That these powers be subject to the condition that where the Committee Chair is required to use his/her casting vote, the Mayor (and Deputy Mayor in his/her absence), preside over the meeting and be permitted to use his/her casting vote as Chair to determine the matter.

Declaration Of Opening

Cr Beard declared the meeting open at 10.00 am.

Record Of Attendance And Leave Of Absence

Members Present

Cr A R Beard Chair and Councillor Division 8

Cr D H Seccombe Mayor

Cr A G Barker Councillor Division 1

Cr C B Ogilvie Councillor Division 2 Entered at 10.01 am

Cr D A Henry Councillor Division 3

Cr P J Dowling Deputy Mayor and Councillor Division 4

Cr J L Burns Councillor Division 5

Cr T Bowler Councillor Division 6

Cr M A Elliott Councillor Division 7

Cr K M Williams Councillor Division 9

Cr H J Murray Councillor Division 10

Committee Manager

Mr M Goode General Manager Customer Services

Officers

Mrs S Rankin Chief Executive Officer

Mr T Donovan Manager Assessment Services

Mr B Appleton Manager Development Coordination

Mr W Dawson Manager Land Use Planning

Mr A Edwards Land Development Services Manager

Mr N Wilson Senior Planner Development Assessment

Ms J Worland Senior Planner Development Assessment

Minutes

Mrs J Thomas Corporate Meetings & Registers Officer

Receipt and Confirmation Of Minutes

Moved by: Cr Seccombe
Seconded by: Cr Barker

That the minutes of the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 5 February 2008 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Public Participation At Meeting

Moved by: Cr Dowling
Seconded by: Cr Burns

That the meeting be adjourned for a 15 minute public participation segment.

CARRIED

Mr Brian Paddison of Russell Island addressed Committee in relation to several applications on today’s Development Assessment Committee agenda requesting assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Seccombe

That the meeting resume.

CARRIED

Declaration of Interest

Nil

Motion To Alter The Order Of Business

Nil

Cr Bowler left the meeting at 11.20 am (during item 1.8) and returned at 11.21 am (during item 1.8);

Cr Elliott left the meeting at 11.38 am (during item 1.9);

Cr Murray left the meeting at 11.44 am (during item 1.9) and returned at 12.15 pm (during item 1.13);

Cr Seccombe left the meeting at 11.45 am (during item 1.9) and returned at 11.55 am (during item 1.9);

Cr Barker left the meeting at 12.12 pm (during item 1.9);

Cr Burns left the meeting at 12.15 pm (prior to meeting closure);

Cr Dowling left the meeting at 12.15 pm (prior to meeting closure).

1 Customer Services

1.1 DWELLING HOUSE AT 37-41 BEELONG STREET, MACLEAY ISLAND (LOT 150) – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000663

Attachments: Locality Map – Beelong Street (Lot 150) [PDF 28KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 150 RP 118607
Location	37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island
Land Area	1047m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Drainage Problem
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Acid Sulphate Soils; Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Mr B J Paddison
Land Owner	Mr David Tincknell, Mrs Margaret Robertson, Mr Ian Robertson, Ms Bronwyn Achille
Date of Receipt	14 December 2007
Start Decision Stage	14 December 2007
Statutory Decision Date	5 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Council has received an application seeking an approval for a Material Change of Use to be assessed under the provisions of the Superseded Planning Scheme, for a Dwelling on an allotment zoned Conservation sub area CN1, on land at 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island. The application has been superficially assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

Under the Superseded Planning Scheme, a Dwelling in a Drainage Problem area required an impact assessable application. Under the Redlands Planning Scheme a Dwelling in a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 is an impact assessable application.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate. A list of the all superseded applications is available to Councillors via a Development Assessment Worksheet.

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

An application was received for a Dwelling on 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island, which is located within a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 as noted under the Redlands Planning Scheme and was also zoned Drainage Problem under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

1.2 Conclusion

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island, was Drainage Problem and in considering the application, Council deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Conservation Zone/sub-area CN1 - uses and other development, especially dwelling houses, are highly restricted. The nature, operational characteristics and impacts of the majority of uses and other development are inappropriate due to inherent drainage problems and are prejudicial to the protection, long term management and enhancement of the environmental values of sub-area CN1. (Redlands Planning Scheme).

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by BJ Paddison for 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island (Lot 150) for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Barker

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

A division was called for.

Crs Burns and Barker voted in the affirmative.

Crs Ogilvie, Henry, Dowling, Bowler, Elliott, Seccombe, Williams, Murray and Beard voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as LOST.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Williams

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

CARRIED

1.2 DWELLING HOUSE AT 37-41 BEELONG STREET, MACLEAY ISLAND (LOT 151) – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000661

Attachments: Locality Map – Beelong Street (Lot 151) [PDF 22KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 151 RP 118607
Location	37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island
Land Area	1037m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Drainage Problem
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Acid Sulphate Soils; Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Mr B J Paddison
Land Owner	Mr David Tincknell, Mrs Margaret Robertson, Mr Ian Robertson, Ms Bronwyn Achille
Date of Receipt	14 December 2007
Start Decision Stage	14 December 2007
Statutory Decision Date	5 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

CONSULTATION

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

1.2 Conclusion

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by BJ Paddison for 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island (Lot 151) for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Barker

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

A division was called for.

Crs Burns and Barker voted in the affirmative.

Crs Ogilvie, Henry, Dowling, Bowler, Elliott, Seccombe, Williams, Murray and Beard voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as LOST.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Williams

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

CARRIED

1.3 DWELLING HOUSE AT 37-41 BEELONG STREET, MACLEAY ISLAND (LOT 152) – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000662

Attachments: Locality Map – Beelong Street (Lot 152) [PDF 21KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 152 RP 118607
Location	37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island
Land Area	1069m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Drainage Problem
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Acid Sulphate Soils; Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Mr B J Paddison
Land Owner	Mr David Tincknell, Mrs Margaret Robertson, Mr Ian Robertson, Ms Bronwyn Achille
Date of Receipt	14 December 2007
Start Decision Stage	14 December 2007
Statutory Decision Date	5 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

CONSULTATION

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

1.2 Conclusion

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by BJ Paddison for 37-41 Beelong Street, Macleay Island (Lot 152) for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Barker

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

A division was called for.

Crs Burns and Barker voted in the affirmative.

Crs Ogilvie, Henry, Dowling, Bowler, Elliott, Seccombe, Williams, Murray and Beard voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as LOST.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Williams

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

CARRIED

1.4 DWELLING HOUSE AT 7 THOMPSON ESPLANADE, RUSSELL ISLAND – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME.

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000658

Attachments: Locality Map – Thompson Esplanade [PDF 22KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 201 RP 133221
Location	7 Thompson Esplanade, Russell Island
Land Area	766.3m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Drainage Problem
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Acid Sulphate Soils; Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Mr B J Paddison
Land Owner	Mr W Leong
Date of Receipt	7 December 2007
Start Decision Stage	7 December 2007
Statutory Decision Date	29 January 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Council has received an application seeking an approval for a Material Change of Use to be assessed under the provisions of the Superseded Planning Scheme, for a Dwelling on an allotment zoned Conservation sub area CN1, on land at 7 Thompson Esplanade, Russell Island. The application has been superficially assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

A previous application for a dwelling house on a Drainage Problem allotment, was refused by Council’s Development Assessment Committee on 10 August 2004 on the following grounds:-

“The application and accompanying information is insufficient to establish the extent and nature of the effects of the proposal on the subject site.

The proposal has not addressed the relevant requirements of the Transitional Planning Scheme, Section 11A.

The applicant has not addressed the relevant principles and requirements of the State Coastal Management Plan, including erosion prone area constraints and environmental concerns.

The proposal does not comply with the preferred land use intent of the Southern Moreton Bay Islands Statement of Proposals.

The applicant has not addressed issues pertaining to site stormwater, overland flow, natural drainage paths and drainage effects on adjoining allotments”.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed by Judgement on 3 August 2006.

CONSULTATION

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

An application was received for a Dwelling on 7 Thompson Esplanade, Russell Island, which is located within a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 as noted under the Redlands Planning Scheme and was also zoned Drainage Problem under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

1.2 Conclusion

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 7 Thompson Esplanade, Russell Island, was Drainage Problem and in considering the application, officers deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Henry

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by BJ Paddison for 7 Thompson Esplanade, Russell Island for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

CARRIED

A division was called for.

Crs Murray, Williams, Seccombe, Elliott, Bowler, Dowling, Henry, Ogilvie, Barker and Beard voted in the affirmative.

Cr Burns voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as CARRIED.

1.5 DWELLING HOUSE AT 38 SUMMERLAND DRIVE, RUSSELL ISLAND – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000673

Attachments: Locality Map – Summerland Drive [PDF 25KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	Code Assessment
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 187 RP 132794
Location	38 Summerland Drive, Russell Island
Land Area	564m²
Redlands Planning Scheme Zoning	Conservation
Zoning Sub-Area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Residential A
Designated Community Infrastructure	NA
Overlays	Bushfire Hazard Flood Storm and Drainage Constrained Land
SEQ Regional Plan - Land Use Category	Urban Footprint
No. of Public Submissions	NA
Applicant	Ms G M Fiacchino
Land Owner	Ms G M Fiacchino
Date of Receipt of Application	9 January 2008
Start Decision Stage	10 January 2008
Statutory Decision Date	14 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Frances Eastall
Manager	Neil Wilson

Council has received an application seeking approval for a Material Change of Use to be assessed under the provisions of the Superseded Planning Scheme for a Dwelling House on allotment zoned Conservation with a sub area of CN1, on land at 38 Summerland Drive, Russell Island.

Purpose

This Superseded application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

The application has been superficially assessed against the relevant sections of the Redlands Planning Scheme, including the overlays triggered by the application, and it is considered to be inconsistent with the Scheme.

an impact assessable application. The subject lot is not included within the SMBI Development Entitlements Protection Regulation 2006.

It is therefore recommended that the application be refused and the applicant advised that a Material Change of Use for a Dwelling House is required to be assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme.

CONSULTATION

Comment was sought from the Land Use Planning Group in regards to this application to which the following advice was received:

“The subject lot has been included within the Conservation Sub-Area CN1 zone to reflect the findings of detailed drainage investigations undertaken across the Island and adopted by Council in 2001 which found the lot was subject to major drainage problems such that approval for a dwelling house would be unlikely. The lot has also been identified within a Very High Conservation Priority Area by environmental investigations in 2002.

On the basis that the subject property has been identified with major drainage problems and very high conservation values which can not be adequately addressed by the superseded Planning Scheme [Residential A Zone] it is recommended that the application to be assessed under the superseded Planning Scheme be refused.”

CONCLUSION

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 38 Summerland Drive, Russell Island was Residential A and in considering the application, Council deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone due to the current zoning and overlay provisions.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by Ms GM Fiacchino for 38 Summerland Drive, Russell Island for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Dowling

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

CARRIED

A division was called for.

Crs Seccombe, Williams, Burns, Dowling, Barker and Beard voted in the affirmative.

Crs Murray, Bowler, Henry and Ogilvie voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as CARRIED.

1.6 DWELLING HOUSE AT 9 BAGUETTE STREET, RUSSELL ISLAND – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000670

Attachments: Locality Map – Baguette Street [PDF 25KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	Code Assessment
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 187 RP 132794
Location	9 Baguette Street, Russell Island
Land Area	577m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning Sub-Area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Residential A
Designated Community Infrastructure	NA
Overlays	Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay Flood Storm and Drainage Constrained Land
SEQ Regional Plan - Land Use Category	Urban Footprint
No. of Public Submissions	NA
Applicant	Mr B J Paddison
Land Owner	Ms Sheila F Papali
Date of Receipt of Application	8 January 2008
Start Decision Stage	9 January 2008
Statutory Decision Date	13 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Frances Eastall
Manager	Neil Wilson

Purpose

This Superseded application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

Under the superseded Planning Scheme a Dwelling House in a Residential A area, of the Southern Moreton Bay Islands, required a Code assessable application. Under the Redlands Planning Scheme a Dwelling House in a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 is an impact assessable application. The subject lot is not included within the SMBI Development Entitlements Protection Regulation 2006.

CONSULTATION

Comment was sought from the Land Use Planning Group in regards to this application to which the following advice was received:

CONCLUSION

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 9 Baguette Street, Russell Island was Residential A and in considering the application, Council deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone due to the current zoning and overlay provisions.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Murray
Seconded by: Cr Dowling

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by BJ Paddison for 9 Baguette Street, Russell Island for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

CARRIED

1.7 DWELLING HOUSE AT 38 MAGNOLIA STREET, RUSSELL ISLAND – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000674

Attachments: Locality Map – Magnolia Street [PDF 23KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant, Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 79 RP 129012
Location	38 Magnolia Street, Russell Island
Land Area	546m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Residential A
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Acid Sulphate Soils; Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Bushfire Hazard
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Kaz Kloda and Janina Kloda as Trustees
Land Owner	Kaz Kloda and Janina Kloda as Trustees
Date of Receipt	15 January 2008
Start Decision Stage	15 January 2008
Statutory Decision Date	7 February 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Council has received an application seeking an approval for a Material Change of Use to be assessed under the provisions of the Superseded Planning Scheme, for a Dwelling on an allotment zoned Conservation sub area CN1, on land at 38 Magnolia Street, Russell Island. The application has been superficially assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

Under the Superseded Planning Scheme, a Dwelling in a Residential A area required a code assessable application. Under the Redlands Planning Scheme a Dwelling in a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 is an impact assessable application.

CONSULTATION

Comment was sought from the Land Use Planning Group in regards to this application to which the following advice was received:

”The subject lot has been included within the Conservation Sub-Area CN1 zone to reflect the findings of detailed ecological investigations undertaken across the Island and adopted by Council in 2002 as part of the Conservation Acquisition Strategy CAS. Through implementation of the CAS Council offered the current owner voluntary purchase and land exchange options in 2004.

In addition, the subject property has not been included in the SMBI Development Entitlements Protection Regulation as it is held by a trustee. Accordingly, Council is not bound by the SMBI Development Entitlements Protection Act to assess an application for a dwelling house under the ‘superseded’ scheme.

It is also noted that the applicant has made comment that the adjoining properties are protected by the SMBIDEP Act and may be developed for a dwelling by 2016. Whilst it is recognised that the adjoining lots are protected by the Act, Council’s Property Services Unit has recently made land exchange offers to the owner/s of one of the adjoining lots. Should Council be successful in negotiating this land exchange the lot would be maintained by Council for conservation purposes and support the protection of the conservation value of the subject lot.

Recognising that the subject property has been identified with significant conservation values which can not be adequately addressed by the superseded Planning Scheme [Residential A Zone] it is recommended that the application to be assessed under the superseded Planning Scheme be refused.

It is further recommended that should the application be refused, the applicant be informed that a request for a land exchange can be made to Council and that if the request is approved a voluntary land exchange offer will be made for the owner/s to consider at no obligation.”

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

An application was received for a Dwelling on 38 Magnolia Street, Russell Island, which is located within a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 as noted under the Redlands Planning Scheme and was also zoned Residential A under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

1.2 Conclusion

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 38 Magnolia Street, Russell Island, was Residential A and in considering the application, Council deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by KA Kloda and J Kloda as Trustees for 38 Magnolia Street, Russell Island for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Barker

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Bowler

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

CARRIED

A division was called for.

Crs Murray, Elliott, Bowler, Henry, Ogilvie and Beard voted in the affirmative.

Crs Williams, Seccombe, Barker and Burns voted in the negative.

The motion was declared by the Chair as CARRIED.

