PlanningAlerts

2 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. From my interpretation of the Reconfiguring A Lot Code of the Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006 [Part 12 Division 5 Table 12.5.1(3)] I cannot see how the development complies with the requirement for the number of hatchet lots to be generally limited to one (1) behind any full frontage lot.
   The Town Report states Opportunities for increased choice in mode of transport and cost effective and energy-efficient public transport services that are accessible and convenient to the community are provided with regard to the bus stop near the property. The bus stop ceased servicing the general public approximately 7 years ago and the only buses servicing Fiona St are school buses. Therefore the property does not have good public transport access to facilities and services.
   The closest park is Annabelle Park which is 1.6 kms distance from 72 Fiona St and not within easy walking distance and does not meet the need for recreational and social activities, amenity and community identity with regard to Public Open Space.
   The access strip is 6m wide at the Fiona St frontage and beside proposed Lot 1, then narrows to 3m wide beside the existing house.
   From my understanding the minimum width of the access strip should be as follows—
   (i) Traditional Lots – 4m(1);
   (ii) Hillside, Homestead or Township Lots – 5m(1);
   (iii) Dual Occupancy Dwelling Lots – 5m(2). Therefore there is no appropriate access to a hatchet lot at the rear of the existing dwelling.
   The report also states " the roundabout is considered to have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic created by the proposed development. Traffic is slowing down as it approaches the roundabout which provides a safer operating environment. The addition of one more access onto Fiona Street will not affect the functioning of the roundabout the capacity of the local street network." There is no roundabout on Fiona/Rosemary St. In fact numerous collisions have occurred over the years caused by cars not slowing down enough to take the sharp bend.
   Part of the site is mapped as containing Category B Remnant vegetation and is also listed as essential habitat for the Tusked Frog (Adelotus brevis) and therefore development should not proceed on the land rear of the existing dwelling.

2. As per J Burnell’s submission,
   part of the site is mapped as containing Category B Remnant vegetation and is also listed as essential habitat for the Tusked Frog (Adelotus brevis) and therefore development should not proceed on the land rear of the existing dwelling at all!!!

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Ipswich City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment