13 It is common ground that the material specified by clause 50 was essentially provided in support of the original development application. That is not the case in respect of the amended plans. One of the issues is whether a development, as amended, can be accepted for the purposes of clause 55 as being the same development solely on the basis that in general terms one might describe the subject application before and after the amendments as the same overall concept. In this case a mixed residential commercial building with three towers over a podium level with basement parking below. Alternatively, does one have to look at the development, as amended, more closely in terms of its detail in order to ascertain whether there are essential elements in the context of an assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that are different and therefore place the development in a different category for the purposes of consideration?
14 Mr Clay contends that in this case the use remains constant. Even if that is right Miss Pritchard says that is a low threshold that, in itself, could not get the applicant over the line. She makes the same observation in response to Mr Clay's suggestion that the towers are located basically in the same place. In a broad and general sense that might be right. However, as I indicated, the residential accommodation to be provided is significantly different and the mix of residential units is changed in a material and major way. The accommodation for cars in the basement is materially altered.