2015-11-10 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                            10 NOVEMBER 2015


 The proposed setbacks force a stepped façade and will reduce housing diversity. You could
   require articulation without these particular setbacks.
 The reduced building envelope may adversely impact on ability for urban consolidation – this
   should be encouraged to protect non-urban areas from development
 The reduced building envelope may adversely impact on other social goals such as extended
   family living (eg. provision for housing for elderly residents or young adults to continue to
   living in family units), which would have a positive impact on social capital, etc.

The proposed amendments are a considerable departure from the Queensland Development
Code. The poor design examples raised have been exceptions rather than common occurrences
and related only to high set houses which account for the minority of our new houses. Planning
and Building staff have already raised concerns with applying awkward solutions like these and
suggest they will lead to a significant increase in the number of home builders needing to apply
for siting variations or compromise on design and cost efficiencies.

The proposed amendments will particularly disadvantage home builders who are developing or
redeveloping infill blocks already surrounded by neighbouring houses which may not allow for
optimum building design. Most particularly disadvantaged would be corner allotments, small
allotments, lots with irregular dimensions, lots at the head of a cul-de-sac, sloping sites, north
facing lots and lots on busy (noisy) streets.

Council has made comparisons with duplex dwellings which must be setback 6 metres from rear
setbacks, however the rear setbacks of duplexes are typically still modified if the site has
particular physical constraints such as those mentioned above.

Staff recommend that Council not make these proposed amendments to the planning scheme
now but rather engage with the local design industry through preparation of the next planning
scheme to find workable solutions.

4.   Other less dominant Issues

Red-tape reduction

There were two submissions objecting to any decreased regulation of businesses in the rural
area on the basis of reduced amenity, noise and air pollution, increased neighbourhood conflict,
waterway deprivation and unsafe road usage. They suggested planning assessment and
approval should be required for home-based businesses, tourism accommodation or granny flats.

There was also a submission of support for revising parameters around camping and RV stops to
facilitate them throughout the hinterland; another submission agreeing that B&Bs should be
allowed without the constraint of a planning approval and two others that thought Council was still
too restrictive on granny flats and that Council could even consider making them mandatory on a
percentage of houses.

One submission strongly opposed proposed changes that would increase impacts of home-
based businesses in the Detached Housing Zone; specific objection was raised to employees or
classes and to businesses being self-assessable and therefore not controlled. However, in the
Detached Housing Zone only Type 1 is self-assessable. Type 2 is code assessable and Type 3
is subject to impact assessment. This is not proposed to change with these amendments. Type
1 does not allow for non-resident employees (no change proposed). Type 1 does not allow for
early morning or evening operation, nor does it allow for classes.

There are few proposed changes for the Rural Settlement Zone because it was recognised there
is less scope for separation of uses and lifestyle is the predominant aspiration. Planning
approval would still be necessary for most uses in that zone.

                                                                                 Page 123 of 201