1.8 DWELLING HOUSE AT 28 CALLISTEMON STREET, RUSSELL ISLAND – APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE SUPERSEDED PLANNING SCHEME

Dataworks Filename: MCSS000669

Attachments: Locality Map – Callistemon Street [PDF 24KB]

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Sharee Shaw
Planner Assistant - Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	MCSS
Proposed Use	Dwelling House
Property Description	Lot 51 RP 131371
Location	28 Callistemon Street Russell Island QLD 4184
Land Area	761m²
Redlands Planning Scheme	Conservation
Zoning sub-area	CN1
Superseded Planning Scheme Zoning	Residential A
Designated Community Infrastructure	Not Applicable
Overlays	Flood Prone; Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained; Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
SEQ Regional Plan – Land Use	Urban Footprint
Applicant	Peter Forshaw
Land Owner	Peter Forshaw
Date of Receipt	7 January 2008
Start Decision Stage	7 January 2008
Statutory Decision Date	29 January 2008
Application Coordinator	Sharee Shaw
Manager	Neil Wilson

Council has received an application seeking an approval for a Material Change of Use to be assessed under the provisions of the Superseded Planning Scheme, for a Dwelling on an allotment zoned Conservation sub area CN1, on land at 28 Callistemon Street, Russell Island. The application has been superficially assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme policies and standards. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Purpose

This application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Background

Under the Superseded Planning Scheme, a Dwelling in a Residential A area required a Code assessable application. Under the Redlands Planning Scheme a Dwelling in a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 is an impact assessable application.

CONSULTATION

Comment was sought from the Land Use Planning Group in regards to this application to which the following advice was received:

On the basis that the subject property has been identified with major drainage problems which can not be adequately addressed by the ‘superseded’ Planning Scheme [Residential A Zone] it is recommended that the application to be assessed under the superseded Planning Scheme be refused”.

1.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposal

An application was received for a Dwelling on 28 Callistemon Street, Russell Island, which is located within a Conservation zone/sub-area CN1 as noted under the Redlands Planning Scheme and was also zoned Residential A under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

1.2 Conclusion

The Zoning under the Superseded Planning Scheme for 28 Callistemon Street, Russell Island, was Residential A and in considering the application, Council deemed it necessary to assess the intent under the current Redlands Planning Scheme Zone.

The overall outcomes for the Conservation Zone are described by five key characteristics:

(a) Environment;

(b) Uses and Other Development;

(d) Amenity;

(e) Infrastructure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

That the application by Mr Peter Forshaw, for 28 Callistemon Street, Russell Island for assessment under the Superseded Planning Scheme be refused and that the applicant be advised that an application for a Material Change of Use, Impact Assessment, will be required under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Elliott
Seconded by: Cr Murray

That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

A division was called for.

Crs Murray, Elliott and Henry voted in the affirmative.

Crs Williams, Seccombe, Burns, Dowling, Ogilvie, Barker and Beard voted in the negative.

Cr Bowler was not present when the vote was taken.

The motion was declared by the Chair as LOST.

Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Burns
Seconded by: Cr Seccombe

That the Officer’s Recommendation not be adopted and that Committee, under delegated authority, resolve that the application be accepted and assessed under the Superseded Planning Scheme.

CARRIED

A division was called for.

Crs Williams, Seccombe, Burns, Dowling, Ogilvie, Barker and Beard voted in the affirmative.

Crs Murray, Elliott and Henry voted in the negative.

Cr Bowler was not present when the vote was taken.

The motion was declared by the Chair as CARRIED.

1.9 EXTENSION TO EXISTING MARINE SERVICES (BOAT STORAGE FACILITY) – 98 & 102-104 beveridge road, thornlands

Dataworks Filename: MC010757

Responsible Officer Name: Neil Wilson
Acting Senior Planner - Project Manager, Development Assessment

Author Name: Janice Worland
Senior Planner Development Assessment

Executive Summary

Application Type	Code Assessment
Proposed Use	Extension to Existing Marine Services (Boat Storage Facility)
Property Description	Lot 17 and 18 RP 76813
Location	98 and 102-104 Beveridge Road Thornlands QLD 4164
Land Area	64016.2m²
Redlands Planning Scheme Zoning	Marine Activity Conservation
Zoning Sub-Area	Marine Activity sub-area MA2
Designated Community Infrastructure	No
Overlays	Acid Sulfate Soils Bushfire Hazard Bushland Habitat Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land State Koala Policy Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay
No. of Public Submissions	Not Applicable
Applicant	Thornlands Marina Trust
Land Owner	DJ Paterson & JM Goetze As Trustee
Date of Receipt	01/08/2007
Start Decision Stage	29/11/2007
Statutory Decision Date	19/02/2008
Application Coordinator	Janice Worland
Manager	Neil Wilson

This Category 4 application is referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination.

Council has received an application seeking a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Code Assessment) for the Extension to an Existing Marine Services Use (addition of a Boat Storage Facility and Fuel Storage Area) on an allotment zoned Marine Activity and Conservation, on land at 98 and 102-104 Beveridge Road, Thornlands.

The proposal, consisting of the addition of a five level boat storage shed and a fuel storage area, has been assessed by relevant internal assessment teams, the majority of which are satisfied with the proposal.

The application was made in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and did not require public consultation. The proposal complies with the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026 and the proposed use is considered to be consistent with that

required in the zone. The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Redlands Planning Scheme, including the overlays triggered by the application. The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with this planning scheme, however has not adequately addressed the full requirements outlined in this planning document. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted a Preliminary Approval. A development permit will only be issued subject to the applicant meeting additional requirements, as listed below in the Officer’s Recommendation.

Background

In 1983, Council issued an approval for the site to be used for boat storage and construction. In November 1988, approval was granted to increase the number of boats stored on site to 50, which was followed by a further extension for storage of an additional 10 boats, approved in 1993 (C1601). Reconstruction and improvement works have also been undertaken for the existing slipway, marina and hardstand and car parking areas as per the ERA and Operational Works Approval of 13^th June 2007 (MC009285 and OP000685).

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate. Copies of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Debra Henry of Division 3 on 6 August 2007 and 8 October 2007. The Councillor requested that the application be referred to the Development Assessment Committee for determination. Cr Henry has stated that she believes the application to be an over-development of the site.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a boat storage shed over the existing outdoor boat storage area (the existing buildings on the eastern side of the site which are used for boat building and maintenance will be retained). The shed will have the capacity to store up to 450 boats within five racking levels. The proposal will have a maximum height of approximately 21 metres and will be constructed of Colorbond metal sheeting. The proposed shed has a total floor area of 5595.8m² (39.97m width and 140m length). The proposed storage shed is located along the western boundary of the site (in the Marine Activity Zoned portion of the land) and is sited 37.2 metres from the front boundary and 0.25m from the western side boundary.

The applicant has stated that:

“The development will operate in a similar manner to the current situation where clients having boats in storage will park at the front of the site and make their way to the office to direct staff to move their boat to the water. They will then make their way down to the marina and slipway (which have been previously approved through operational works applications) and take possession of the boat once moored to a pontoon and then set off for the day. Upon their return, the boat will be moored in the Marina and will be cleaned and returned to the storage shed by staff”.

The applicant has also proposed a fuel storage area as part of the application. The proposal for a fuel storage area requires an Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) approval (ERA11). The proposed fuel storage area involves the construction of three underground tanks with a total maximum capacity of 60 000 Litres. The tanks will be

used for refuelling of boats using the facility and will be located adjacent to the existing slipway in the Marine Activity Zoned portion of the land. Responsibility for the ERA approval is devolved to local government in this instance.

Site

The site is located on the northern side of Beveridge Road, Thornlands, at the end of the road. Lot 17 has an area of 4906.8m² and is zoned Conservation. Lot 18 has an area of 59109m². The front and western portions of the site are zoned Marine Activity sub-area MA2 (a total area of approximately 29622m²), with the north-eastern portion of the site zoned Conservation (a total area of approximately 28120m²). The northern and eastern boundaries of the site adjoin Eprapah Creek and there is an existing slipway and holding berth providing access to the Creek. The site has further been improved with buildings at the south of the site (including a dwelling house) and three sheds along the eastern boundary. Informal car parking is located at the front of the site. The site is relatively flat and includes areas of remnant vegetation (located in the north-eastern and south-eastern portions of the allotment), however the proposal is not located in these areas and will not require the clearing of any vegetation.

Surrounding Area

Sites in the surrounding area are zoned Marine Activity, Conservation and Environmental Protection. There are a number of private residences along Beveridge Road.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

This application has been made in accordance with Chapter 3 (Integrated Development Assessment System, IDAS) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and constitutes an application for code assessment for a material change of use under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

The subject land is designated within the Urban Footprint land use category in the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026. The Urban Footprint identifies land to provide for the region's urban development needs to 2026. The Urban Footprint includes existing urban areas and greenfield areas potentially suitable for future urban development. The area includes sufficient land to accommodate the full range of acceptable urban uses, such as housing, industry, business, infrastructure, community facilities and urban open spaces projected to be required over the next 20 years.

State Planning Policies

State Planning Policy

Applicability to current Application

Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006

The property has been identified as being in the Koala Sustainability Area as defined in the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006. The application was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency who granted approval of the proposal subject to conditions which are to be attached to any development approval.

State Coastal Management Plan

Under the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 the State Coastal Management Plan and subsequent Regional Coastal Management Plans have the status of State Planning Policies for the purpose of assessing and deciding development applications.

The application was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency who granted approval of the proposal subject to conditions which are to be included in any development approval.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The proposal for a boat storage shed and fuel storage on the site is defined as ‘Marine Services’ in the Redlands Planning Scheme (RPS). ‘Marine Services’ is defined as the use of premises for any coastal dependent activity on land adjoining Moreton Bay or that part of a waterway subject to tidal influence. The term includes premises used for the launching, berthing, storage, fuelling, servicing and repairing of boats.

The subject site is zoned Conservation and Marine Activity however the proposed shed and fuel storage area are to be located in the Marine Activity zoned portion of the land. Access to the shed and fuel storage area is to be through the Conservation Zone, however the RPS states that:

‘where access is provided as part of a material change of use of premises, and the provision of that access is located in a zone which has a higher level of assessment than would otherwise apply to the use, the level of assessment applicable to the provision of access is the same as the level of assessment applicable to the use’.

Marine Services are a permitted form of development in the Marine Activity Zone, subject to Code Assessment, however is an inconsistent use in the Conservation Zone, requiring Impact Assessment. As the proposed building works is to only occur in the Marine Activity Zone, Code Assessment only has been triggered (the site access and car parking provided have previously been approved – refer to Council application numbers MC009285 and OP000685).

The application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the RPS and is considered to be generally in compliance with the requirements of the Marine Activity Zone. However, in terms of amenity, articulation, building bulk and height, there is considered to be areas of non-compliance with the Code (refer to table below) which need to be further investigated and addressed prior to issue of a development permit. It is considered that insufficient justification has been provided by the applicant at this stage to support the inconsistencies and thus a preliminary approval only is recommended.

Specific Outcomes

Probable Solutions

Officer’s Comment

S2.3

(1) Building height respects the waterfront locality.

P2.3

(1) Building height is no greater than -

(a) 11 metres

The proposed building is approximately 20 metres high and therefore exceeds, and almost doubles, the probable solution height of 11 metres. In justifying the height of the structure, the applicant provided computer modelled perspectives and a series of photographs from locations in the surrounding area after floating balloons on 20m lines at the proposed shed site. The applicant has stated that there will be few sites from which a view of the shed will be visible due to ‘the topography of the land and the amount of vegetation between the vantage point and the development site’. Although this is the case at the moment, the vegetation screening the proposed shed is located on freehold land and therefore the future retention of this vegetation, which would currently provide some visual screening the shed, is not guaranteed. Additionally, the bulk of the building is not considered to be accurately depicted by the balloons and therefore do not give an accurate representation of views to the shed.

In relation to the computer modelled perspectives provided, Council’s Architect has stated that ‘While these images are useful they give a rather distorted impression of the reality. Firstly the trees on the adjoining site are shown as being densely planted and higher than the building which makes the building appear small. There is no guarantee that these trees will remain and so the eventual result after a few years may be quite different to that portrayed. Also the angle of reference of the perspective is that of looking down from a height higher than the building. This reduces the dominance of the building when compared to views from eye height.’

It is considered that the proposal has the potential to dominate the surrounding area. At close distances views of the building may be masked by existing surrounding tall vegetation but this cannot be guaranteed to remain. More distant views of the building will be obtained (from the mainland and waterways) where overall height and bulk is more relevant.

In this respect, the proposal is not considered to meet overall outcome 2b(ii)(a) of the Zone Code which states that ‘The scale of uses and buildings contribute to a built form that respects the foreshore location by adopting building heights, width, depth and bulk that minimise visual impacts’. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered to meet overall outcome 2c(i) which states that ‘Uses and other development achieve a high standard of amenity by:

a. protecting and enhancing places of cultural significance or scenic value;

b. maintaining the character and amenity of the foreshore areas of Moreton Bay;

c. avoiding adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding uses’.

Additionally, the approval of a shed of this height in the area has the potential to set a precedent for development of the surrounding Marine Activity Zoned Sites. The potential replication of this structure height on adjoining lots would have a negative impact on the amenity of the area and streetscape (which is shared by both residential and marine activity uses).

S2.4

(1) Building design incorporates architectural elements that -

(a) integrate with landscape planting and prevailing coastal landscape features;

(b) minimise any adverse overshadowing and reflective impacts;

(c) incorporate articulated walls with horizontal and vertical variations, shadow detail and colour, to reduce the impact of blank walls.

P2.4

(1) No probable solution identified.

Council’s Architect has advised that the proposal is not considered to meet the specific outcome as:

(a) the bulk of the building does not permit integration with landscape planting;
(b) overshadowing is not minimised due to its height and bulk;
(c) walls are unarticulated, being approx 140m long x 17m high.

As stated above in relation to P2.3, the proposal is not considered to be adequately articulated and is of a height and bulk which does not respect the locality and its significant scenic value. The proposal for a boat storage shed on the site is considered to be an appropriate use of the site, however it is considered that the design of the building should be amended prior to issue of a development permit to ensure that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

S2.6

Building design and materials in subarea MA2 are compatible with a high quality marine industry design.

P2.6

No probable solution identified.

The present design is not considered to comply in terms of size, bulk and appearance. The proposed shed has been articulated only by painted design. It is considered that additional structural articulation (i.e. further articulation of the roof design) should be provided to improve the appearance of the structure and reduce the impact of the bulk of the building.

Overlay Code

The subject site is affected by the following overlays of the Redlands Planning Scheme:

Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay – The entire site is located below 5 metres AHD. As the site is relatively level, no excavation or fill works is required for the proposed shed and the self assessable requirements will be conditioned. Fuel storage is proposed in three underground tanks with a combined capacity of 60,000 litres. The excavation necessary for the tanks will result in removal of about 150 cubic metres of soil. The tank location is in an area where a previous study indicates the presence of acid sulfate material. The previous study was in respect of the material change of use application for expansion of the marina and changes to the hardstand area (application number MC009285). Any approval conditions for the material change of use would include a requirement for a detailed acid sulfate management plan before the related works commence. The applicant has advised that excavation for the fuel tanks will be carried out at the same time as the bulk earthworks for the material change of use. The subject approval can therefore be conditioned accordingly.

Bushfire Hazard Overlay – A very small portion of the south-east corner of the land is designated as a Medium Bushfire Risk. No development is to occur in or near this designated area and the proposal is therefore self assessable against this code.

Habitat Protection Overlay (Bushland Habitat) – The whole of Lot 17 is designated as an Enhancement Area (no development proposed in this area) and the north-eastern portion of Lot 18 is designated as Marine Habitat. No development is proposed in the Marine Habitat designated area. The proposal complies with the requirements of the Code.

Habitat Protection Overlay (State Koala Policy) – The site is located within a Koala Sustainability Area. The application was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency who granted approval subject to conditions which are to be attached to any development approval.

