

Other

5. Details of the proposed change

6. Is owner’s consent required for this request? (refer to notes at the end of this form for more information)

No

Yes—complete either table D or table E as applicable

Table D

Name of owner of the land

I, the above-mentioned owner of the land, consent to the making of this request.

Signature of owner of the land

Date

Table E

Name of owner of the land

The owner’s written consent is attached

Removal of stormwater contributions condition - refer attached letter dated 04/11/11Amendment of external roadworks condition - refer attached letter dated 04/11/11

See attached consents


7. Does the request involve a state resource prescribed under the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, schedule 14? (e.g. the application involves state land, or taking quarry materials. Refer to the notes at the end of this form for more information)

No Yes—the written agreement of the chief executive from whom evidence would need to be obtained under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, section 254(1) must be attached.

8. Has a pre-request response notice been given for this request?

No

Yes—a copy of the pre-request response notice must be attached to this request

9. Is a copy of this request required to be given to another entity under section 372 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009? (refer to notes at the end of this form for more information)

No

Yes—complete Table F

Table F

A copy of this request has been provided to the entities identified below (provide details for each entity given a copy of the request and the date the copy was given)

Assessment manager for the original application

Concurrence agencies for the original application

Any other entity prescribed by a regulation

10. Provide details of any other supporting information attached to this request

Notes for completing this template This template is not an approved form under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The entity responsible for deciding the request may have their own form for the purpose of making a written request to change an existing development approval. A change to an existing development approval may involve: o a change to an approval given by the assessment manager o a change to a condition imposed by a concurrence agency o a change to an approval given by the Minister under a Ministerial call in o a change to a condition imposed by the Minister under a Ministerial direction o a change to an approval given by the Planning and Environment Court

Attachment B - Traffic Report prepared by MRCagney

Department of Transport and Main Roads - 04/11/11


Question 6:

Under section 371 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, if the person making the request is not the owner of the land to which the approval relates, the request must be accompanied by the owner’s consent. However, owner’s consent is not required if the approval: o relates to land that was acquisition land to which section 263(2)(d) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 applied

when the application for the approval was made o is for building work or operational work for the supply of community infrastructure on land designated for the

community infrastructure, or o the consent of the owner would not be required under section 263(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 if a

development application were made for the requested change Also, owners’ consent is not required if the responsible entity is satisfied that: o the number of owners of the land make it impracticable to obtain owners’ consent, and the requested change does

not materially affect the owners’ land, or o having regard to the nature of the proposed change, the owner has unreasonably withheld consent and the

requested change does not materially affect the owner’s land.

Question 7: Section 370(3) and (4) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 requires that if an application for the development approval were made at the time of making this request and evidence under section 264(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 would be required to support the application, this request must be accompanied by the written agreement of the chief executive from whom evidence would be required under section 264(1). (Section 264 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 provides that if a development involves a State resource, a regulation may require the application to be supported by certain evidence prescribed under the regulation. Schedule 14 of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 prescribes the State resources for which evidence is required to be given, and the evidence required, to support the application.) Question 9: Section 372 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 requires that a copy of the request be given to: o the assessment manager for the original application, if the request is made to a concurrence agency, the Minister, or

the court o any concurrence agencies for the original application, if the request is made to the assessment manager for the

original application, the Minister or the court o any other entity prescribed by a regulation. However, a copy of the request is not required to be given to an entity that has given a pre-request response notice for the request.

OFFICE USE ONLY

Date received Reference numbers

Attachment B

Traffic Report

Prepared by MRCagney

3785-010(1) Sub-Arterial Trigger.docx

Level 1, 50 Park Road

Milton QLD 4064

PO Box 2296

Toowong BC QLD 4066

Australia

+61 7 3320 3612 : tel: tel: tel: tel

+61 7 3320 3636 : fax: fax: fax: fax

[email protected] ABN: 11 093 336 504

3785

26 October 2011

Cougar Developments Pty Ltd

Po Box 624

Mackay QLD 4740

Attention: Mr Rick Poppleston

Dear Rick,

Re: The Waters - Bakers Creek, Mackay - Traffic

We refer to the Project Steering Group meeting of 6 October 2011, where the issue relating to

the appropriate trigger point for conversion of Temples Lane into a sub-arterial road would be

reached.

We advise that we have investigated this matter from first principles and advise on our findings

herein.

Mackay City Council Road HierMackay City Council Road HierMackay City Council Road HierMackay City Council Road Hierarchy Tablesarchy Tablesarchy Tablesarchy Tables

The Mackay City Council Planning Scheme contains Road Hierarchy Tables, which identifies the

threshold point at which a road of higher order than a collector street (being a sub-arterial road)

is required is when traffic volumes reach 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

An extract from the tables is provided below:

This is considered to be an appropriate yardstick against which to measure the forecast traffic

volumes within the Temples Lane catchment associated with the subject “The Waters”

development.

The following section of this advice provides information relating to the likely future traffic

volumes associated with each stage of “The Waters”.

2


“The Waters” Proposal “The Waters” Proposal “The Waters” Proposal “The Waters” Proposal –––– Forecast Traffic GenerationForecast Traffic GenerationForecast Traffic GenerationForecast Traffic Generation

The proposed development plan (copy attached – plan ref. 109654-13 rev. E) provides guidance

on the forecast yield for each of the stages of development of the proposed “The Waters”

development. Consideration of the existing allotments and golf course within the Temples Lane

catchment has also been included in the analysis. It is understood that the indicated medium

density allotment associated with Stage 5 on the attached plan is not envisaged to proceed; in

its place it is anticipated that up to 15 regular allotments would be developed.

