Response to Outstanding Issues

Page 2

RESPONSE
Please refer to DD-02 of the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Attachment 1) that
details that the proposal has a total site cover of 40.53%. It is noted that this exceeds the maximum site cover
prescribed for the site by 0.53%. However, noting the minor exceedance, representing just 4.4m² across both
dwellings, the proposed built form would be indistinguishable from that of a compliant built form, where
benefitted by significant articulation it is deemed that the proposal in no way to present an appearance of bulk
or scale and is consistent with the established buildings on Avocet Parade and Martin Street and therefore aligns
with the Overall Outcomes of the Medium Density Zone Code and should be supported.



          ITEM 3 – GARAGE SETBACK:
          Council remains of the position that the siting of the garage is not acceptable and does not
          comply with the Performance outcome.
                  •   Building setbacks where located in the Medium Density Zone Code are alternative
                      provisions of the QDC, this is reflective of the higher density of development sought
                      in the area in comparison to the Low Density Residential Zone where BTB where
                      complying with the QDC is permitted.
                  •   Three examples of housing variations along the street does not accurately represent
                      the predominant character of the street.
                  •   Currently there is well established vegetation along the side boundary which will be
                      required to be cleared and will not allow for any meaningful plantings in
                      replacement. A setback to the side boundary is appropriate.

          The developments site cover exceedance, and proposed boundary relaxation infers that the density of
          the development is impacting the level of amenity of the site

RESPONSE
As demonstrated by the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Attachment 1) the built
to boundary garage has been retained. Reference is made to the justification provided within Item 3 and 4 of
the response to Council’s Information Request, in particular the comments provided below:

    ‘… 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 below demonstrates the height of the garage relative to the ground level of the adjoining development
to the north (27 Avocet Parade).


                                                                                                              Page 2 of 4
Our ref: 220311

Page 3

Figure 1 Boundary Interface – 27 Avocet Parade (Source: DCM Design & Drafting 2022)



Further to the comments made within the response to the Information Request, consent has been obtained
from the adjoining property owners, being 27 Avocet Parade (adjoining to north) and Unit 1/6 Martin Street
(adjoining to east). A copy of the consent documents have been included in Attachment 2, with the following
additional comments provided by the adjoining neighbours in support of the proposed arrangement:

27 Avocet Parade – ‘The proposed development will add to the character of the street and will assist in keeping
cars from parking on the street. I am amazed that has been no known serious accidents to the date’.

1/6 Martin Street – ‘That the development contains a design that will positively contribute to the character of
the area. Will not impacted upon the use or enjoyment of the open space and will provide an improvement
through mitigating potential traffic impacts’.


With recognition of the minor extent of actual built form encroachment above a permitted fence height on the
boundary (30mm), as well as with consideration to the support provided by the adjoining properties
(Attachment 2), the development achieves the intent of Performance Outcome PO12 and should be supported.



          ITEM 4 - ROOFTOP:
          It is to be noted that the screening does contribute to height and the inclusion of such requires
          a 2/2.5m setback. Combination of screening, landscaping, stepping in the terrace may
          address this.

RESPONSE
Figure 2 below demonstrates the marginal extent of the encroachment to the side boundary setback, noting
that the extent of non-compliance relates to an open pergola structure. As per Figure 2 below, given the existing
natural ground to the north, the setback encroachment will equate to only 0.5m. The proposed setback variation
has been viewed from the adjoining development to the north (27 Avocet Parade) and accepted through
provision of support for the development provided in in Attachment 2.



                                                                                                              Page 3 of 4
Our ref: 220311

Page 4

Given the minor extent of the encroachment, the open nature of the structure and acceptance of the setback
from the adjoining development the proposed outcome is acceptable and should be supported.




                                              Extent of non-compliance – Natural ground on boundary



                                               Extent of non-compliance – From modified levels




Figure 2 Extent of screening within 2m of boundary (Source: DCM Design & Drafting 2022)




This response represents our complete response to the outstanding issued by Council. We look forward to the
Decision Notice being issued by Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 2016.

As always, please feel free to contact me direct should you require any additional information or clarification.

Yours faithfully,
ADAMS + SPARKES
TO WN P L AN N IN G




Michael Lyell
SENIOR TOWN PLANNER


Enc:      Amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Attachment 1)
          Neighbour Support Consent (Attachment 2)




                                                                                                        Page 4 of 4
Our ref: 220311