Advisory

The EPA provided advice that the applicant should consider replanting of about 150 koala habitat trees on an external site, with the cooperation of a local conservation group. While Council would support this, without a nominated conservation group advising Council of its agreement to take part, Council cannot mandate such a condition.

The EPA recommended that Council install additional koala signage along Beveridge Road to warn motorists about koalas, and to review speed limits if appropriate. While Council may consider these items, they cannot be required as conditions to be met by the applicant.

Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land Overlay – The northern portion of the site is located within a storm tide area. The proposed shed and fuel storage area are located outside of this area. Relevant conditions will be included in any decision notice.

Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay Overlay – The site includes a Major Waterway (slipway) and a Waterways and Wetland Buffer (majority of site). The majority of the proposed shed is located outside of the buffer area. The entire site including proposed boat storage and fuel tank areas is gravelled or hardstand, and has had essentially an industrial character for some time. The standard 100 metre waterway buffer extends partially into the boat storage location. The Environmental Protection Agency recognises the existing character and use of the site and considers that rehabilitation and revegetation of the site are not practical.

Advisory

The EPA recommends rehabilitation of an external site in lieu, with the agreement of a local conservation group, as noted above.

General/Other Development Codes

The application has been assessed against the following codes:

Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill Code;
Landscape Code; and
Infrastructure Works Code.

The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of the above codes with conditions pertaining to the approval given below.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontage to Beveridge Road.

Beveridge Road:

Currently has open drainage along the entire frontage of the site discharging into the marine wetlands to the east. It is appropriate to require this drainage to be constructed in conjunction with roadworks to be constructed at the front of the site.
Currently has no kerb and channel and two driveway entries exist (one sealed and the other not). The site abuts the end of Beveridge Road with an ill-formed gravel turning area which may have impacts on the adjoining marine wetlands. It is appropriate to condition the construction of road widening and turning facilities to Council standards. These works must include the construction of crossovers to suit the proposed development.
There is no existing footpath along the frontage of the site which is adjacent to the alignment of the proposed Eddie Santaguiliana Way cycle trail. As the verge width is to be only 3.5m between the property alignment and the proposed kerb line, there is insufficient space for a cycleway. To make matters worse, the power pole alignment is located in the middle of the proposed verge. There is an opportunity to provide a 1.5m pedestrian footpath as an interim measure.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that there are no specific outcomes for parking numbers. The applicant proposes to provide 158 spaces on site. Of those, 7 are disabled spaces.

Dimensions and layouts of the car parking spaces generally comply with AS2890.1, but the applicant should provide pedestrian movement spaces on site to provide a refuge for patrons from machinery being operated in conjunction with boat launching.

Stormwater

Environmental Assessment has reviewed the stormwater management facilities for the proposed development. Their advice is that the works approved from the previous application on the site caters adequately for this addition to the site.

The related application for the slipway and hardstand expansion (MC009285) included stormwater controls designed by Ross Campbell & Associates. These include a temporary detention system that is partly designed to treat the general slipway wash down area, as conditioned by PPT. The boat storage facility is to be connected to this system so that the stormwater and wash down wastewater take advantage of the same already approved treatment processes.

The relevant approved drawings (for MC009285) are Ross Campbell & Associates:

2001A-08 Rev D

2001A-09 Rev C

2001A-10 Rev E

2001A-11 Rev B

2001A-12 Rev B

2001A-20 Rev E

Sewerage

There is no existing sewerage connection to the site. The application documents identify a proposed amenities block to serve patrons which is to be provided in the future.

The use of the site for storage of such large number of boats would necessitate the provision of public conveniences for large numbers of boat owners. It is not proposed to

require the provision of public facilities at this time. It is reasonable though to require the applicant to identify the treatment systems and the disposal areas to be used for such facilities in the future. Unless this is done, the present development proposal may jeopardise the options for waste disposal.

It is appropriate to require the applicant to prepare relevant information about waste disposal with this application.

Water Supply

A water supply is currently available to the site. Conditions for the collection of roofwater from the proposed shed are appropriate and be designed to minimise the demands on Council potable water supply. The collected water should be of sufficient volumes to provide for the proposed toilet facilities, landscaping and boat wash down areas.

Electricity Services

The subject land has access to overhead electricity services.

Telecommunication Services

The subject land has access to telecommunication services.

Pollution Prevention

The Council’s Pollution Prevention Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. Conditions of approval have been provided.

Environmental Assessment

Council’s Environmental Assessment Team has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. Conditions of approval have been applied. Other relevant conditions are included where appropriate as advice from state agencies or attached as concurrence conditions from state agencies.

Development Assessment Architect

The architect reviewed the applicant’s submission dated 14 February, 2008, and provided the following comments:

‘The applicant has provided computer generated modelling perspectives from various locations around the site as well as photographs looking back at the site from distant viewpoints in order to determine whether the building will be seen from these locations. Balloons were used on the site to give the approximate height of the building. While these images are useful they give a rather distorted impression of the reality. Firstly the trees on the adjoining site are shown as being densely planted and higher than the building which makes the building appear small. There is no guarantee that these trees will remain and so the eventual result after a few years may be quite different to that portrayed. Also the angle of reference of the perspective is that of looking down from a height higher than the building. This reduces the dominance of the building when compared to views from eye height. Secondly, while the balloons give an indication of the height of the building, they do not accurately represent the bulk of the building. If a balloon can be seen, there is a very likely chance that a good portion of the building will also be seen.’

Landscaping

Council’s Landscaping officer has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. Conditions of approval have been provided.

Redland Water and Waste

The team did not require conditions of approval to be included for water or waste management.

Referral Agencies

The application required referral to the following agencies:

Agency	Referral Type	Issue	Response
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)	Advice	Within 100m of a wetland	Response provided with advice that must be included with any Development Permit. Increase in boats stored may be unsustainable. Increase in intensity of use poses a risk to the marine environment. Development should be compatible with coastal values and adopt best management practices. Further dredging of Eprapah creek will not be supported. Comment: Council does not know whether the development will cause an increase in boat traffic in Eprapah Creek and the bay, or only centralise the storage of existing boats. There is no current proposal before Council in relation to dredging of the creek.
EPA	Advice	Conservation Estate - within 100m of a marine park	As above
EPA	Concurrence	MCU in a Koala Sustainability Area with a total footprint greater than 1000m²	Approval granted subject to conditions that must attach to any Development Approval
EPA	Concurrence	Contaminated Land (land on the Environmental Management Register)	Approval granted subject to conditions that must attach to any Development Approval
EPA	Concurrence	Coastal Management District	Approval granted subject to conditions that must attach to any Development Approval
Council – Pollution Prevention Team	Concurrence (devolved to Council)	Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA)	Approval granted subject to conditions that must attach to any Development Approval

CONCLUSION

The proposed Extension to an Existing Marine Services Use (addition of a Boat Storage Facility and Fuel Storage Area), located at 98 and 102-104 Beveridge Road, Thornlands, has been assessed against the requirements of the Redlands Planning Scheme. The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with this planning scheme, however has not adequately addressed the full requirements outlined in this planning document. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be issued a Preliminary Approval by Council.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Committee, under delegated authority, resolve as follows:

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

That the application submitted to Council on 1 August 2007 under s3.2.1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 for a development approval for a Material Change of Use for the Extension to an Existing Marine Services Use (addition of a Boat Storage Facility and Fuel Storage Area) at 98 and 102-104 Beveridge Road, Thornlands, on land described as Lots 17 and 18 on RP 76813, be granted a Preliminary Approval.

B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

Plumbing

Provide information regarding the provision of toilets on the site (for the use of employees and visitors) and the required effluent disposal area and show how it complies with Council's Planning Scheme, Onsite Sewage Disposal Code and AS/NZ 1547 2000 Onsite Waste Water Management. The information required is to show that the disposal area is of sufficient size to cater for the proposal, how it complies with setback distances from water sources and environmentally sensitive areas, setbacks to land below RL2.4m AHD, flooding and the reduplication of the area in the event of failure of the disposal system.

Building Design

The design of the proposed boat storage facility is to be amended to comply with the requirements of the Marine Activity Zone Code. The building design, articulation and materials used are to be consistent with a high quality marine industrial design. The bulk, dominance and overshadowing of the building and its potential to impact on the scenic amenity of the surrounding area is to be mitigated by reducing the height of the building, providing suitable articulation and by reducing overshadowing through the incorporation of architectural elements. Articulation is to be achieved by means of horizontal and vertical variations, shadow detail and colour to reduce the impact of blank walls.

Car Parking Layout

Amend the car parking layout to provide a pedestrian movement network from car parks to the boat receival area. This must be in the form of dedicated pavement which is appropriately line marked and sign posted.

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

Moved by: Cr Dowling
Seconded by: Cr Burns

That consideration of this matter be deferred to the General Meeting of Council scheduled for 27 February 2008.

CARRIED

1.10 MINOR COMPLYING CODE ASSESSMENT AND HOUSEKEEPING (building and plumbing) – category 1

Dataworks Filename: GOV-DAC - Delegated Items

Responsible Officer Name: Tim Donovan
Manager, Assessment Services

Author Name: Kerri Anderson
Administration Officer

Executive Summary

At the General Meeting of 15 May 2002, Council resolved that development assessments be classified into the following four Categories:

Category 1 – Minor Complying Code Assessments & Housekeeping (Building & Plumbing);

Category 2 – Complying Code Assessments & Minor Impact Assessments;

Category 3 – Moderately Complex Code & Impact Assessments;

Category 4 – Major and Significant Assessments.

A total of 154 Building and Plumbing Applications were dealt with during the period 28 January to 8 February, 2008.

The applications detailed in this report have been assessed under Category 1 criteria - defined as complying, policy based Code Assessment, general housekeeping matters and other applications of a minor nature.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to note that the following applications were dealt with under delegated authority – Category 1 – Minor Complying Code Assessments and Housekeeping.

Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 8 Double Bay Street, Macleay Island. Mr Gregory Mcelligott. (MC010958)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 6 Brig Street, Amity Point. Gemalco Constructions Pty Ltd. (MC010976)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 65 Eastbourne Terrace, Macleay Island. Mr R. Merkwitza. (MC010914)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 4 Gordon Road, Macleay Island. AKKA Constructions. (MC010981)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 11 Allamanda Street, Russell Island. Wright Bros House Removers and Renovators Pty Ltd. (MC010988)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 6 Peter Court, Macleay Island. Mr G.B. Osborne. (MC010996)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 288 Main Road, Wellington Point. Sonya Butt. (MC011031)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 286 Main Road, Wellington Point. Sonya Butt. (MC011032)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 12 Pontiac Street, Thornlands. Bartley Burns Certifiers and Planners. (MC010935)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a dwelling house at 4 Torello Crescent, Victoria Point. Ausbuild Projects Pty Ltd. (MC010988)
Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to construct a dwelling house at 34 Eastbourne Terrace, Macleay Island. Ezy Homes. (MC010850)
Application to change a condition of an existing approval to construct a dwelling house at 5 Parklane Road, Victoria Point. Ausbuild Pty Ltd. (MC010828)
Development application for a material change of use and building works approval to construct a dwelling house at 22 Kevin Street, Macleay Island. Michael Tungate. (MC010963)
Development application for a material change of use and building works approval to construct a dwelling house at 64 Wirralee Street, Macleay Island. Ms D. D. Moon. (MC010924)
Development application for a material change of use and building works approval to construct a dwelling house at 34 Jasper Street, Russell Island. Pelgrave Building Pty Ltd. (MC010929)
Development application for a material change of use and building works approval to construct a dwelling house at 144 Canaipa Road, Russell Island. Kurrajong Steel Homes Pty Ltd. (MC010967)
Development application for a material change of use for a development near underground infrastructure approval for a dwelling house at 5 Blackbutt Avenue, Mount Cotton. MFS Diversified Developments Pty Ltd. (MC011020)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a display dwelling at 1 Settlers Circuit, Mount Cotton. Yarrum Equities Pty Ltd. (MC010851)
Development application for a material change of use and building works approval to construct a removal dwelling house at 21 Hastings Terrace, Macleay Island. Wright Bros House Removers and Renovators Pty Ltd. (MC010990)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a relative’s apartment at 388 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba. Mr G.M. and Mrs C.J. Mundy. (MC010985)
Development application for a material change of use to operate a home business (dental prosthetic clinic) at 100 Princess Street, Cleveland. Mrs Ana Gujas. (MC011022)
Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to operate a home based business at 82 Double Jump Road, Redland Bay. Mr G.F. Just. (MC010801)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a development near underground infrastructure for a domestic outbuilding (shed) at 2 St Helena Court, Cleveland. Maurice and Barbara Palmer. (BW000686)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a development near underground infrastructure for a domestic outbuilding (shed) at 12 Bedarra Street, Redland Bay. Titan Enterprises (Marsden). (BW000683)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding (carport) at 61 Lucas Drive, Lamb Island. Mr M.A. Turner. (BW000654)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding at 63 Hanover Drive, Alexandra Hills. Mr R.P.J. Mcculloch. (BW000643)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding (garage) at 46 Plymouth Court, Cleveland. Bartley Burns Certifiers and Planners. (BW000677)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme and against the Building Regulations 2006 for a domestic outbuilding (carport and shed) at 1 Jupiter Street, Capalaba. Titan Enterprises. (BW000526)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme and against the Building Regulations 2006 for a domestic outbuilding at 16 Catherine Street, Birkdale. Grandplan Developments Pty Ltd. (BW000626)
Development application for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for domestic additions to an existing dwelling house at 6-10 Francis Road, Macleay Island. Mr B.E. Williamson. (BW000660)

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Dowling
Seconded by: Cr Williams

That the report be noted.

CARRIED

1.11 COMPLYING CODE ASSESSMENT AND MINOR ASSESSMENTS - CATEGORY 2

Dataworks Filename: GOV-DAC Delegated Items

Responsible Officer Name: Tim Donovan
Manager, Assessment Services

Author Name: Kerri Anderson
Administration Officer

Executive Summary

At the General Meeting of 15 May 2002, Council resolved that development assessments be classified into the following four Categories:

Category 1 – Minor Complying Code Assessments & Housekeeping;

Category 2 – Complying Code Assessments & Minor Impact Assessments;

Category 3 – Moderately Complex Code & Impact Assessments; and

Category 4 – Major and Significant Assessments.

The applications detailed in this report have been assessed under Category 2 criteria - defined as follows:

Complying small scale types of Code Assessable applications without submission of public objection (i.e. not being adverse submissions); and
Includes a number of process-related delegations, operational works applications and all other delegations not otherwise listed.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to note that the following applications were dealt with under delegated authority – Category 2 – Complying Code Assessments and Minor Impact Assessments.

Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling (x 4) at 23-23A Homer Street, Cleveland. Kingfisher Blue Pty Ltd. (MC010794)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling (x 4) at 38 Channel Street, Cleveland. Wiltshire Stevens Architects. (MC010220)
Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling at 104 Wynyard Street, Cleveland. Redband Pty Ltd As Trustee, Huskie Pty Ltd As Trustee. (MC010784)
Development application for a material change of use for an extension to agriculture at 466-486 Serpentine Creek Road, Redland Bay. Mr G.R. Spink. (MC010885)
Development application for a material change of use for an extension to Aged Care Facility (Aged Persons and Special Needs Housing) at 55-61 Hamilton Street, Redland Bay. Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd. (MC010420)
Development application for a material change of use for a combined use – Bulky Goods Showroom / Retail Warehouse / Service Industry / Shop at 115-119 Russell Street, Cleveland. JMH Property Services. (MC010765)
Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval for the reconfiguration of land at 25 Oakland Avenue, Redland Bay into four standard format allotments. Rak Constructions Pty Ltd. (SB005283)

Development application for the reconfiguration of lots (boundary realignment) at 33-35 Plumer Street, Wellington Point. Mr B.P. and Mrs D.A. Drexler. (SB005256)
Development application for the reconfiguration of lots (boundary realignment) at 315-395 Serpentine Creek Road, Redland Bay. Philip Vassallo Pty Ltd. (SB005291)

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling (x4) at 23-23A Homer Street, Cleveland. Kingfisher Blue Pty Ltd. (MC010794)

RPS Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Land Area: 910.54 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received an application seeking a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Code Assessment) for a Multiple Dwelling x4 on an allotment zoned Medium Density Residential, on land at 23-23A Homer Street, Cleveland.

