ASTP-Resp_To_IR

     •     The built to boundary will cause adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property and does not
           provide a high level of amenity to users of the adjoining premises.

In response to this point, reference is made Drawing DD-15 (Attachment 1), which demonstrates that the built
to boundary garage wall is cut into the site at the boundary, with only a height of the garage wall at the
neighbour’s side, being 2.03m, located above the existing natural ground at this point. Acknowledging the
existing 1.8 metre fence at this location, the development will only result in an exceedance to the height of a
structure at this location by 230mm, which is extremely minor.

It is also noted that Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code, as well as the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code do not contain Assessment Benchmarks for side boundary fencing. As such, the provisions contained
within QDCMP1.3 are relevant to the proposal. Under A1(d)(ii) of QDCMP1.3, fences can have a height of 2m.
When considering the permitted fence height, the development only exceeds this accepted development
outcome by 30mm, which will be indiscernible from the adjoining property. On this basis it cannot be argued
that the development will result in impacts upon amenity or overshadowing (structure located on the southern
side of dwelling at 27 Avocet Parade).




Figure 1 Extract of Northern Elevation (Source: DCM Design & Drafting 2022)

     •     The setback does not allow for planting between the building and northern property boundary.

With respect to Council’s comments in relation to the inability for the development to provide planting
between the building and the northern (side) boundary we note that there are no Acceptable Outcomes that
require plating alongside boundaries under the code. Based on a review of the code, there are only Acceptable
Outcomes that relate to planting along site frontages (i.e. AO17.4). It is noted that PO12 of the code is intended
to capture setback variations to the frontage and side boundaries.

It is our view that provision under PO12(e) is intended to relate to where front boundary setback variations are
sought, given the lack of specific landscaping benchmarks alongside boundaries. Irrespective of this, the
development only results in a built to boundary element equating to 7.1 metres of an entire boundary length
of 32 metres, with the balance of the boundary containing an element of landscaping, which in our view
satisfies the intent of PO12(e).


                                                                                                          Page 3 of 8
Our ref: 220311