Original source · versioned page text
2021-12-07 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda - Updated
The original of this document is very large (15.9 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 7 DECEMBER 2021 corporate is responsible for the management of the warning system. The current application does not provide for a community title arrangement or include a flood warning system for residents to decide whether to shelter in place or evacuate from the site. This is considered important given the site becomes isolated for up to 3 days. The applicant’s proposal that a condition be included for all future dwellings have a habitable floor level, as opposed to all floor levels, above the PMF also raises concern. Whilst the applicant proposes the raised level to allow for safe congregation and refuge it is considered that all floor levels should be located above the PMF again because the site becomes isolated for up to 3 days. It would not be acceptable for occupiers of a dwelling to be limited to an upper level of their dwelling whilst the ground level was flooded as it is anticipated that the lower level would include facilities that would be relied upon during extended occupancy of the dwelling. A condition could be included requiring all floor levels to be above the PMF. The application material demonstrates that the extent of fill will generally range from 800mm to 1.8 metres to achieve house pad levels above 2.3m AHD. It is recognised that the extent of fill will result in an elevated platform on which future development will be constructed. The platform will result in the future dwellings being elevated higher above the natural ground level than surrounding dwellings to meet the PMF and may appear out of character with the area. However, it is acknowledged that this methodology was accepted in the settlement of a recent appeal at 135 Lake Weyba Drive. The proposed extent of earthworks includes filling the full width of the site and accordingly the applicant proposes retaining walls to the front and side boundaries. The retaining walls at the front boundary generally range between 800mm and 1.5m in height. A retaining wall is also proposed to most of the northern boundary, where abutting the National Park, generally ranging in height from 1.5 – 1.8m. This differs from the outcome achieved at 135 Lake Weyba Road which mostly avoided large retaining walls by requiring batters. A condition could be included to require the development to include batters. The following image details the location of the retaining walls (red line). Figure 7 – Location of retaining walls Page 62 of 140
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.