The proposal, consisting of four, two storey dwelling units on a 910m² allotment, has been assessed by relevant internal assessment teams, all of whom are satisfied with the proposed design. The application was made in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and did not require referral to any external agency or public consultation.

The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Redlands Planning Scheme, including the overlays triggered by the application, and is considered to be in compliance with the Scheme. The proposal complies with the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026 and the proposed use is considered to be of a similar nature to that expected of the surrounding area. The proposal complies with the intents of the Overlay Codes triggered by the application. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted a Development Permit, subject to conditions. The applicant will be required to obtain a number of additional permits prior to construction of the proposed multiple dwelling.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of four self contained units on the site. The dwelling complex will consist of two separate two storey buildings, both of which incorporate two units. An internal driveway is located along the eastern boundary of the site. External building materials for the proposal include lightweight cladding and brickwork materials, with the roof being protected with metal sheeting.

The proposal will have a maximum height of approximately 7.5 metres above natural ground level. Internally, each unit will have three bedrooms, a living/dining room, kitchen, bathroom and laundry. The applicant has made provision for a single garage integrated into the ground floor of each unit and external alfresco dining and porch areas for each unit. A visitor car parking space, carwash bay and boat parking space have been provided on-site. The development will result in site coverage of approximately 322.38m² (35.4%). The proposed multiple dwelling is sited six (6) metres from the front boundary, three (3) metres from the rear boundary and a minimum of 1.5 metres from the side boundaries. The proposal achieves a density of one dwelling per 228m² of site area.

Site

The site is located on the southern side of Homer Street, Cleveland and has an area of 910m². The land is relatively flat and is not listed as having environmental or heritage significance. Drainage from the allotment is to the street. The site is currently occupied by a dwelling house which will be demolished to allow for the construction of the proposed multiple dwellings.

Surrounding Area

The site is located within the Medium Density Residential zone. The area is currently undergoing further development to reflect the higher density zoning. The surrounding area is residential in character, and is predominantly developed with multiple dwellings.

Amenity and Character

The surrounding area is dominated by one to two storey detached dwelling houses and multiple dwellings. The proposed multiple dwelling reflects the existing residential character of the area and the intent of the current zoning of the area for higher density development.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

The subject land is located within the Urban Footprint land use category in the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026. The Urban Footprint identifies land to provide for the region's urban development needs to 2026. The Urban Footprint includes existing urban areas and greenfield areas potentially suitable for future urban development. The area includes sufficient land to accommodate the full range of acceptable urban uses, such as housing, industry, business, infrastructure, community facilities and urban open spaces projected to be required over the next 20 years.

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The site is zoned Medium Density Residential. Multiple Dwellings are a permitted form of development in this zone subject to Council approval. The application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Redlands Planning Scheme and is considered to be in overall compliance with the requirements of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.

Use Code

An assessment of the development proposal against the prescriptive measures of the Multiple Dwelling Code was undertaken. The application generally complies with the acceptable solutions outlined in the Code. Conditions pertaining to the approval are given below. The following areas of non-compliance with the prescriptive measures of the Code exist:

Specific Outcomes

Probable Solutions

Officer’s Comment

S3 – Site Layout and Building Design

(1) Layout and design enhances the built form of the surrounding streetscape by –

(a) contributing to the establishment of an attractive streetscape in new areas;

(i) where the built form is taller or

wider than the type of building

expected in the street – then the use is articulated into clearly distinguishable parts, similar in scale to existing housing, so that individual dwelling units can be identified from the street;

(j) ensuring setbacks complement

the existing streetscape and

maximise private open space areas, privacy, solar access and provide for service areas;

P3.

(1) The use complies with the following requirements –

(a) building height, site coverage and setbacks - as per Table 1 - Building Siting and Design Requirements;

Side Setback – as per the QDC

The wall of Unit 2 has been setback 2.05m from the western side boundary. The 600mm eave is therefore setback 1.45m. The height of this section of the dwelling is 5.5m therefore a setback of 2m to the OMP is normally required. The proposed setback would be achieved if the eaves were removed however this is not considered a preferable solution amenity wise. The specific outcome states that “setbacks complement the existing streetscape and maximise private open space areas, privacy, solar access and provide for service areas.” The reduced setbacks have little effect on the streetscape (being to the rear of the allotment) and there will be minimal impact on the adjoining block’s access to ventilation and sunlight given that it is only the eave within the setback area and the north-south orientation of the allotments. The reduced setback is also located on the western side of the allotment where it would not be appropriate to encourage POS for climatic reasons. It is considered that the specific outcome has successfully been met.

S8.

(1) Accessways, driveways and vehicle parking –

(a) is safe and convenient for residents and visitors;

(b) has an appropriate number of car parking spaces to cater for residents and visitors;

(d) is compatible with the overall building design in terms of height, roof form, detail, materials and colours;

(e) includes clearly defined manoeuvring and service areas;

(f) incorporates landscaping to minimise the expanse of hard surfaces;

(g) are clearly distinguished from pedestrian entries and paths through design, finish or location;

(h) are surfaced with materials that provide stormwater infiltration or are designed to drain to adjacent landscaped areas, other than turning areas.

P8.

(1) The use complies with –

(d) the maximum straight alignment of a driveway is 20 metres; (g) the building setback accommodates a tandem car park space on the driveway for each dwelling unit.

c. This has not been achieved however the garages are only single for each unit and there is sufficient articulation of the dwellings to ensure they do not dominate the design. Additionally, the garages of the front units are not seen from the street and the garages of the rear units are located over 30m from the street and the view to them is obscured by the front units. They are therefore not considered to dominate the streetscape or building form and the proposal is considered

d. The driveway exceeds 20m however traffic calming devices have been provided to ensure that vehicle movements and safe. A condition of approval will ensure that additional landscaped areas are provided to reduce the visual impact of the gun-barrel driveway.

g. A tandem parking space is not considered necessary as the parking requirements of the RPS have been met on-site.

Overlay Codes

The subject site is affected by the following overlays of the Redlands Planning Scheme:

Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay – Council’s mapping indicates that the site is between 5 and 20 metres AHD. Minimal cut and fill is required as the site is relatively flat. The self assessable requirements will be conditioned.

General/Other Development Code(s)

The application has been assessed against the following codes:

Access and Parking Code;
Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill Code;
Infrastructure Works Code;
Landscape Code; and
Stormwater Management Code.

The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of the above codes with conditions pertaining to the approval given below.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontage to Homer Street.

Homer Street:

Currently kerb and channel is present along the entire frontage of the site. Other than direct access works, no additional road works are required as a result of this development.
There is not an existing footpath along the frontage of the site. A 2.0 metre wide concrete footpath will be required as a condition of development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1. Dimensions and layouts of the car parking spaces generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

1 space is required per dwelling along with 1 visitor space per 4 dwelling units.

Stormwater

It is believed that no stormwater problems will result for upstream or downstream properties, or for the site itself.

The nominated point of discharge is Homer Street.

Pollution Prevention

Council’s Pollution Prevention Unit has assessed the proposal and considers it satisfactory. Conditions of approval have been supplied.

Environmental Assessment

Council’s Environmental Assessment unit has assessed the proposal and considers it satisfactory. T he only significant environmental issue is the treatment of stormwater from vehicle movement areas. The applicant has made provision for treatment and an appropriate condition has been set.

Landscaping

Council’s Landscape unit has assessed the proposal and considers it satisfactory.

Redland Waste

The Council’s Waste Management Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory.

Referral Agencies

The application did not trigger any referral requirements under the IDAS.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Multiple Dwellings x4 on an allotment zoned Medium Density Residential and located at 23-23A Homer Street, Cleveland, has been assessed against the requirements of the Redlands Planning Scheme. The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme and compatible with the surrounding character and consistent with future intents for this area. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved and a development permit be granted, subject to conditions.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Copies of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Ogilvie of Division 1 on 3 September 2007 and 16 October 2007. Cr Ogilvie had no objections to the proposal.

Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling (x4) at 38 Channel Street, Cleveland. Wiltshire Stevens Architects. (MC010220)

RPS Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Land Area: 809 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received an application seeking a development permit for a Multiple Dwelling X4 on the subject site.

The application has been assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme (including the relevant codes (and planning scheme policies)) and all other applicable policies and standards. The proposal is considered to be adequately complying, hence it is recommended that the application be approved and a Development Permit be granted, subject to conditions.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The proposed development is for the construction of a townhouse development consisting of four (4) dwellings.

Site

The site is located on the western side of Channel directly opposite Longland Street.

Surrounding Area

Directly adjoining the site to the north is a large townhouse (75) development. The remainder of Channel Street to the north and east is currently dominated by single detached dwelling houses.

Amenity and Character

It is not anticipated that the proposed development will impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

The subject land is located within the Urban Footprint in the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026.

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The subject site is included in the Medium Density Residential zone (sub-area 1) of the Redlands Planning Scheme (RPS). The proposed use is defined as a Multiple Dwelling which:

“Means the use of premises for three or more dwelling units on a lot, where each dwelling unit has a separate entrance. The term includes townhouses, villas and terrace housing”.

The level of assessment table within the Medium Density Residential zone code indicates that a Material Change of Use for a Multiple Dwelling is code assessable development if:

The premises are:

800m² or more in area;
Has a frontage of 20 metres or more;

The building height does not exceed that detailed in Table 2 – Maximum Overall Building Height.

The height of the proposed Multiple Dwelling does not exceed the height limit specified in Table 2 and is considered to adequately comply with the probable solutions and specific outcomes of the code.

Use Code

As mentioned above the proposed use has been defined as a Multiple Dwelling in the RPS, hence the relevant use code is the Multiple Dwelling Code. In general terms, the proposed development complies with the code, except for a minor issue of non-compliance with performance criteria 3. Table 1 (below) details the setback requirements for Multiple Dwellings.

Table 1 - Building Siting and Design Requirements

Standard	Requirement
Overall Building Height	As specified in relevant zone code
Floor Height of Highest Habitable Room	(1) As specified in relevant zone code; or (2) As specified in Table 2 - Maximum Height to the Top of the Floor Level of Highest Habitable Room
Site Coverage	(1) A maximum of - (a) in the Urban Residential Zone - sub-areas UR1 and UR2 - (i) 1 storey - 35 percent; or (ii) 2 storey - 30 percent; or (b) in the Medium Density Residential Zone - 40 percent; or (c) in the Medium Density Residential Zone - sub-areas MDR1 and MDR2 - 45 percent; or (2) As specified in relevant zone code
Front Setback	(1) A minimum of 6 metres
Side Setback	(1) A minimum of - (a) in the Urban Residential Zone - sub-areas UR1and UR2 - (i) 1.5 metres on the ground floor; (ii) 6 metres on 2nd or 3rd storey, or 4 metres where window sills are 1.5 metres above floor level and balconies are screened; or (b) in the Medium Density Residential Zone - (i) where the building is - 1. less than 4.5 metres in height - 1.5 metres; 2. between 4.5 metres and 7.5 metres in height - 2 metres; 3. greater than 7.5 metres in height - 2 metres plus 0.5 metres for every 3 metres or part thereof by which the building exceeds 7.5 metres; (c) in the above Zones and where open space is located in the side setback - (i) 4 metres for the extent of private open space; (ii) 5 metres for the extent of communal open space; or (d) as specified in relevant zone code
Rear Setback	(1) A minimum of - (a) in the Urban Residential Zone - sub-areas UR1 and UR2 - (i) 4 metres on ground floor; (ii) 6 metres on 2nd storey or 4 metres where window sills are 1.5 metres above floor level and balconies are screened; (b) in the Medium Density Residential Zone - 4 metres; (c) in the above Zones and where open space is located in the rear setback a - (i) 4 metres for the extent of private open space; (ii) 5 metres for the extent of communal open space

The proposed front building setback to Channel Street is 4 metres to the outermost projection of an open balcony on the upper level. The bulk of the building is setback the required 6 metres and is considered to meet the relevant specific outcome of the Multiple Dwelling code. The applicant has provided the following points in support of the relevant specific outcome:

The main building line of the front 2 townhouses is 6m from the alignment except a small upper level ensuite projection. These balconies add to the character of the building and enhance the streetscape appearance. They also increase street surveillance as well as providing an equitable balance between the sizes of the front and rear courtyards.

The proposal also includes a built to boundary single garage (on the boundary) for each of the townhouses which doesn’t meet the with the 1.5 metre side setback specified in the above table. By placing the single garages (which do not exceed 3.5 metres in length) on the boundaries the internal driveway widths can be widened to better accommodate manoeuvring.

It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed the relevant specific outcomes and the design of the building further complements the specific outcomes sought by the code.

Overlay Code

The following overlays apply to the subject property and are as follows:

Acid Sulfate Soils.

The proposed development complies with the acceptable solutions of the Acid Sulfate Soils overlay code as they will not be removing more than 100m³ of soil or sediment or filling more than 500m3.

General Code(s)

The application required assessment against the following General Codes:

Access and Parking Code;
Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill Code;
Infrastructure Works Code;
Landscape Code;
Stormwater Management Code.

The application has been assessed by the relevant technical officer and is considered to comply with the above codes. An application and subsequent approval for Operational Works - Compliance Assessment (Landscaping & Engineering) is required prior to the use commencing on site to ensure compliance with the relevant standards.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontage to Channel Street.

Channel Street:

Currently kerb and channel is present along the entire frontage of the site. Other than direct access works no additional road works are required as a result of this development.
There is not an existing footpath along the frontage of the site. A 2.5 metre wide concrete footpath will be required as a condition of development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1. Dimensions and layouts of the car parking spaces generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

1 space is required per dwelling along with 1 visitor space per 4 dwelling units. The applicant has made provisions for 1 visitor per dwelling unit.

Stormwater

The provided stormwater management plan indicates that the development will not create a nuisance to neighbours and is in accordance with the Specific Outcomes of the Stormwater Management Code. It is believed that no stormwater problems will result for upstream or downstream properties, or for the site itself.

The nominated points of discharge are to the kerb and channel of Channel Street (for roof runoff) and via an existing stub to the stormwater inlet pit in neighbouring property (for surface runoff). In this instance, written permission from the neighbouring property is not required prior to commencement of the use, due to an insignificant difference in flows between pre and post development. A stormwater drainage plan has been conditioned.

Sewerage

There is an existing sewerage connection to the site.

Water Supply

A water supply is currently available to the site.

Electricity Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate electricity services without undue concern.

Telecommunication Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate telecommunication services without undue concern.

Pollution Prevention

The Council’s Pollution Prevention Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory.

Environmental Assessment

The Environmental Assessment Team advised they had no requirements with respect to this application.

Landscape Architecture

The Senior Landscape Architect has assessed the application and applied relevant conditions for the development permit.

Referral Agencies

The application did not trigger any referral requirements under the IDAS.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme, and applicable codes and planning scheme policies.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved and a development permit be granted, subject to conditions.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Copies of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Ogilvie of Division 2 on 19 April 2007 and 22 November,2006.

Development application for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling at 104 Wynyard Street, Cleveland. Redband Pty Ltd As Trustee, Huskie Pty Ltd As Trustee. (MC010784)

RPS Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Land Area: 1816 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council has received an application seeking a development permit for Multiple Dwelling (x8) on the subject site.

