Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Original source · versioned page text

FINAL Response to Information Request_ 03.05.2016

Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0109 - Response to Information Request - Email 1 of 6.msg.

of 13

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Response
Tree retention within the site is not feasible due to the extensive earthworks required to achieve appropriate
access grades and to respond to the site’s topography. In any event, tree retention within the site would
potentially increase the risk of bushfire impacting on dwellings.
However, where possible a significant number of trees including koala food trees have been retained along the
site frontage to Links Drive. In addition, no vegetation clearing is proposed within the unformed southern road
reserve except for:
         Occasions (to be confirmed during the operational works approval process) where trees need to be
          removed due to earthworks near the site boundary.
         Limited clearing of trees that may be required to accommodate a pedestrian pathway location in the
          unformed road reserve to the south. The path alignment will be determined on-site in conjunction with
          Council’s landscape officers to maximise vegetation retention including koala food trees.



Issue – Building Height in Storeys

The application material does not provide assessment or plans demonstrating the development’s
compliance with planning scheme requirements for height in storeys.

Information Required

     4. Provide architectural plans and commentary on the development’s level of compliance with the
        site’s 2 storey height limit. Where relaxations are required provide grounds/justification.

Response

The proposal generally complies with the site’s 2 storey limit. As shown on the attached architectural plans
(elevations and sections), raised landscaping beds are proposed to ensure that the basements generally do not
exceed 1m above the finished or natural ground levels. Basements protrude slightly above the 1m above the
finished ground level in the following limited instances:

         Building D – limited to the south western part of building D to accommodate basement driveway access.
          Refer Blackburne Jackson plan 7043/DA13. The basement entry is recessed below the balconies of upper
          levels which offsets any potential visual impact of the basement. In addition, the remainder of the
          western elevation of this building provides raised landscaping areas.

         Building E – a small portion along the south-western end and the southern façade of Building E to
          accommodate basement access. Refer Blackburne Jackson plans 7043/DA17 and DA18.

         Building F - the southern façade to accommodate basement driveway access and a small area towards the
          north-west extent of the building. Refer Blackburne Jackson plan 7043/DA22 and DA23.

In summary, the proposal generally complies with the 2 storey height limit and includes raised landscaping areas
to ensure compliance where possible. Areas of non-compliance are limited to small areas of only 3 buildings and




JFP Ref: M2652                                                                                                   Page 3
Log in to download the original file

FINAL Response to Information Request_ 03.05.2016.pdf · 741 KB (small file)

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.