I am responding to a proposed reconfiguration of a lot (RP70383) and house plans for development at 7 Sector Street, Coorparoo (BCC application A005637713). The development is noncompliant with BCC building codes in a Low Density Residential Zone and therefore should not be certified.
The application site is in a Low Density Residential Zone as clearly defined by the BCC Coorparoo Plan and BCC zoning maps. Subdivision and building requirements for the zone are detailed by the BCC. The proposed subdivision of land with plans for only one of two houses make it very difficult to consider the complete impact on adjoining properties of the property subdivision and development. Suffice it to say that the development will have major impacts on 7 properties in Sector Street, Buena Vista Ave and Canopus Street. This neighbourhood impact is completely dismissed in the application. Importantly, the current proposal is noncompliant in relation to several proposed features as per the BCC development regulations for a Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is also noncompliant with the Coorparoo Neighbourhood Plan, which clearly positions the property in Low Density Residential Zone and not in a Neighbourhood Centre zone, which is used to rationalise the concompliance. The reasons for these conclusions are listed below.
1. Background: The proposed asymmetric division of the land results in two lots: Lot 1 is 524 m2 with an “average” width 13.85 m, while Lot 2 is 403 m2 with an “average” width of 9.1 m. The dimensions of Lot 2 necessitate its consideration as a BCC “Small Lot” (<450 m2). A two-storey house is proposed for Lot 2.
2. The proposal states in Section 6.1 that it complies with the requirements for a house subject to the Low Density Residential Zone Building Code and the Coorparoo Neighbourhood Plan. However, this statement is factually incorrect. Both lots in the proposed land subdivision have noncompliant widths. The “average” widths of each lot (13.85 m and 9.1 m for Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively) quoted by the proposers are firstly less than BCC requirements (15 m and 10 m (small block), respectively). Second, the quoted “average widths” are also mathematically incorrect numbers. The rear rectangular widths that persist over about 80-90% of both lots are only 12.49 and 8.21 m, respectively (see “Subdivision Proposal Plan”). Thus, the actual lot widths are considerably less than what is required by the BCC (15 m and 10 m, respectively). The “average” width measurements quoted in the proposal takes no account of the length of the blocks and therefore substantially over-estimates the quoted “average” widths. The average widths calculated using 4 equidistant points along the side boundaries are 13.1 m and 8.6 m for Lot 1 and Lot 2, while zoning regulations require 15 m and 10 m, respectively. (A more accurate 10-point analysis yields width averages close to only 12.49 m and 8.21 m, respectively). The justification presented in the proposal is that the front street widths, which are also incorrectly measured diagonally and not perpendicular to the side boundaries, are purported to be close to the cited required “average” widths. This is clearly not the case, especially in light of the more mathematically correct calculated average lot widths. Thus, the subdivision is noncompliant with requirements in the BCC Low Density Residential Zone in relation to both lot widths. The development proposal completely dismisses impacts on neighbours who will inevitably lose privacy, amenity, sun and breezes and green space due to the very narrow and noncompliant widths of both lots, and due to the overbearingly large structure on Lot 2 for its small lot size. These factors will also similarly likely impose on any future build on Lot 1.
3. Another noncompliant aspect of the building proposed on Lot 2 is its length (Dwelling House Small Lot Code). The proposal is for a building 27 m in length yet the BCC maximum acceptable length is 25 m. The proposal justifies this noncompliance by stating that it “will not result in overbearing development for the existing and future adjoining developments” as it has an alfresco dining region at the rear (see Section 6.1.1.4). There is complete omission of consideration of the neighbourhood impact of the second-floor bedroom above the outdoor alfresco dining region. The statement of absence of impact on adjacent properties is incorrect as the length of the proposed Lot 2 house will directly impact 6 properties to the east and south (SP118570, SP304427 #1, SP304427 #2, SP304427 #3, RP13239 and one other undocumented property at the SE diagonal interface; see “Land Survey”). The development impacts the major living and entertainment areas of 4 properties (SP304427 #1, SP304427 #2, SP304427 #3 and the undocumented SE property). Thus, there is substantial neighbourhood impact from the noncompliant proposed house on Lot 2. Moreover, the greater length of Lot 2 (46.2-51.9m) compared with Lot 1 (37.5-46.2 m) means that any future house development on Lot 1 will inevitably be substantially impacted at its rear southerly end by the proposed building on Lot 2. Thus, the noncompliant building length proposed for Lot 2 is likely to create a future and even more substantial impact on Lot 1. In addition, the front of the proposed two storey house on Lot 2 has a setback of only 5.5 m instead of 6 m. Again, the proposal dismisses impacts on neighbours who will inevitably lose privacy, amenity, sun, breezes and green space. The outcome inevitably in the medium term will be two inappropriately large houses on two small lots with the sacrifice of nearly all open space and neighbourhood privacy.
4. The building proposed on Lot 2 is a “small lot” and therefore BCC require a maximum building footprint of 50%. The proposal quotes a footprint figure of 42% in the text of the proposal but a figure of 45.9% is listed on the “Site Coverage” diagram. My calculated figure is 50.6% (203.6 m2) determined from the proposal “SITE PLAN - PROPOSED” diagram and including the build-to-boundary configuration at the front of the proposed house on Lot 2. Thus, the building footprint is significantly more than the two quoted figures in the application.