The proposal consists of eight (8) dwelling units, comprised in three separate, two storey buildings. Site cover is to be 40%. There is a lack of open space for Unit 1, with only 12m² on ground floor and 15m² on first floor. The applicant has successfully argued that it complies with the Specific outcome relating to solar access, functionality and amenity.

The application has been assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme (including the relevant codes (and planning scheme policies)) and all other applicable policies and standards. The proposal is considered to be in compliance with the documents. It is recommended that the application be approved and a Development Permit be granted, subject to conditions.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a Multiple Dwelling, consisting of eight (8) townhouses, in three separate, two-storey buildings. Each unit has a double garage, three-bedrooms and sufficient open space (minimum of 25m²).

Site

The subject site is made up of two lots, located on the eastern side of Wynyard Street, Cleveland. Each existing lot is currently improved by single detached dwelling, which are intended to be removed, subject to approval for Multiple Dwelling. The site is generally flat, with a slight slope toward the south-eastern corner (rear) of the allotment.

Surrounding Area

The site is within a residential area, with Urban residential to the east and medium density to the north, south and west of the site. The general area is dominated by single detached dwellings on large lots, interspersed with multiple dwellings (townhouses and duplexes).

Amenity and Character

The general area has a range of built forms and tenure arrangements, reflecting the age of the area.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

The subject land is located within the Urban Footprint in the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026.

The Urban Footprint identifies land to provide for the region's urban development needs to 2026. The Urban Footprint includes existing urban areas and greenfield areas potentially suitable for future urban development. The area includes sufficient land to accommodate the full range of acceptable urban uses, such as housing, industry, business, infrastructure, community facilities and urban open spaces projected to be required over the next 20 years.

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The site is within the Medium Density Residential Zone. Multiple Dwellings are consistent form of development in the zone, subject to Council approval. The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the Code and is considered to comply with the general intent.

Use Code

The proposal requires assessment against the Multiple Dwelling Code. The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the Code and is considered to comply with the general intent. The following areas of non-compliance with the probable solutions are set out below.

P7 (1) of the code requires 20% of the site to be provided as private open space areas. Approximately 18% has been provided. Each unit has an open space area that is of a sufficient area that will allow the space to be functional, is accessed form main living areas and is capable of receiving adequate sunlight and therefore complies with the Specific Outcome.

P7 (2) of the code requires private open space to be located behind the building line. The private open space for units 2, 3 and 4 are located at the front of the building, however this is due to site constraints such as internal access requirements. The front is considered the best position as it is away from the internal street and will be screened from the street by the required landscape buffer. Further, to comply with front setbacks required by the code, there would not be adequate space behind each building to incorporate amount of POS required. It is considered that the front setback should incorporate POS as the alternative is to reduce front setback which would be detrimental to streetscape amenity.

Overlay Code

The site is affected by the following overlays:

Acid Sulfate Soils

The surface elevation of the site is between 5m and 20m AHD. There are no operational works proposed to be undertaken at or below 5m AHD and therefore complies with the self assessable criteria set out in section 5.1.8 of the code.

General Code(s)

The following general codes were considered during the assessment of the proposal:

Access and Parking Code;
Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill code;
Infrastructure Works Code;
Landscape code;
Stormwater Management Code.

The relevant internal officers have assessed the application against the requirements of the abovementioned codes and applied relevant conditions.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontage to Wynyard Street.

Wynyard Street:

Currently kerb and channel is present along the entire frontage of the site. Other than direct access works no additional road works are required as a result of this development.
There is a existing footpath along the frontage of the site. A 2.0 metre wide shared concrete footpath will be required as a condition of development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

2 spaces are required per dwelling and the applicant has provided provisions for 2 spaces per dwelling. 4 visitor spaces as well for provision for 2 boat spaces are required by the Planning Scheme. The applicant has provided for two boat spaces, three visitors spaces and 1 service Bay. The service bay is not required by the Access and Parking Schedule, therefore the proposal complies with the specific outcomes of the Access and Parking Code.

Dimensions and layouts of the car parking spaces generally comply with AS2890.1.

Stormwater

The provided stormwater management plan indicates that the development will not create a nuisance to neighbours. The site will be filled to allow runoff to be collected to the proposed system and eventually discharged to the street. It is believed that no

stormwater problems will result for upstream or downstream properties, or for the site itself.

The nominated point of discharge is Wynyard Street.

Sewerage

There is an existing sewerage connection to the site.

Water Supply

A water supply is currently available to the site.

Electricity Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate electricity services without undue concern.

Telecommunication Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate telecommunication services without undue concern.

Pollution Prevention

The Council’s Pollution Prevention Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory.

Referral Agencies

The application did not trigger any referral requirements under the IDAS.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme, and applicable codes and planning scheme policies.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved and a development permit be granted, subject to conditions.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

A copy of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Ogilvie of Division 2 on 24 August 2007 and 9 November 2007.

Development application for a material change of use for an extension to agriculture at 466-486 Serpentine Creek Road, Redland Bay. Mr G.R. Spink. (MC010885)

RPS Zoning: Investigation Zone

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Bushfire Hazard

Bushland Habitat

Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained

Road and Rail Noise

Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay

Land Area: 82 230 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council has received an application seeking a development permit for a Material Change of Use (Extension to Agriculture) on the subject site.

The proposal includes 7 shade houses and 1 green house, which will result in a total of 13 shade houses and total of 2 greenhouses. Five of the shade houses and one greenhouse have already been erected and are subject to Show Cause Notice. The shade houses are setback appropriately from front, side and rear boundaries. Site cover is proposed to be less than 2.5% (as shade houses do not form the calculations)

The application has been assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme (including the relevant codes (and planning scheme policies)) and all other applicable policies and standards. The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with these planning instruments. It is recommended that the application be approved and a Development Permit be granted, subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND

A number of shade houses have been constructed and are subject to show case notices (SC002873, SC002874 and SC002875). The proposal seeks to legitimise the existing unlawful building works and subsequent intensification of the use through this application.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

It is proposed to intensify the existing Agriculture use (Nursery) by increasing the number of shade houses and green houses on site. 7 shade houses and 1 greenhouse are proposed as part of this application.

Site

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Serpentine Creek Road at Redland Bay. It is currently used for Agriculture purpose and is currently improved by 6 shade houses, 1 greenhouse, workshop and offices. There is also a dam in the middle of the site which forms part of the overall stormwater management. The site is heavily vegetated along the road frontage and within the side setbacks.

Surrounding Area

Area to the west of Serpentine Creek road is currently vacant bushland, with similar Agriculture uses contained on the eastern side of the road. Some single detached dwellings on large conservation lots are also within close proximity to the site.

Amenity and Character

The general area is bushland and agriculture type uses. The area is within the Investigation Area and therefore requires further studies to identify appropriate uses.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

The subject land is located within the Investigation Area in the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026.

The Investigation Area comprises a series of sites that provide a potential land bank for future medium- to longer-term urban development.

Not all of the land in each of these sites will necessarily be suitable for urban development. However, it is important to protect these sites from intervening and inappropriate uses whilst suitable studies are conducted to assess potential development options and the best long-term use.

The proposal is not considered an urban activity and is therefore compatible with the intent of the Investigation Area.

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The subject site is within the Investigation Zone of the Redlands Planning Scheme. Agriculture is a consistent use, requiring Council approval. The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the code and is considered to comply with the relevant specific outcomes.

The proposed shade structures do not meet the probable solution requirements of setbacks. As the site is in excess of 2 ha, a minimum of 10m from all boundaries is required, if screened by planted landscaping. The existing structures are sited 5m from the side and rear boundaries and are heavily vegetated. The proposed structures are to be located in line with the existing shade houses and will also be screened by vegetation. The alternative proposal complies with the specific outcome as the setbacks are consistent with the maintenance of a rural landscape.

Use Code

The proposed use is “Agriculture” for the purposes of Redlands Planning Scheme, which his defined as:

“Means the use of premises for the production of horticulture or livestock. The term includes packing or handling of the raw produce to a standard suitable for transport from the premises, outbuildings and other ancillary facilities.”

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Agriculture Code and is considered to be generally in accordance with the document.

Overlay Code

The site is affected by the following overlays:

Acid Sulphate Soils: The subject site has a surface elevation between 5m and 20m AHD. There is no excavation or fill proposed below 5m AHD and therefore the proposal complies with the acceptable solutions in section 5.1.8 of the code.

Bushfire Hazard: The front portion of the site is identified as having a medium bushfire risk. No development is occurring within this section of the site and as such, is considered to comply with the acceptable solutions outlined in section 5.3.8 of the code.

Habitat Protection – Bushland Habitat: The rear portion of the site is identified within the Enhancement Link. The environmental assessment team has assessed the proposal and applied relevant conditions.

Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land: The site is affected by flood prone land. The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the code and is considered to comply.

Road and Rail Noise Impacts: The site is contiguous to a State Controlled road and is therefore subject to road noise impacts. Agriculture is exempt from complying with the requirements of the code.

Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay: The site has an identified natural drainage line through the property, due to the existing dam. Appropriate buffer treatments, in accordance with the code will be conditioned accordingly.

General Code(s)

The following general codes are triggered for assessment:

Access and Parking;
Infrastructure Works;
Stormwater Management.

The DA Engineer has assessed the proposal against the requirements of the code, and is considered to be generally in accordance with the documents (see below for details).

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontage to Serpentine Creek Road.

Serpentine Creek Road:

The road is classified as an Arterial road and it is under the control of Main Roads. There is no Kerb and Channel or defined footpath on the road verge. Other than direct access works no additional road works are required as a result of this development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

An agricultural use has no specific requirements in terms of the number of parking spaces; the proposed development provides accommodation for 18 vehicles. The proposal has enough open space to accommodate a turning area for a Heavy Rigid Vehicle to leave the premises in forward gear and has been conditioned accordingly.

Plans have been endorsed with the relevant dimensioning in order to comply with the requirements of the Access and Parking Code as well as AS 2890.2

Stormwater

The proposed development discharges the roofwater as well as surface run-off to the existing dams contained in the site. The provided plans indicate that the development will not create a nuisance to neighbours and is in accordance with the Specific Outcomes of the Stormwater Management Code. It is believed that no stormwater problems will result for upstream or downstream properties, or for the site itself.

The nominated points of discharge are the dams on the site

Sewerage

There is not an existing sewerage connection to the site.

Water Supply

The site is not connected to the water reticulation supply system.

Electricity Services

The proposal will have a minimum impact on the existing electricity service; a supply certificate will be required at operational works stage.

Telecommunication Services

The proposal will have a minimum impact on the existing telecommunications service; a supply certificate will be required at operational works stage.

Pollution Prevention

The pollution prevention team have assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. Appropriate conditions have been applied.

Environmental Assessment

The site is totally used for nursery activities with no real natural environment existing. A farm dam covers approximately an eighth of the site with the associated water course running through the western third. The planning scheme designates an Enhancement Link along the eastern boundary over existing shade structures and nursery facilities.

Advice was sought from Land Use Planning regarding future use given the site is within an Investigation Area zone. Limited comment was available as the future planning is in early stages. The enhancement of the water course by initiating creation of a riparian zone and a wetland downstream of the dam were considered an alternative which would connect with existing bushland to the south and has a possibility for future expansion to the north and were acceptable to the applicant. The wetland would assist with water quality control in the event that nutrient rich waters from the nursery were to discharge from the dam. Conditions have been applied to ensure this occurs.

Referral Agencies

The application required referral to Department of Main Road (Concurrence Agency) as the site is on land contiguous to a state controlled road (namely, Serpentine Creek Road). The department issued a response (with no requirements) on 6 November 2007.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme, and applicable codes and planning scheme policies.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved and a development permit be granted, subject to conditions.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

A copy of the original proposal was provided to Councillor Burns of Division 5 on 8 October 2007. Councillor Burns did not raise any objections to the proposal.

Development application for a material change of use for an extension to Aged Care Facility (Aged Persons and Special Needs Housing) at 55-61 Hamilton Street, Redland Bay. Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd. (MC010420)

RPS Zoning: Urban Residential

Zoning Sub-Area: UR1

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Road and Rail Noise

Land Area: 7026 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received an application seeking a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Impact Assessment) for Aged Persons & Special Needs Housing (extension to an existing Aged Care Facility) on an allotment zoned Urban Residential, on land at 55-61 Hamilton Street Redland Bay and 17-19 Weinam St, Redland Bay.

The proposal, consisting of 39 units in a three storey building on a 7026m² allotment, has been assessed by relevant internal assessment teams, all of whom are satisfied with the proposed design. The application was made in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and did not require referral to any external agency. The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and one submission was received.

The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Redlands Planning Scheme, including the overlays triggered by the application, and is considered to be in compliance with the Scheme. The proposal complies with the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026 and the proposed use is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal complies with the intents of the Overlay Codes triggered by the application. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted a Development Permit, subject to conditions.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

The application was publicly notified in accordance with the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. One (1) submission has been received (Refer to Section 4.0 of this report for details of the grounds of submissions).

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The proposal is for the extension of the existing Aged Persons Housing development located at 55-61 Hamilton Street onto the adjacent property at 17-19 Weinam Street. The combined site area of the two allotments is 7026m² with the lots described as Lot 1 on SP 169111 (Hamilton Street) and Lot 2 on SP 115173 (Weinam Street).

The proposed extension provides apartment style living provided over 3 storeys within an ‘L shaped’ building. Vehicular access to the site is gained entirely via Weinam Street, with carparking areas in the form of a double level car park provided along this boundary of the site.

39 Units have been included in the design and a kitchen, dining room and common room have been provided on the ground floor. A pool has been provided on the Weinam Street side of the site. The proposal will have a maximum height of 12.1 metres above natural ground level. External building materials will consist of walls constructed of rendered brickwork materials with the roof being protected with metal sheeting. The total floor area of the proposed extension will be approximately 3087.7m².

The proposed building is sited six (6) metres from the Pitt Street front boundary, three (3) metres from the northern side boundary and ten (10) metres from the Weinam Street front boundary.

Site

The site is located on the northern side of Weinam Street, Redland Bay, and has frontages to both Pitt and Hamilton Streets to the west and east respectively. The eastern portion of the site is currently occupied by an existing aged persons housing development (which this application proposes to extend), with the western portion of the site being vacant. The land has a very mild slope with a slight fall to the rear. The allotment is currently cleared and not listed as having environmental significance. Drainage from the allotment is to the parkland at the north of the property.

Surrounding Area

The adjacent land directly to the north of the site is grassed parkland zoned Open Space and includes a drainage line. Land to the west is dedicated as Conservation and is separated from the subject land by Pitt Street. The land is currently grassed open space and includes a natural drainage line. Land to the south on the opposite side of Weinam Street is zoned Medium Density Residential and is predominantly occupied by single detached dwellings. A Queensland Police Service building is located to the north-east of the site (opposite side of Hamilton Street), with the surrounding property to the north-east zoned Open Space.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

This application has been made in accordance with Chapter 3 (Integrated Development Assessment System, IDAS) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and constitutes an application for impact assessment for a material change of use under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

sufficient land to accommodate the full range of acceptable urban uses, such as housing, industry, business, infrastructure, community facilities and urban open spaces projected to be required over the next 20 years.

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code (Refer to Appendix B)

The subject land is zoned Urban Residential and is within Sub Area UR1. Aged Persons & Special Needs Housing is a permitted form of development in this zone subject to

Council approval - The application requires impact assessment as it exceeds the height limit of 8.5m required for the application to remain code assessable. The application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Redlands Planning Scheme and is considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Residential Zone Code. The following areas of non-compliance with the prescriptive measures of the Code exist however the achievement of the specific outcomes has been successfully demonstrated by the applicant:

Use Code (Refer to Appendix C)

An assessment of the development proposal against the prescriptive measures of the Aged Persons & Special Needs Housing Code is set out in Appendix C. The application generally complies with the acceptable solutions outlined in the Code. Conditions pertaining to the approval are given below. The following areas of non-compliance with the prescriptive measures of the Code exist however the achievement of the specific outcomes has been successfully demonstrated by the applicant.

