2. Why were major changes made to the plan that was approved under section 247 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991?

4. Why did PALM approve the amended M plan despite its own requirement that there be a 4 metre setback from the western boundary?

5. Why have the North Eastern and North Western brick walls containing the 3rd and 4th floor units not been built according to the amended plan?

7. What action if any has PALM taken to correct the procedural problems this development raised?

1. The development, as constructed in accordance with the approved plans, meets the requirements of the Territory Plan for a three storey development. The three storey development of residential apartments has been constructed above a basement Car park. A section of the three storey construction contains some attics within the roof space. Neither attics nor basements count as a storey/s under the Territory Plan.

2. The amended approvals granted to the development were to remedy minor errors and/or omissions or to comply with the conditions of approval. This process was necessary so that approved plans could be lodged with BEPCON to enable a building permit to be sought and subsequently granted. No major changes were approved under the s247 provision of the Act.

3. All approvals were on the basis of amended plans being lodged, successively assessed and approved or rejected. In the case of rejection there was a need for subsequent application/s and re-assessment by PALM. This process continued until a satisfactory proposal was received, and then it was approved. Approval of DA # 943420 [M] on 19 November 1998 constituted the approved plans. A subsequent minor amendment DA # 943420 [N] was approved on 29 July 1999, this involved internal changes.