It appears that Temples Lane serves as access for in the order of 30 “existing allotments” (not

associated with stages of the as-built, under construction and planned “The Waters”

development); referred to as “existing allotments” for the purposes of this assessment.

Table 1 overleaf summarises the forecast yield and traffic generation forecasts associated with

the existing Temples Lane catchment and the various stages of the proposed “The Waters”

development.

It is noted that some fundamental assumptions are required in order to complete the analysis of

traffic forecasts on Temples Lane. For the purposes of this assessment, the following

assumptions are considered to be appropriate:

�� 0.85vph / allotment traffic generation – standard allotments;

�� 0.60vph / unit traffic generation – medium density allotments;

�� Daily traffic generation = ten (10) times peak hourly traffic generation (as calculated

above); and

�� 30 “existing allotments”.

Development yields assumed in the analysis are as follows:

�� Stage 1 “The Waters” – 66 allotments;



�� Stage 4 “The Waters” – 71 allotments plus 12 medium density units;

�� Stage 5 “The Waters” – 61 allotments (46 + 15); and

In addition, a nominal allowance of 150vpd associated with the golf course has been allowed for

within the analysis.

3


Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 –––– Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Yields and TYields and TYields and TYields and Traffic Generation raffic Generation raffic Generation raffic Generation –––– Temples Lane catchmentTemples Lane catchmentTemples Lane catchmentTemples Lane catchment

Trip Generation rate

Cumulative Lots Units Total Daily

Inc

golf

Stage Lots Units Lots Units 0.85 0.6 10 150

# # # # vph/lot vph/unit vph vpd vpd

Existing 30 0 30 0 25.5 0 25.5 255 405

1 66 0 96 0 81.6 0 81.6 816 966

2 81 0 177 0 150.45 0 150.45 1504.5 1654.5

3 62 0 239 0 203.15 0 203.15 2031.5 2181.5

4 71 12 310 12 263.5 7.2 270.7 2707 2857

5 61 0 371 12 315.35 7.2 322.55 3225.5 3375.5

The information contained in Table 1 illustrates that even with full development and occupancy of

the proposed “The Waters” development stages 1 to 5, the likely maximum traffic volumes on

Temples Lane would be in the order of 3,300 to 3,400vpd.

ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

As illustrated in the previous sections of this report, given that the forecast maximum daily traffic

volumes on Temples Lane are significantly less than Council’s identified threshold of 6,000vpd

for the requirement of a sub-arterial road formation of Temples Lane, such a formation would not

be required up to and including full development of stages 1 to 5 of “The Waters”.

These requirements can be reviewed in conjunction with possible latter stages of development

that may occur in the catchment in the future as some scope remains for further development

without the need for provision of a sub-arterial road standard for Temples Lane.

We trust that this information is of assistance. If you require any additional information in relation

to the above matter, please contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely,

Bryce Trevilyan

Principal EngineerPrincipal EngineerPrincipal EngineerPrincipal Engineer

MMMMRRRRCagneyCagneyCagneyCagney

Attachment C

Copy of notice sent to DTMR

Our Ref: 109821 Your Ref: 830/724 RMY:chg (P109560) DC 10042 2324 Date: 4 November 2011 Attn: Ross Young Department of Transport and Main Roads Mackay/ Whitsunday Region, Mackay District Office PO Box 62 MACKAY QLD 4740 Via: Email ([email protected]) Dear Ross, RE: NOTICE OF REQUEST TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 372 OF THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009

44 BRUCE HIGHWAY & 30 TEMPLES LANE, BAKERS CREEK Lot 12 on SP142567 and Lot 29 on SP185796

We act on behalf of Cougar Developments, regarding the Negotiated Decision Notice issued by Mackay Regional Council (MRC) on 20 September 2011. This Negotiated Decision Notice is for the following aspects of development: Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 2 Rural Lots into 262 Urban Residential Lots,

1 Open Space Lot and 2 Balance Lots. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) was identified as a Concurrence Agency for this Development Application on the following basis: The site adjoins a State Controlled Road being the Bruce Highway identified as 10G on the

DTMR Mapping; DTMR has previously issued an amended referral response dated 23 September 2010 in relation to a separate request to change a development approval (Ref 830/724 RMY:chg (P109560) DC 10042 2324). This amended response was included in the above mentioned negotiated decision notice issued by MRC on 20 September 2011. In accordance with Section 372(1)(c) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), we provide written notice to the DTMR, as a concurrence agency to the original application, that a request is being made to MRC for a permissible change to the current approval. Please refer to the attached correspondence and assessment made to MRC for details of the changes being sought for your consideration and response. The changes do not impact on the conditions imposed on the development by the DTMR. Under Section 373(1) of the SPA, we request that you provide written notice to the MRC regarding whether the DTMR has no objection to or has objections to the changes being sought to the MRC conditions.


109821_Notice_to_DTMR_041111.doc Page 2

We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however should you require any further details or clarification please do not hesitate to contact James Stott or the writer. Yours sincerely, RPS JULIAN KEMP Senior Planner enc RPS letter dated 4 November 2011 regarding “Request to Change Development Approval” plus attachments cc Leah Sorohan Mackay Regional Council 73 Gordon Street

MACKAY QLD 4740 Ref DA-2010-206 ([email protected]) Cougar Developments ([email protected])



our ref - city of mackay · mackay regional council 73 gordon street mackay qld 4740 via email...

Documents