4 Millers Lane, Rutherglen VIC 3685
We couldn't load the map. View this location on Google Maps
We couldn't load the streetview. View the streetview on Google Maps
- Description
- 4 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 OVERVIEW Planning approval is sought for subdivision (boundary realignment) of the subject land into three (3) lots. The proposal does not create any additional lots, intensify the use of the land, or seek approval for a new dwelling or wastewater generating development. The application seeks consent for a permit to be granted to create three (3) lots smaller than 12 hectares within the Rural Activity Zone of the Indigo Planning Scheme. Pursuant to the requirements of Clause 35.08-3, this proposal warrants consideration from Council given the proposed subdivision is the re-subdivision of existing lots and the number of lots is not increased. The proposal simply suggests a boundary realignment of the existing boundaries separating Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 to allow for better use of the subject land. The proposed boundary realignment seeks to rationalise the existing title arrangement by providing each existing dwelling with its own individual title. Pre-application advice (Attachment 3) was obtained from Indigo Shire Council to inform the suitability of the proposed subdivision and confirm the proposed realignment/subdivision would likely be supported by the council if a permit application were lodged. The subdivision design has been prepared with consideration to provision of services and appropriate access for future residents, while efficiently realigning property boundaries of rural land containing existing dwellings to create rural living opportunities within proximity of the amenity of the Rutherglen township. 4.2 ACCESS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Existing access arrangements to the site are proposed to be retained. The boundary realignment does not propose the construction of new roads or additional vehicle crossings. No new servicing infrastructure is proposed as part of the application. The existing lots are already separately titled and currently rely on existing servicing arrangements. As the proposal is a boundary realignment only, it is considered appropriate for those existing arrangements to be retained. The proposal does not increase demand for reticulated water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications or stormwater infrastructure. Overall, the proposal maintains the existing servicing context of the land and does not generate a need for broader infrastructure upgrades. The boundary realignment is therefore considered suitable from an access, infrastructure and servicing perspective. 4.3 PROPOSED DWELLINGS This application does not propose the demolition of any existing dwellings thus, there will be no loss of rental/housing supply to the local area. The existing dwellings on proposed Lots 1 & 2 will be retained while proposed Lot 3 will create a vacant allotment which will provide opportunity for the local market to develop new housing opportunities. Thus increasing housing/rental property supply for Rutherglen residents and workers. This proposal does not seek approval to construct any new dwellings.
- Planning Authority
-
Streamlined Planning through Electronic Applications and Referrals
View source
- Reference number
-
S272893BThis was created by Streamlined Planning through Electronic Applications and Referrals to identify this application. You will need this if you talk directly with them or use their website.
-
Date sourced
- We found this application on the planning authority's website on , about 1 month ago. It was received by them earlier.
-
Notified
- 4 people were notified of this application via Planning Alerts email alerts
-
Comments
- Be the first to comment
Public comments on this application
Comments made here will be sent to Streamlined Planning through Electronic Applications and Referrals.
”
Add your own comment
To comment on this application you will need to go to the original source on Streamlined Planning through Electronic Applications and Referrals and find any instructions from there.
This is because unfortunately we don't know an email address for this authority to send official comments to. If you can find one please let us know.