Specific Outcomes

Probable Solutions

Officer’s Comment

S2.1

(1) The height of buildings and structures maintain a low-rise built form by -

(a) being compatible with the existing streetscape;

(b) adopting the predominant height of surrounding buildings;

P2.1

(1) Overall building height is less than 8.5 metres, 2 storeys, above ground level;

The applicant originally proposed a 3 storey building with a 10m maximum height. They addressed S2.1 arguing that:

The subject land is a stand-alone development site in that it has physical separation to existing and future development on all sides by way of park and roads therefore additional height will have minimal impact.

There is no clear streetscape characteristic established along the Pitt St frontage.

The development as seen by commuters travelling north along Pitt St will appear as a 2 storey building given the slope of the land.

For the Weinam St frontage, the subject land sits well below existing residential development on adjoining properties to the south therefore reducing the impact of the additional height.

The additional height when viewed from an easterly direction will be effectively screened by the existing extent of the aged persons housing.

The additional height allows for a reduced site cover, larger setbacks and therefore larger landscaped buffer areas to the boundaries of the site thus mitigating the impact of the built form.

Future development on designated medium density land to the south of the subject land allows buildings to a height of 3 stories and 13m therefore generating a streetscape that is characterised by low-rise development at 3 storeys.

These arguments were accepted by Council and in the information request issued to the applicant, it was suggested that the roof pitch be increased (under the understanding that this would again increase the roof height) for amenity reasons. The applicant complied with Council’s suggestion with the height of the building increased to 12.1m. The above mentioned justification is still considered acceptable and relevant. Minimal overshadowing from the proposed development has been demonstrated by shadow diagrams.

It is considered that the applicant has successfully met the specific outcome. The proposed additional height will not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties or the streetscape and is in line with the character of future development intended by the zoning of the surrounding area.

S3.

(1) Layout and design enhances built form of the surrounding streetscape by -

(a) contributing to the establishment of an attractive streetscape in new areas;

(b) ensuring the use addresses the street frontage;

(c) varying the built form appearance of each dwelling unit to create a sense of individual identity within an integrated and coordinated design and layout;

(d) reducing building bulk by a combination of verandahs, recesses and variation in materials and building form;

(e) elevations using a variety of materials, colours and/or textures between levels;

(f) roofs being pitched, articulated, gabled or provide other features to avoid single plane rooflines;

(g) buildings on sloping sites being designed to produce a stepped pattern involving roof ridges, guttering, balustrade and floor levels;

(h) where the built form is taller or wider than the type of buildings expected in the street, the use is articulated into clearly distinguishable parts, similar in scale to existing housing so that individual dwelling units can be identified from the street/accessway;

(i) ensuring building height and site coverage is consistent with the proposed height and scale in the locality;

(j) ensuring setbacks complement the existing streetscape and maximise private open space areas, privacy, solar access and provide for service areas;

P3.

(1) The use complies with the following requirements -

(a) building height, site coverage and setbacks are in accordance with Table 1 -Building Siting and Design Requirements;

The proposal does not comply with the height requirements of this table which state that heights are limited to those specified in the zone code and that the Maximum Height to the Top of the Floor Level of Highest Habitable Room is to be 3.5 metres (2 storey). As justified above in relation to the zone code requirements, the proposal is considered to meet the specific outcome which states that building height and site coverage is consistent with the proposed height and scale in the locality. Additionally, Council suggested that the applicant increase the pitch of the roof (to comply with S3-f regarding roofs) which increased the height of the dwelling from 10m to 12.1m.

Site coverage of the entire development is 32.2%. The zone code allows 50% site coverage. Table 1 of the use code requires that site coverage be limited to 35% for 1 storey buildings and 30% for 2 storey buildings. No site coverage limit is detailed for 3 storey buildings however the proposed site coverage is considered consistent with existing development in the area and maintains sufficient areas of open space, setbacks, landscaping and services. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the specific outcome.

Overlay Codes

The subject site is affected by the following overlays of the Redlands Planning Scheme:

Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay – The majority of the site is located below 5 metres AHD. Minimal excavation and fill is required by the proposed development. The self assessable requirements will be conditioned. A management plan will be required if these self assessable requirements are not met.

Road and Rail Noise Impacts Overlay – The site is within a road noise buffer area. Council’s pollution prevention team has reviewed the acoustic report provided to Council and provided conditions of approval to ensure that road noise issues have been effectively addressed.

Waterways and Wetlands Overlay – The north-western portion of the site is within a waterways buffer. Council’s environmental assessment team have provided conditions of approval relevant to the code.

General Codes

The application has been assessed against the following codes:

Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Domestic Driveway Crossover Code ;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill Code;
Infrastructure Works Code; and
Stormwater Management Code.

The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of the above codes with conditions pertaining to the approval given below.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has three street frontages to Pitt Street, Weinam Street and Hamilton St.

Pitt Street:

There is no footpath along the frontage of the site. A 2.5 metre wide shared concrete footpath connecting to Weinam Street will be required as a condition of development.

Weinam Street

Kerb and Channel will be required to be constructed along the proposed cul-de sac road works for this development.
Construct where required a 2.5 metre shared concrete footpath along the proposed cul-de sac for this street.

Hamilton Street

There is an existing Kerb and Channel as well as concrete footpath along the frontage for this road. No further road works along this road frontage is required for this development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

For dependant units 1 space is required per 4 beds plus 1 space per employee and 1 space for the manager. The proposal comprises 58 beds in total necessitating 15 carparking spaces for residential use plus manager and employees. The proposal provides for 22 carparking spaces, this amount is considered sufficient for the proposed works.

Dimensions and layouts of the car parking spaces generally comply with AS2890.1.

Stormwater

The provided stormwater management plan indicates that the development will not create a nuisance to neighbours and is in accordance with the Specific Outcomes of the

Stormwater Management Code. It is believed that no stormwater problems will result for upstream or downstream properties, or for the site itself.

The nominated point of discharge is through the north to Council Land and Road Reserve

Sewerage

There is existing sewerage infrastructure on Weinam and Pitt Streets.

Water Supply

A water supply is currently available to the site.

Electricity Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate electricity services without undue concern.

Telecommunication Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate telecommunication services without undue concern.

Pollution Prevention

The Council’s Pollution Prevention Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. The officer involved has provided the following comments:

“Original Acoustic report provided: Traffic Noise Impact Study Palm Lakes Retirement Village – Redland Bay Prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd, Prepared for Walter Elliot Holdings, Document No. 70Q-06-0108-TRP-209538-0 Dated 29.09.06. Revised acoustic report requested as original did not take into consideration the carpark. Revised Acoustic Report prepared by Vipac, Palm Lakes Retirement Village – Redland Bay Traffic Noise Impact Study Document No. 70Q-06-0108-TRP-209538-3 Dated 7 August 2007.”

Redland Waste

The Council’s Redland Waste Unit has assessed the proposal and considered it satisfactory. Conditions of approval have been provided.

Redland Water

The Council’s Redland Water Unit has assessed the proposal and stated that standard conditions should apply.

Environmental Assessment

The Council’s Environmental Assessment Unit has assessed the proposal and provided conditions of approval.

Landscaping

A revised Concept Landscape Plan (Yurrah Dwg No: WD.01 Issue D, dated 23/07/07) has been provided to Council as part of the information request. While in general this concept plan is an improvement on an earlier landscape plan proposal, a number of issues have been identified during the final stages of assessment. These relate primarily to access, safety, security and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design).

In addition, there are features that are identified on the Site Plan by Interworks Architects (Dwg No: SD 1.01) that indicate a different layout/dimensions to that shown on the Concept Landscape Plan, such as the courtyard area.

Comments marked in ``red’’ on the Concept Landscape Plan will need to be reflected on a revised Landscape Plan, with appropriate solutions proposed in order to meet

requirements and conditions of approval at the time of Operational Works – Compliance Assessment (Landscaping).

Referral Agencies

The application did not trigger any referral requirements under the IDAS.

GROUNDS OF SUBMISSIONS

The application was publicly notified from 23 August 2007 to 18 September 2007. During this time, one submission was received in relation to the application.

Submission 1 – Received by Council on 12 September 2007Issues Raised		Applicant’s Response	Officer’s Response
Potential to adversely impact on access to submitter’s property in Weinam St	“The vehicular access to Mr Beal’s house will not be affected except the driveway will be altered to match into the roadworks associated with construction of the cul de sac. These details will be shown on any future OPW applications and all works will be completed at our expense.”		The proposal will require operational works approval for engineering. The approval of this stage of the development will be subject to the applicant ensuring that access to the property in question will not be adversely impacted.
Potential to adversely impact the present landscaping (7 trees and turf) in the road reserve which the submitter claims they largely maintain	“The present landscaping in the Weinam St road reserve as shown on the attached photograph will not be affected by the roadworks as the new cul de sac will not go past the end of the existing bitumen.”		While the new cul-de-sac at the end of Weinam St is proposed to not go past the end of the existing bitumen, the applicant will need to ensure that appropriate tree protection methods are in place. This will be a condition of development approval noted under Operational Works – Compliance Assessment (Landscaping).
Potential to adversely impact the drainage pipes directing water from the submitter’s roof to the road kerb	“…any changes to the roofwater pipes will be shown on our OPW plans and any changes will be completed at our expense.”		The proposal will require operational works approval for engineering. The approval of this stage of the development will be subject to the applicant ensuring that there is no adverse impact on drainage pipes
Impact on amenity at night from vehicle headlights	“As the complex will be secured from 5 pm to 7 am we believe their will be little or no vehicle movement at night to disturb neighbours. There may be the occasional staff movement or ambulance transfer but these would not cause any adverse influence. Also because Mr Beal’s house is elevated he should further isolated from vehicle headlights.” The letter provided by the traffic engineer also states that “the likelihood of …trips being at night is relatively low due to the age of the residents. It is highly unlikely that there will be any noticeable disturbance by vehicular headlights”.		The applicant has addressed this issue.
Potential to adversely impact on parking in Weinam and surrounding streets – parking needs to be regulated and controlled. Problems with intersection at the Weinam/Hamilton St intersection – parking on both sides of street, pedestrian safety, narrow street.	The applicant has submitted a letter from a traffic engineer to address the applicant’s concerns. Illegal parking issues need to be addressed by Local Laws officers or the QLD police. “The addition of a 40 unit retirement village will have negligible impact on the existing parking issues as the proposed development is providing the required car parking on site”. The proposed development is “expected to generate in the order of 8 vehicle trip-ends on the adjacent road network during typical weekday peak hours. This minimal traffic increase will show little or no change in the current traffic on Weinam St”.		Parking has been provided at the specified rate required by the RPS. It is therefore not expected that on-street parking will be required for the proposed development. If there are existing parking problems in the area the submitter should be advised to contact Council to enquire about the potential of restricting on-street parking in this area (as this issue is considered separate from the proposed development).

CONCLUSION

The proposed Aged Persons & Special Needs Housing (extension to an existing Aged Care Facility) on land at 55-61 Hamilton Street Redland Bay and 17-19 Weinam St, Redland Bay, has been assessed against the requirements of the Redlands Planning Scheme. The location identified on the subject site for the proposal is considered compatible with the surrounding character and consistent with future intents for this area. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be granted a Development Permit by Council.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Copies of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Burns of Division 5 on 1 February 2007 and 21 August 2007. Cr Burns had no objections to the proposal.

Development application for a material change of use for a combined use – Bulky Goods Showroom / Retail Warehouse / Service Industry / Shop at 115-119 Russell Street, Cleveland. JMH Property Services. (MC010765)

RPS Zoning: Major Centre

Zoning Sub-Area: MC7

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Road and Rail Noise

Land Area: 3942 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received an application seeking a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Impact Assessment) for a combined use development (Bulky Goods Showroom/Retail Warehouse/Service Industry/Shop) on an allotment zoned Major Centre (Sub Area MC7), on land at 115-119 Russell Street, Cleveland.

The proposal, consisting of a two (2) storey building with four (4) individual tenancies on a 3942m² allotment, has been assessed by relevant internal assessment teams, all of whom are satisfied with the proposed design. The application was made in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and required referral to the Department of Main Roads and public consultation.

The proposal complies with the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026 and the proposed use is considered to be of a similar nature to that expected in the surrounding area. The proposal complies with the intents of the Overlay Codes triggered by the application. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted a Development Permit, subject to conditions. The applicant will be required to obtain a number of additional permits prior to construction of the proposed mixed use development.

CONSULTATION

The Development Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.

The application was publicly notified in accordance with the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. No submissions were received (Refer to Section 4.0 of this report).

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a two (2) storey, eight metre high building with a gross floor area of 1440m². The building is to include four tenancies as follows:

	Size (m²)	Use
Tenancy 1	655	Retail Warehouse or Bulky Goods Showroom
Tenancy 2	263	Service Industry
Tenancy 3	237	Service Industry
Tenancy 4	285	Shop

The building is to be constructed of masonry walls and colorbond roof sheeting. Visual interest is provided on the street elevation through the provision of varied materials, features and finishes. A total of 43 car parking spaces have been provided on site and vehicle access to the site from Russell Street is located along the western boundary of the site.

Site

The site is currently occupied by a single storey building and associated car parking that have been previously used for the purpose of a Drive Through Restaurant (McDonald’s). The site is 3942m² in area and is not listed as having significant or protected vegetation. The site is relatively flat as a result of previous development on the site.

Surrounding Area

The surrounding sites are included in the Major Centre Zone, with sites located south of Russell Street being in sub area MC7, and those to the north of Russell Street being included in sub area MC3.

The site is surrounded by a mix of commercial uses, with the adjoining site to the east being occupied by a mechanical workshop and the adjoining site to the west occupied by a commercial development that includes services, shops and showrooms. A medical centre and gym currently exist opposite the site on Russell Street. The site to the rear is zoned Open Space and includes an open drain.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)

This application has been made in accordance with Chapter 3 (Integrated Development Assessment System, IDAS) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and constitutes an application for impact assessment for a material change of use under the Redlands Planning Scheme.

SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2026

State Planning Policies

There are no applicable State planning policies for this application.

Redlands Planning Scheme

Zone Code

The subject site is zoned Major Centre (sub area MC7). The proposed uses of Bulky Goods Showroom, Retail Warehouse and Service Industry are Code Assessable in this zone sub-area.

The proposed Shop use is inconsistent in the zone sub-area as it has a gross floor area greater than 200m² (the proposed GFA is 285m²). A shop with a GFA of 200m² or less would be code assessable in the zone sub-area. The application for the combined uses is therefore impact assessable. The application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Specific Outcome S1.1 of the Major Centre Zone Code states that ‘Uses identified as inconsistent in Table 1 are not established in the zone’. In the initial planning report submitted to Council, the applicant stated that ‘Given the mix of uses, it is not considered that this is a major issue. The tenancy is likely to contain similar uses as the retail warehouse, but due to the 400m² GFA requirement cannot be defined as this’. In the information request, the applicant was advised that insufficient justification had been provided and was requested to provide sufficient planning grounds to support the application despite the inconsistency with the specific outcome. The applicant responded with the following:

“Given the mix of uses and the location of the development on the major centre fringe, the GFA of the proposed shop is considered acceptable, despite it being identified as inconsistent. The matter ultimately relates to a definitional issue, as the use cannot be defined as a Bulky Goods Showroom or Retail Warehouse due to a restriction of a minimum GFA of 400m². If the tenancy was greater than 400m² in area it would be able to be defined as a Retail Warehouse and the application would remain code assessable. Ultimately, the tenancy would still be used for a similar purpose regardless of tenancy size, given the types of uses expected in the location. It is likely that restricting a shop to 200m² is to combat a supermarket or similar being located in this area. In addition, the proposal complies with car parking and landscaping requirement, and the mix of uses and their tenancy sizes complies with Overall Outcome (3)(a)(iv)m. which states, “within sub-area MC7 – encourages a range of uses that supports the Cleveland Centre and which ordinarily cannot be located within a centre by the nature of the types of uses or their site coverage requirements”.”

