Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Council archive · source document

Minor Change Report - MCU25 0025 01 (As Published) · MCU25/0025.01

of 9

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

              As approved the Dwelling house was setback 6.16m to the fascia, and 6.0 m to the entry landing.
              However, as constructed, the dwelling house is 600m closer to the road setback being 5.5m to the
              fascia, and 5.4m to the entry landing.
              As such it does not comply with AO8.4 of the Rural Zone Code. The proposal is therefore required
              to comply with corresponding Performance Outcome PO8 of the Rural Zone Code, which states:
               PO8            Notwithstanding that intensive rural activities may need greater separation distances,
                              buildings and other structures are appropriately sited and designed to:
                                a.     avoid environmental harm or nuisance to sensitive land uses, including adverse
                                       impacts on amenity values, over and above what could reasonably be expected
                                       in the rural zone;
                                b.     avoid adverse impact on ecologically important areas including National Parks,
                                       watercourses, and wetlands;
                                c.     mitigate risks associated with the use of chemicals or air pollutants; and
                                d.     avoid conflict with rural uses and activities on adjoining properties.
              Assessment:
              The original approval involved a relaxation of the front setback with the justification being:
                   • Front setback encroachment has minimal impact due to a truncated boundary and extended
                      road reserve, placing the dwelling ~19m from the road (Figure 6).
                   • The road reserve is heavily vegetated, and a large timber fence screens the approximate
                      location of the development footprint (Figure 7).




               Figure 6 – Front setback encroachment to actual boundary (annotated solid red) vs. prolongation of adjoining
                                                  boundary corners (annotated blue).




                                                                                                                Page 6 of 9

Document Set ID: 25056665
Version: 5, Version Date: 07/09/2026

Used in these records

About this file

File size
4.2 MB (large file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

Minor Change Report - MCU25 0025 01 (As Published).pdf · 4.2 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.