5. The neighbourhood impact of the proposed development is further accentuated by minimal side setbacks for the house plans on Lot 2 with build to boundary with no setback on sides near the front and minor setbacks (1 m) thereafter along the side boundaries. The house planned for Lot 2 is only 6 m wide in its internal living space and therefore it is completely at odds with the concept of the BCC “LOW DENSITY Residential Code” and the wider neighbourhood subject to this specific code. This issue will be further compounded by anticipated future a building proposal on Lot 1 and collectively will produce a congested street vista dominated by garage frontages and discordant with other neighbouring properties subject to the standard BCC Low Density Residential Zone.
6. The application repeatably attempts to justify exceptions from BCC Low Density Residential Zone building and land subdivision codes by paradoxically and inappropriately citing precedents in a completely different BCC building zone (i.e., properties within 200 m walking distance from the Samuel Street shops i.e., a Neighbourhood Centre Zone). This is like comparing apples with oranges, and not apples with apples. The property at 7 Sector Street is considerably greater than 200 m from the cited Samuel Street shops and therefore does not fall within the Neighbour Centre planning regulations! Moreover, the quoted distance of 250 m by the proposers is the as-the-crow flies distance and not the walking distance along designated BCC footpaths and road crossings. In reality the distance is in excess of 300 m due to three significant pedestrian obstacles or limitations on Boundary Road (a 3 m near vertical embankment near Pavo Street, a physical BCC pedestrian restricted access barrier northwards along Boundary Road (road safety issues), and the availability of limited traffic islands to cross the very busy Boundary Road). The first two points are not “reasonable obstacles” for a healthy pedestrian let alone the disabled, elderly and families. The proposed development at 7 Sector Street is not influenced by Neighbourhood Centre zoning. This can be clearly seen on the Coorparoo Neighbourhood Plan. Thus, the development proposal is inconsistent with both the latter plan and the planning required in a Low Density Residential zone. In addition, the highly selective examples of properties (all <200 m from Neighbourhood Centre shops; Section 6.1.1.3) within the development proposal do not include examples of compliant properties actually within the local Low Density Residential Zone which are unaffected by Neighbour Centre zoning! Thus, the proposer’s argument for exception is both factually incorrect and thereby inappropriate, and not balanced. In general, the BCC should strictly contain this “proximity to Neighbourhood Centre (shops)” argument to properties only within the designated 200 m walking distance of shops and not allow its misuse in Low Density Residential Zones outside of the 200 m walking distance! This conclusion is particularly relevant to this development proposal as the western side of Boundary Road near Sector street has no shops at all and the Samuel Street shops are not even visible from 7 Sector St as they lie some distance away (>300 m walking distance). In this instance, communities should be insulated by the BCC from opportunistic developments that inappropriately attempt to “spread” the impact of Neighbour Centre (shopping centres) zoning into residential areas not subject to Neighbour Centre zoning.
7. The BCC Low Density Residential Plan intends that lots “accommodate traditional backyards and large trees” (cited in Section 6.1.1.3 of the development proposal). The Lord Mayor has repeatably mentioned the BCC intention to maintain the greenery of Brisbane. Yet the application for a proposed house on Lot 2 has little or no capacity for any trees or vegetation despite the existing presence substantial mature trees. These trees were dismissed by the applicants as “no vegetation identified as significant on site”. The deduced intention of the proposal is likely to remove all existing trees in the southern boundary area (and front area), and because of the small size and shape of the development there will be little or no possibility of tree replacement. Something similar is likely intended on Lot 1 in the future. Thus, the proposal is at odds with the intention of BCC Low Density Residential Plan plans to maintain greenery. The absence of potential for vegetation screening on Lot 2 will be to the detriment of 7 surrounding properties. Thus, there will be considerable impact on the neighbourhood. The proposal completely relies on other properties to plant privacy screening for Lot 2 benefit and will make no contribution to the privacy of the neighbourhood. Again, the proposal dismisses the impacts on neighbours who will inevitably lose privacy, amenity and green space.
In summary, the proposal is noncompliant for land subdivision in a Low Density Residential zone. The proposed building on Lot 2 is also noncompliant for a proposed house on a “Small Lot”. The development proposal uses inappropriate (i.e., ineligible) arguments to justify its noncompliance with BCC building codes and fails to consider impacts on the immediate neighbourhood. The available building plans for the proposed house on Lot 2 omit the full visible impacts on all adjoining properties, which will be substantial. Precedent arguments are ineligible for consideration as they were used to make comparison with properties in a different BCC building zone. The proposed development at 7 Sector Street should not be certified as acceptable.
Historically, zoning regulations were introduced into Brisbane by the BCC and QLD Government to provide certainty to residents and developers, and to bring order to city growth. The inappropriate use of BCC zoning regulations by developers creates uncertainty for all and ultimately will lead to uncontrolled and inappropriate development.