The proposed shop use is considered to be consistent with the Code, as part of the overall mix of uses proposed, and it is not expected that the proposal will compete adversely with the Cleveland Centre (especially given its location away from the main town centre area).

The properties on the opposite side of Russell Street are within sub-area MC3. A new shop in this zone would be code assessable and would not be restricted in floor area (as it is in sub-area MC7). The minor inconsistency with the planning scheme (85m² of gross floor area over the consistent size) is not expected to have any adverse impact on the streetscape and is not expected to detract from the Cleveland Centre. As such, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Major Centre Zone Code.

Overlay Codes

The subject site is affected by the following overlays of the Redlands Planning Scheme:

Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay – The site is located between 5 and 20 metres AHD. No excavation of material at a level below RL5m AHD is expected to be required for the proposed development. Relevant conditions of approval have been included.

Road and Rail Noise Overlay – The majority of the site is located within a road noise buffer. Council’s Pollution Prevention Team has assessed the proposal and has provided conditions of approval relating to road noise to ensure the requirements of the code are effectively addressed.

General and Other Development Codes

The application has been assessed against the following codes:

Centre Design Code;
Access and Parking Code;
Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code;
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code;
Excavation and Fill Code;
Landscape Code;
Infrastructure Works Code; and
Stormwater Management Code.

The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of the above codes with conditions pertaining to the approval given below.

Engineering

Road Access and Required Road Frontage Works

The site has street frontages to Russell St, Cleveland

Russell St

Currently kerb and channel is present along the entire frontage of the site. Other than direct access works no additional road works are required as a result of this development.
There is an existing footpath along the frontage of the site. A 2.5 metre wide concrete footpath will be required as a condition of development.

Internal Traffic Movement and Car Parking

Internal traffic movements generally comply with AS2890.1. The design vehicle for this proposal is a Heavy Rigid Vehicle as the prevalent uses for the site required this vehicle to be considered for design purposes.

Car parking numbers are as per the Council’s requirements in that:

43 spaces are required for customers and employees. The application has provided the required number of carparking spaces. However, 2 spaces have been allocated to manoeuvring area in order to allow vehicles leaving the site in forward gear. The loss of 2 parking spaces is considered not to have a

detrimental effect on the parking demand for the use of the site. Furthermore there is provision for on-street parking along the frontage of the site.

Stormwater

It is believed that no stormwater problems will result for adjoining users of the site.

The nominated point of discharge is at existing system at the south-western side of the site an identified as an existing stormwater manhole on Dwg No. C01, Project No. 07-027 and titled Stormwater Management Plan by i³ Consulting Pty. Ltd, received by Council on 17 October 2007.

Sewerage

There is an existing sewerage connection to the site.

Water Supply

A water supply is currently available to the site.

Electricity Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate electricity services without undue concern.

Telecommunication Services

The subject land can be provided with appropriate telecommunication services without undue concern.

Pollution Prevention

The Pollution Prevention Team has assessed the proposal and has imposed conditions to be attached to any approval. The team commented that ‘the applicant has indicated that the daily operating hours are To Be Advised (TBA), therefore a noise management plan will be required so the applicant can indicate the maximum noise generated by various activities. It is unlikely given the zoning and the similar nature of the surrounding businesses that acoustic information will be required’.

Environmental Assessment

The applicant was asked to provide a concept plan indicating where stormwater quality treatment is intended, and the generic type(s) of devices to be used. The response was to have indicated the probable post-construction stormwater flow paths, including the discharge point. The response was to relate to treatment of contaminants generated from vehicle parking and movement areas. A modelling exercise focussing on the conventional parameters of nitrogen, phosphorous and suspended solids was not required.

The applicant’s reply (drawing 07-027 C01) indicates the flow paths and treatment location as asked, but refers to the treatment device only as a gross pollutant trap (GPT). This could mean a GPT for trapping paper and similar gross pollutants, or it could mean an oil separator generic type for trapping typical car park pollutants.

The applicant will be required to clarify the above, satisfy the requirement to treat material typically generated from car parks, and provide detailed drawings before Council is required to consider any application for operational works.

Waste Management

Redland Waste has assessed the application and imposed conditions to be attached to any approval.

Redland Water

Redland Water has assessed the application and requested that standard conditions be included in the decision notice.

Landscaping

The Senior Landscape Architect has assessed the application and applied relevant conditions to the development permit. A Landscape Concept Plan has been provided with the application. Nearly all the existing landscaping and vegetation is being retained on the site.

Architect/Urban Design

Council’s Architect has assessed the application and requested that conditions be included in the decision notice.

Referral Agencies

The application was referred to the Department of Main Roads (Concurrence Agency). The Department acknowledged receipt of the application on 29 August 2007 and requested further information from the applicant on 5 September 2007. On 16 October, the Department provided their response to Council, stating that they have no requirements with respect to the subject application, however required that the relevant period be limited to two years.

GROUNDS OF SUBMISSIONS

The application was publicly notified from 16 October 2007 to 9 November 2007. During this time, no submissions were received in relation to the application.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme, and applicable codes and planning scheme policies

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved and a development permit be granted, subject to conditions.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Copies of the original proposal and subsequent amendments to the application were provided to Councillor Ogilvie of Division 2 on 16 August 2007 and 16 October 2007. Cr Ogilvie had no objections to the proposal.

Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval for the reconfiguration of land at 25 Oakland Avenue, Redland Bay into four standard format allotments. Rak Constructions Pty Ltd. (SB005283)

RPS Zoning: Urban Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Land Area: 2296 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Negotiated Decision Request has been received and has been assessed against the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

It is recommended that the proposal be given a Development Permit.

Compliance or non compliance with Legislation and relevant Planning Instruments

The following Legislation and Planning Instruments were considered in the assessment of this application:

The Integrated Planning Act 1997
Town Planning Scheme for the Shire of Redland

The application generally with the Legislation and Planning Instruments.

The applicant is requesting that the following conditions be amended:

Applicant’s request:- The applicant’s Negotiated Decision Request is based on the conflict between Condition 3.1 (construction of kerb and channel along the full frontage of the site) and condition 4.0 (protection of street trees).

The applicant notes that condition 3.1 disregards the Arborists’ Report and that the requested roadwork and associated kerb and channel adjacent to the trees are, in fact, contrary to recommendations contained in the report.

The wording of Condition 4.0 is such that responsibility for any damage to the trees in question seems to be imputed to the developer.

It is submitted the modified condition package should state either to:-

Remove the protection clause (condition 4.0) regarding these trees and respond to the client in writing that the protection of these cannot be guaranteed because of the roadway widening (which is in conflict with recommendations of the Arborist’s Report); or

Alter condition 3.1 so that the extent of kerb and channel is in agreement with the approved Arborist’s Report.

Officer’s comments:-

With regard to Condition 3.1:-

There will be no changes made to the proposed development condition. The intent of this condition is for the kerb and channel to be constructed past the tree (with suitable clearance) and along the full length of the site frontage to achieve normal driveway accesses to all lots and minimise long term maintenance issues for Council. The specific details of the proposed works will be the subject of a detailed design which is yet to be approved at the Operational Works. Works undertaken in similar instances as this have successfully been undertaken in accordance with best practice techniques.

With regard to condition 4.0:-

The proposed development condition has been modified to state that the works will be undertaken in accordance with best practice techniques.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Development application for the reconfiguration of lots (boundary realignment) at 33-35 Plumer Street, Wellington Point. Mr B.P. and Mrs D.A. Drexler. (SB005256)

RPS Zoning: Urban Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Land Area: 1619 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Reconfiguration of a Lot application has been received and has been assessed against the requirements of the Redlands Planning Scheme 2006.

It is recommended that the proposal be given a Development Permit.

Compliance or non compliance with Legislation and relevant Planning Instruments

The following Legislation and Planning Instruments were considered in the assessment of this application:

The Integrated Planning Act 1997; and
Redlands Planning Scheme 2006.

The application generally complies with the Legislation and Planning Instruments.

Reference to DA Workshop outcomes

The application did not appear at DA Workshop.

Consultation

The Land Development Team has consulted with the various assessment teams.

Reconfiguration of Lot Proposal

The application is to realign the boundary of two existing allotments. Proposed lot 1 with the existing house will be 697m² in area and proposed lot 2 will be 922m² in area.

Town Planning Scheme 2006 Zone

The site is zoned Urban Residential within Council’s 2006 Planning Scheme. The proposal is considered to be consistent with this zone as the resulting allotments are suitable for a residential use at a density not greater than 1 dwelling unit per 400m².

Overlays

The following overlays affect the subject site within Council’s new scheme:

Acid Sulfate Soils.

The proposal is not likely to result in sufficient levels of soil disturbance to exceed the threshold set under State Planning Policy 2/02 (Acid Sulfate Soils).

Reconfiguration Code – Table 1-2 Lots sizes

The proposal is classified as an Infill Reconfiguration within the Minor Reconfiguration section within the Reconfiguration code.

The probable solution for Infill Reconfiguration allotment configurations are detailed in Schedule 5 Lot Sizes Table 2 – Use Lot size.

Table 2 – Use Lot Size states that:

Dwelling Houses

Minimum lot area >500m2 (excluding access ways when internal lots);
Minimum frontage not specified.

Internal Lot

Minimum lot area >800m2 (clear of access ways);
>4.5m single access way width or >6 dual access way width;
Have a truncation of 1m along the frontage and 5m along the accessway;
Not located in cul-de-sac heads; and
The lot adjoining an internal lot is >15m in width.

The allotment configuration is considered to comply given that the proposed end use is for Dwelling House and each standard allotment is >500m² in area and has a frontage >18m and each internal allotment is >800m² clear of the >4.5m wide accessway.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

A copy of the application was provided on the 04/07/2007 to the Divisional Councillor (Cr Barker)

Development application for the reconfiguration of lots (boundary realignment) at 315-395 Serpentine Creek Road, Redland Bay. Philip Vassallo Pty Ltd. (SB005291)

RPS Zoning: Investigation Zone and Rural Non Urban

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Bushfire Hazard

Bushland Habitat

Flood Prone Storm Tide and Drainage

Protection of the Poultry Industry

Road and Rail Noise

State Koala Policy

Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay

Land Area: 123.63 ha

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Reconfiguration of a Lot application has been received and has been assessed against the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

It is recommended that the proposal be given a Development Permit.

Compliance or non compliance with Legislation and relevant Planning Instruments

The following Legislation and Planning Instruments were considered in the assessment of this application:

The Integrated Planning Act 1997;
Town Planning Scheme for the Shire of Redland;
SEQ State Regional Plan;

The application with the Legislation and Planning Instruments.

The applicant is seeking to realign the boundary between 275 – 323 Serpentine Creek Road and 397 – 495 Serpentine Creek Road.

The realignment will create an internal lot in a rural area.

However, in their information request response the applicant confirmed that the purpose of the proposal is to make the boundary between the two parts of the property coincident with the boundary between that part zoned Investigation zone and that part zoned Rural Non Urban. This is the considered to most conducive to secure orderly development of the area as present lots 11 and 12 could be sold separately.

Reference to DA Workshop outcomes

The application did not appear at DA Workshop.

Consultation

The Land Development Team has consulted with the various assessment teams.

The Office of Urban Management were nominated as a 3^rd Party Advice Agency. In their letter dated 27 November 2007, the OUM advised that they had no requirements for this proposal.

The following comments were received from the Land Use Planning Unit:-

“A large portion of the site is included in the Southern Redland Bay Investigation Area. The proposed boundary re-alignment would create a new lot located in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area under the SEQ Regional Plan. Under that proposal, the balance of the site will remain in the Urban Footprint.

The proposal to amalgamate Lot 11 in to Lot 12 is beneficial to the overall forward planning of this area and is supported.”

Reconfiguration of Lot Proposal

The reconfiguration of lot application is for a boundary realignment of two allotments.

The existing lot sizes are:-

275 – 323 Serpentine Creek Road, being Lot 11 on RP 903116, is 20.23ha. It is completely zoned Investigation zone.

397 – 495 Serpentine Creek Road, being Lot 12 on RP 903116, is 103.4ha. It has a mixed zoning over it, being, Investigation Zone and Rural Non Urban.

The proposed lots sizes are:-

Proposed Lot 11 to be 22.25ha and completely within the Rural Non Urban zone. The minimum lot size in this zone is 20ha.

Proposed Lot 12 to be 101.38ha and completely within the Investigation zone. This zone has no minimum lot size.

As such, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory.

Overlays

The following overlays affect the site:

Acid Sulphate Soils
Bushfire Hazard
Bushland Habitat
Flood Prone Strom Tide & Drainage
Protection of the Poultry Industry
Road and Rail Noise
State Koala Policy
Waterways, Wetlands and Moreton Bay.

These overlays will not have an impact on this proposal.

Environmental

The proposed new Lot 11 is predominantly pastured with some trees in varying densities spread over the proposed lot. The proposed lot has State Koala Conservation Status under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 although does not require assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Bushland Habitat Overlay has most of proposed Lot 11 designated as Enhancement Area with an Enhancement Corridor coinciding with the water course on the property and much of the existing vegetation. The future environmental treatment of proposed Lot 12 will be addressed in the future plan for the Southern Redland Bay Investigation Area.

The intent of the Bushland Habitat Overlay has been conditioned to achieve the intent of the Bushland Habitat Overlay. This will result in the enhancement of new Lot 11 leaving the enhancement of new Lot 12 to be determined as part of the investigation area.

Conclusion

The applicant is seeking to realign the boundary between 275 – 323 Serpentine Creek Road and 397 – 495 Serpentine Creek Road.

The realignment will eliminate a split zoning over one of the existing lots and there is no worsening of lot sizes.

It is considered that overall, a development permit can be recommended.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 2, the applicant was advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

A copy of the application has been provided to the Divisional Councillor.

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Dowling
Seconded by: Cr Ogilvie

That the report be noted.

CARRIED

1.12 MODERATELY COMPLEX CODE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS – CATEGORY 3

Dataworks Filename: GOV-DAC Delegated Items

Responsible Officer Name: Tim Donovan
Manager, Assessment Services

Author Name: Kerri Anderson
Administration Officer

Executive Summary

At the General Meeting of 15 May 2002, Council resolved that development assessments be classified into the following four Categories:

Category 1 – Minor Complying Code Assessments & Housekeeping;

Category 2 – Complying Code Assessments & Minor Impact Assessments;

Category 3 – Moderately Complex Code & Impact Assessments;

Category 4 – Major and Significant Assessments

The application detailed in this report has been assessed under Category 3 criteria that are defined as follows:

Applications of a moderately complex nature:

Generally, the mainstream impact assessable applications, Code Assessable applications of varying level of complexity. The former usually includes submissions of public objection readily addressable by reasonable and relevant conditions. Both may have minor level aspects outside a stated policy position that are subject to the discretionary provisions of the Planning Scheme;
Applications can be referred to Development Assessment Committee for a decision where directed by the Chief Executive Officer.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to note that the following application was dealt with under delegated authority - Category 3 – Moderately Complex Code & Impact Assessments:

Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to construct a multiple dwelling (x 24), Shops and Easement at 134 Queen Street, Cleveland (Easement – 12 Doig Street, Cleveland). Miltcoe Pty Ltd. (MC009520)
Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to construct an apartment building at 29-31 Shore Street East, Cleveland. Saunders Havill Group. (MC010218)

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to construct a multiple dwelling (x 24), Shops and Easement at 134 Queen Street, Cleveland (Easement – 12 Doig Street, Cleveland). Miltcoe Pty Ltd. (MC009520)

RPS Zoning: Major Centre

Zoning Sub-Area: MC3

Land Area: 1012 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council received an application seeking a development permit for Multiple Dwelling X 24 and Shops on 134 Queen Street, together with reconfiguration of a lot for two access easements on the adjacent site at 12 Doig Street. The proposal involves the construction of a new six storey building with 2 shop tenancies on the ground floor and 24 apartments on the ground and upper levels, together with three basement car parking levels.

