Skip to the record
Accept no imitations.

Original source · versioned page text

Part Response to NC IR

of 5

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

                                                                                           Page 3


Item 3: Please provide clarity on the plans and confirm the proposal meets the required 8m from
both the finished and NGS’s.

Applicant’s Response to Item 3: Refer to amended plans in Attachment A.


Item 4: Please provide commentary on the function of pedestrian access proposed and the
interaction between level given this is proposed as one dwelling

Applicant’s Response to Item 4: Revised proposal plans include the provision of an internal stair.
The external stair is also detailed as being enclosed by timber slats to provide an all weather
access.


Item 5: Please show clear pedestrian access to the stairs from the garage

Applicant’s Response to Item 5: Please refer to amended plans in Attachment A.


Item 6: Amend plans to indicate laundry and clothes drying facilities for the existing building.

Applicant’s Response to Item 6: Please refer to amended plans in Attachment A which detail a
laundry on the ground floor.


Item 7: Please provide details of the storeroom use/access etc and why it should not be
considered GFA.

Applicant’s Response to Item 7: Please refer to amended plans in Attachment A which detail the
storeroom as a garage.


Item 8: Please provide a mix of external finishes to modernise and create a more interesting
external building design.

Applicant’s Response to Item 8: Please refer to amended plans in Attachment A. The plans detail
new timber screens, repainting of the existing building, new balustrade and new roof over the front
balcony.


Item 9: Please provide further details on the health of the 3 eucalyptus supported by images.

Applicant’s Response to Item 9: The existing Eucalyptus trees have been repeatedly lopped and
are in poor condition with extensive epicormic growth as a result of poor pruning. The trees have a
poor growth habit with the applicants landscape architect advising that they should be replaced with
more appropriate species.
Log in to download the original file

Part Response to NC IR.pdf · 851 KB (small file)

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

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”.