Original source · versioned page text
2019-08-12 General Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 AUGUST 2019
Furthermore, it should be noted that State Government planning for coastal areas has changed
over time. For example, between 2002 and 2012 State Planning Policy allowed for development
seaward of the coastal building line providing it did not protrude seaward of the neighbouring
properties building alignment. Whereas, the current State Development Assessment Provisions
are much more restrictive, not permitting development seaward of the coastal building line except
for coastal protection works. This highlights the Queensland State Government statutory planning
instruments that recognise the importance of the risks of climate change and updated information
available.
The application is considered to comply with Probable solution 18.1 which requires a mix of
native landscaping to be provided for a width of 5m from the seaward boundary to provide
buffering to the coastal dunal system.
The applicant submitted a detailed landscape plan that includes landscaping to 55% of the site
and extensive mature and shrub native plantings within the 6 metre rear setback to the proposed
dwelling. Pathways of sand with stone steppers are also proposed in this setback.
Generally
The site is situated in a Landslide Hazard area. The proposal is contrary to overall outcome in the
Building Works Code in that the development does not maintain setbacks that avoid adverse
impacts on the natural values of the foreshore. The applicant has provided a preliminary
geotechnical report relating to proposed development which is required by the Building Works
Code. The report has a number of recommendations which include the need for a more detailed
geotechnical investigation. The report does not make recommendations about the risk from
adjoining land (ie. the foreshore).
Notwithstanding the above, the proposal generally complies with the Building Works Code.
However it is noted that the proposed vaulted roof form does soften the box profile of the
dwelling, particularly from the east and west elevations. Refer Figure 6 – West elevation.
Figure 6 – West elevation
Page 33 of 68
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.