The application was assessed against the Transitional Planning Scheme (including the Schedule, the Strategic Plan and Development Control Plan 2), and all other applicable standards and policies. The proposal was considered to be generally in compliance with these documents.

Where variations to the building envelope and car parking requirements of DCP2 were identified, sufficient planning grounds were considered to exist in that the design met the since changed design standards of the Redlands Planning Scheme. The site also meets the overall outcomes of the Major Centre Zone of the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Council (by delegation) approved the application and a Decision Notice was issued on the 5 July 2007.

The applicant has subsequently made representations on the conditions and has requested that some conditions be changed. The representations have been considered as follows.

DISCUSSION - REPRESENTATIONS

The representations being considered hereunder relate to the following Conditions included in Council’s Decision Notice dated 5 July 2007:

1 Condition 3.5 - Car parking for retail staff and customers

2 Condition 5.1 - Easements C and D

3 Advice 1 - Currency Period

Condition 3.5 which currently reads:

“Car parking for retail staff and customers as indicated on the plans is to be freely available at all relevant times for that purpose.”

The Applicant accepts that free access to retail staff and customer parking is required during the retail hours of operation, however for security purposes, at other times, requires the installation of the automatic roller shutter (or similar). As such, and to avoid any potential compliance issues, the applicant requests that this condition be amended as follows:

“Car Parking for retail staff and customers as indicated on the plans is to be freely available at all relevant times for that purpose. Any automatic roller shutter (or similar) installed at the entrance to the car parking will need only to remain open during the retail hours of operations.”

Officers comment:

Development Assessment’s Engineer has assessed this condition and accepts the applicant’s arguments for the condition to be amended.

Condition 5.1 which currently reads:

“Easements C and D shall be registered in favour of the Council and its contractors for the purpose of waste and recycling collection and temporary storage of bins. The necessary easement documentation would need to be prepared by Council’s solicitors, using Council’s standard form of easement. The developer must pay all costs (including Council’s legal expenses) to prepare the Easements and register same with the Department of Natural Resources and Water.”

Quinn & Scattini Lawyers on behalf of the applicant have asked that condition 5.1 be amended to read:

“Easements C and D shall be registered in favour to Lot 28 on RP72391 for the purpose of waste and recycling collection and the temporary storage of bins. Specifically, Easement D needs to be kept clear for such purpose between the designated hours on the designated collection day so as to ensure that refuse vehicles do not conflict with parked cars.

Note - car parking bays within Easement D, can be utilised for parking purposes outside the designated hours on the designated collection day.”

As outlined in Quinn & Scattini’s advice, the applicant has also stated they are prepared to accept a requirement for the “erection of signage to prevent the parking of cars within Easement D during the designated time on the designated collection day”.

Officers Comment:

The relevant plan for easement D has been amended indicating a smaller area to reflect that aspect of the applicant’s request. This is shown on Saunders Havill Plan No P354/P1 Revision A, now replacing Revision B of the plan as an approved plan in condition 1.1, and with notations indicating that the easement is in favour of Council. The easement is specifically for the purpose of temporary storage of waste bins and for entry by Council’s waste collection vehicles.

The area of this easement is specifically tailored to the needs for waste collection vehicles. There is insufficient room for car parking within this revised easement. Council does not support parking vehicles in an easement for waste collection purposes.

If the applicant wishes to obtain an easement over the area of easements C and D from the owner of Lot 12 on RP 869326 for access purposes, Council would not resist that. Such a proposal would need a separate application for reconfiguration of land. Council would not support the parking of vehicles within the easements.

Consequently, there is no need to change condition 5.1.

Advice I - Currency Period which currently reads:

“This development permit for a material change of use will remain current for a period of two (2) years starting the day the approval takes effect, as per sections 3.5.21(1) and 3.5.19 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.”

As outlined in Quinn & Scattini’s advice to the applicant, it was noted that “additional advice 1” seeks to limit the currency period to two (2) years, yet a four (4) year currency period would generally apply to a Material Change of Use. The Department of Main Roads (DMR) is a Concurrence Agency for this application, however in their Referral Agency Response, dated 26 March 2007 they advised that the Department “has no requirements with respect to the subject application”.

The applicant has spoken with the Department of Main Roads and understand that they simply wish to secure the right to review their requirements if the development has not progressed within two (2) years from the date of their letter. Quinn & Scattini’s advice also states that “given the recent amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 with respect to ‘currency periods’ and ‘related approvals’ the reference to section 3.5.21 should not be limited to sub-paragraph (1)”. Therefore, the applicant requests that this advice be amended to read:

“This development permit for a material change of use will remain current as per section 3.5.21 and 3.5.19 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. However, as noted in DMR’s Referral Agency Response, if the development has not commenced within 2 years of the date of the Department of Main Road’s referral agency response, a request to review the response, will need to be made to the DMR.”

Officers comment:

The Assessment Manager is unable to determine this matter as it is a Concurrence Agency requirement and must be negotiated directly with that Agency as per section 3.3.18 (1) (d) and 3.5.17 (1) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the representations be agreed to in part and that the applicant be issued a Negotiated Decision Notice reflecting the conditions contained in the development permit as modified by matters addressed in this report.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 3, the applicants were advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Application for a negotiated decision notice to vary an existing development approval to construct an apartment building at 29-31 Shore Street East, Cleveland. Saunders Havill Group. (MC010218)

RPS Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Overlay: Acid Sulphate Soils

Heritage Place and Character Precinct

Road and Rail Noise Impacts

Land Area: 1442 square metres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council received an application seeking a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Code Assessment) for an Apartment Building on an allotment zoned Medium Density Residential, on land at 29-31 Shore Street East Cleveland. The application was assessed against the relevant sections of the Redlands Planning Scheme, including the overlays triggered by the application, and was considered to be in compliance with the Scheme.

Council (by delegation) approved the application and a Decision Notice for this development was issued on the 21 November, 2007.

The applicant has subsequently made representations on the conditions and requested that some conditions be changed. The representations have been considered and it is recommended that the conditioned be maintained and that the request for a Negotiated Decision be refused.

CONSULTATION

Due to the nature of the proposed amendments discussion have been held with the Environmental Assessment Team.

DISCUSSION – AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS

CONTESTED CONDITIONS

The applicant advised Council by letter dated 14 December, 2007 of their wish to suspend their appeal period in accordance with section 3.5.18 of IPA. Subsequently, representations were made on 18 December, 2007 regarding some conditions of the development permit issued by Council.

Conditions Requiring Compliance Assessment

Operational Works - Compliance Assessment (Landscaping)

1.5 (c) Tree Management Plan

(c) A Tree Management Plan for trees on private land. The intent of the Plan is to provide direction for the management of the seasonal growth of mature/maturing trees including existing trees and new tree plantings.

The approved Plan is to be initiated by the owners or Body Corporate and include the provision of an initial and subsequent annual technical report, and is to include provision for the supervision of any annual pruning, crown modification in accordance with AS4373-1996 Pruning of Amenity Trees, and/or of any vegetation that has the potential to conflict with buildings, pedestrian access and public safety.

The Tree Management Plan is to be initiated annually in May/June prior to the spring growth period or as otherwise agreed by the Principal Body Corporate and the Council, and is to form part of the Community Management Statement (CMS).

The Tree Management Plan is to provide for;

Assurance that the trees growth achieves the intent of the landscape design and vegetation management plan through correct and uniform practices;

Reduction of hazard development, branch failure, fungal infection or premature tree death;
Reduction of the likely impact of storm damage after the site has been occupied;
Formative pruning of young and developing trees where deemed necessary in accordance with AS 4373-1996 Pruning of Amenity Trees;
The minimisation of any potential risk to people and property; and
The ability for major site works to be undertaken by a landscape contactor and supervised by a qualified arborist or horticultural specialist.

Any proposed amendment to the Plan must be submitted to the Council for approval.

Applicant’s Representations

There is no existing mature vegetation on site that will be retained as part of the landscape works, not will there be any ‘trees’ planted as part of the landscape works.

In our view, the submission of an annual technical report for private landscape works is not a reasonable requirement. Maintenance of landscaping in common property will be the responsibility of the Body Corporate and a condition simply outlining this responsibility would suffice.

We also have some question about Council’s capacity to accept and assess ‘annual technical reports’ for all private landscape works on all new development sites. It seems both an onerous requirement o the Applicant and on the council’s Landscape Architects and Compliance Officers.

As such, we request that condition 1.5 part (c) be deleted.

Officer’s Response

The primary purpose of this condition is to ensure that there is a clearly defined level of management and responsibility for trees and landscaping on the development site and that this can be demonstrated to Council on an ongoing basis.

The applicant has confirmed that there will be `trees' planted as part of the landscape works as indicated on the Site Plan and the Landscape Concept Plan.

The annual technical report is to ensure that the Body Corporate is managing tree and landscaping issues appropriately. In general it will be a brief report confirming particular trees and landscaping are in good condition, or if required, it may include specific information and assessment of trees that may be unhealthy or in decline and in need of treatment or removal. Such reports are only required to be submitted to Body Corporate and will assist both the Body Corporate and Council greatly if and when trees / large shrubs are proposed for removal. Council only requires a formal application if and when the Tree Management Plan is proposed to be amended.

The condition should therefore be maintained. However, clarification will be provided by stating the reasons for refusal on the Decision Notice. The reasons for refusal will clearly outline that the provision of the annual technical report forms part of the Community Management Statement and only requires Council assessment where there is a proposed change.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the applicant be issued with a Negotiated Decision Notice reflecting the conditions contained in the development permit as modified by matters addressed in this report.

DECISION

Under delegated authority, Category 3, the applicants were advised that a development permit had been granted subject to conditions.

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Williams
Seconded by: Cr Ogilvie

That the report be noted.

CARRIED

1.13 CURRENT APPEALS LIST AS AT 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008

Dataworks Filename: GOV-DAC Appeals List

Responsible Officer Name: Tim Donovan
Manager, Assessment Services

Author Name: Kerri Anderson
Administration Officer

Executive Summary

File No.	Applicant	Application Details	Hearing Date	Appeal Details
SB351901. Appeal 2884 of 1998.	Sabdoen Pty Ltd Pt O’Halloran Road, Victoria Point.	Claim against zoning amendment.	Matter adjourned to date to be fixed	Compensation	WD
MC005767 Appeal 2 & 1002 of 2001. Received January 2001.	Ronlen Nominees (Greenacres Caravan Park). 580-582 Mt Cotton Road, Capalaba.	Extensions to caravan park on adjoining lot.	No date set.	Applicant appeal against Council refusal.	NW
MC005499 Received February 2001.	Runde. 778-782 Mt Cotton Road, Capalaba.	Home Based Enterprise (Industry Class II – Shop Fitting).	Matter adjourned to date to be fixed.	Applicant Appeal against conditions.	NW
SB475001E. Appeal 958 of 2004. Received March 2004.	Bayview Country Club -v-RSC. Cnr Seeana Drive & Valley Way, Mt Cotton.	Application for reconfiguration.	Settled by Consent Order 8 February 2008.	Applicant appeal against refusal.	AE
MC007114 Appeal 615 of 2004. Received October 2004.	J Fildes & F Robb -v- RSC 20 Bayview Road, Russell Island.	Application for dwelling house on land zoned Drainage Problem.	Adjourned for Further Mention 15 February 2008.	Applicant appeal against refusal.	PP
MC008511 Appeal 1529 of 2005. Received May 2005.	S & C Turvey -v- RSC. 29 Kalmia Drive, Redland Bay.	Application for home based business (office and parking for refrigeration business).	No date set.	Applicant appeal against conditions of approval.	VR
MC009028 Appeal 4668 of 2005. Received December 2005.	AJ Williams -v- RSC & Telstra Corporation 256-258 Avalon Road, Sheldon.	Application for tele-communications facility (radio station).	No date set.	Submitter appeal against approval.	NW
MC009478 Appeal 3387 of 2006. Received November 2006.	DTS Group Qld & JLF Corp P/L -v- RSC. 71 Bunker Rd, Victoria Point.	Application for child care centre.	Set down for Hearing March 2008 pool (5 days).	Applicant appeal against refusal.	NW
SB005072 Appeal 3467 of 2006. Received November 2006.	Wavecrest P/L -v-RSC 323 Esplanade, Redland Bay.	Application for reconfiguration into 32 lots.	Adjourned for Further Review 13 February 2008.	Applicant appeal against deemed refusal.	AE
MC008980 Appeal 3425 of 2006. Received November 2006.	J & C May –v- RSC 11 Rachow Street, Thornlands.	Application for redevelopment for 8 Park Residential allotments.	Adjourned for Further Review 22 May 2008.	Applicant appeal against refusal.	AE
MC009414 Appeal 1167 of 2007. Received April 2007.	AJ & CL Dowley –v-RSC 20 Emerson Street, Russell Island.	Application for dwelling house on Residential A lot.	No date set.	Applicant appeal against Condition 1 of Negotiated Decision.	VR
MC008499 Appeal 1293 of 2007. Received May 2007.	AJ & PJ Prickett-v-RSC 31-33 Wahine Drive, Russell Island.	Application for MCU for dwelling house.	No date set.	Applicant appeal against conditions of Negotiated Decision.	VR
MC009042 Appeal 1520 of 2007. Received June 2007.	Alex Gow P/L –v- RSC, Main Roads Dept & Ors 306 Bloomfield Street, Cleveland	Application for MCU for Funeral Parlour.	Set down for Hearing March 2008 pool (6 days).	Applicant appeal against refusal.	NW
MC009609 Appeal 1631 of 2007. Received June 2007.	Bushflower Pty Ltd –v-RSC 185 Duncan Rd, Sheldon.	Application for MCU to use premises for industry purposes (cottage/craft industry) and caretaker’s residence.	No date set.	Applicant appeal against refusal.	NW
MC009956 Appeal 1632 of 2007. Received June 2007.	P Thompson –v- RSC 251 Redland Bay Road, Capalaba.	Application for MCU to use premises for vehicle depot.	No date set.	Applicant appeal against refusal.	NW
MC010134 Appeal 2041 of 2007. Received July 2007.	Friends of Stradbroke Island Inc (FOSI) –v- RSC & R & J Ward 106 Mooloomba Road, Pt Lookout.	Application for dual occupancy.	Set down for Hearing April 2008.	Submitter appeal against approval.	NW
SB004693.2-4 Originating Appeal 2510 of 2007. Received September 2007.	Rofail, Rofail & Rofail Grandchildren Fund P/L –v- RSC 86-90 King Street, Thornlands.	Application for reconfiguration into 24 lots.	Set down for Hearing March 2008 pool (2 days).	Applicants seeking Declarations for park contribution.	AE
MC009636 Appeal 3438 Of 2007 Received December 2007.	Barro Group Pty Ltd –v- RSC & Ors 1515 Mt Cotton Road, Mt Cotton.	Application for extensions to existing quarrying operations.	No date set.	Applicant Appeal against refusal.	NW

Officer’s Recommendation/
Committee Resolution

Moved by: Cr Dowling
Seconded by: Cr Williams

That the report be noted.

CARRIED

Meeting Closure

The meeting closed at 12.15 pm.

Signature of Chair:
Confirmation Date: