Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council
Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE 2012 90 (n) Subdivision should ensure that based on a 1 in 100 year event natural drainage paths and significant stormwater catchment areas are protected from inappropriate development. This relates to development within drainage lines which may impede, restrict or adversely affect natural drainage flows”. Similarly, were the proposal not Prohibited the following Specific Decision Requirement at Clause 6.10.4 of the Scheme would also be relevant, in addition to those discussed above. “(b) Development should be an appropriate use, design and location so as to not fetter the agricultural use on the land or nearby properties”. The proposal is considered to be broadly consistent with the relevant Specific Decision Requirements, as described. It is considered, however, that the proposal does not comply with Clauses 6.8.3(c) and 6.10.3(c) of the Scheme which require that all lots, including the balance, must have a minimum frontage of 6m. Frontage is defined by the Scheme as follows. “The minimum distance required to provide legal right of access, whether by fee simple or right-of-way, to the lot from a public road, excluding land that is required as the sole and principal means of access to any other lot as necessary to give that lot the qualities of a minimum lot”. The applicant submits that, based on the above definition, the proposed Lot 1 would have a “frontage” of greater than 190m and Lots 2 and 3 would each have a “frontage” of greater than 700m. Internal legal consideration has been given to this interpretation of the above definition of frontage and it is considered to not be correct or reasonable. To create 3 new parcels from the subject property it would be necessary to provide either direct frontage to Kings Road, or a right-of-way access of at least 6m in width, per new lot, to Kings Road.
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE 2012 91 As noted above, the subject property has an access strip with a width of 9.214m to Kings Road which is encumbered by 3 rights-of-way which provide access to the 3 separate properties that comprise the same Sealed Plan. This leaves the site with an available frontage as defined by the Scheme of 3.6m. What this application proposes is to add a further 2 properties to this existing access arrangement, claiming that “when Lot 1 on Sealed Plan 130283 (64 Kings Road, Cambridge), is subdivided into 3 lots as proposed, each of them will inherit the existing Rights-of-Ways”. This is an incorrect interpretation as the rights-of-way relate to Lots 2 and 3 also of the same Sealed Plan. They cannot be inherited by the proposed lots as Lots 2 and 3 of the same Sealed Plan are not part of this Subdivision application and their accesses cannot be compromised. It is further noted that the Scheme is specific in terms of the frontage definition, in that land required as the sole and principal means of access for any other lot cannot be considered frontage. The impact of this is that the existing rights-of-way cannot be compromised and that 3 new rights-of-way of a minimum of 6m in width must therefore be provided from the boundaries of each of the proposed lots to Kings Road. This is not proposed, nor is it proposed to include additional land to facilitate this. It is therefore considered that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy Clause 6.8.3(c) of the Scheme and is therefore Prohibited. Advice was sought as part of this assessment from Council’s Solicitor, who confirms this position. It is further noted that Section 109 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1993 describes the qualities of a minimum lot in terms of the subject property as “having reasonable vehicular access from the carriage-way of a road to a boundary”.
- Page 39 and 40: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 41 and 42: Subject Site Attachment 1 Location
- Page 43 and 44: Attachments: 93 Tanundal Street Pag
- Page 45 and 46: Attachments: 93 Tanundal Street Pag
- Page 47 and 48: 93 Tanundal Street, HOWRAH Attachme
- Page 49 and 50: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 51 and 52: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 53 and 54: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 55 and 56: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 57 and 58: Attachment 1 Location Plan D 2012/2
- Page 59 and 60: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 61 and 62: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 63 and 64: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 65 and 66: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 67 and 68: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 69 and 70: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 71 and 72: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 73 and 74: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 75 and 76: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 77 and 78: Subject Site Attachment 1 Location
- Page 79 and 80: Attachment 3 Note: A-B-C-D = propos
- Page 81 and 82: Image 3: View of the hind dune loca
- Page 83 and 84: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 85 and 86: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 87 and 88: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 89: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 93 and 94: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 95 and 96: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 97 and 98: Attachment 2 Attachments: 64 Kings
- Page 99 and 100: 64 Kings Road, CAMBRIDGE Attachment
- Page 101 and 102: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - CUSTOMER SE
- Page 103 and 104: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - FINANCIAL M
- Page 105 and 106: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - GOVERNANCE-
- Page 107 and 108: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - GOVERNANCE-
- Page 109 and 110: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - GOVERNANCE-
- Page 111 and 112: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - GOVERNANCE-
- Page 113 and 114: GOVERNANCE and COMMUNITY Communitie
- Page 115 and 116: Clarence City Council Annual Estima
- Page 117 and 118: Clarence City Council Annual Estima
- Page 119 and 120: Clarence City Council Annual Estima
- Page 121 and 122: Clarence City Council Annual Estima
- Page 123 and 124: Funding Attachment 2 Clarence City
- Page 125 and 126: Capital Programme 2012/2013 Total C
- Page 127 and 128: Capital Programme 2012/2013 Total C
- Page 129 and 130: ITEM 2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % C
- Page 131 and 132: Clarence City Council List of Fees
- Page 133 and 134: ITEM 2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % C
- Page 135 and 136: Clarence City Council List of Fees
- Page 137 and 138: ITEM 2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % C
- Page 139 and 140: ITEM 2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % C
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE <strong>2012</strong> 90<br />
(n) Subdivision should ensure that based on a 1 in 100 year<br />
event natural drainage paths and significant stormwater<br />
catchment areas are protected from inappropriate<br />
development. This relates to development within drainage<br />
lines which may impede, restrict or adversely affect natural<br />
drainage flows”.<br />
Similarly, were the proposal not Prohibited the following Specific Decision<br />
Requirement at Clause 6.10.4 of the Scheme would also be relevant, in<br />
addition to those discussed above.<br />
“(b) Development should be an appropriate use, design and<br />
location so as to not fetter the agricultural use on the land or<br />
nearby properties”.<br />
The proposal is considered to be broadly consistent with the relevant Specific<br />
Decision Requirements, as described.<br />
It is considered, however, that the proposal does not comply with Clauses<br />
6.8.3(c) and 6.10.3(c) of the Scheme which require that all lots, including the<br />
balance, must have a minimum frontage of 6m. Frontage is defined by the<br />
Scheme as follows.<br />
“The minimum distance required to provide legal right of access,<br />
whether by fee simple or right-of-way, to the lot from a public<br />
road, excluding land that is required as the sole and principal<br />
means of access to any other lot as necessary to give that lot the<br />
qualities of a minimum lot”.<br />
The applicant submits that, based on the above definition, the proposed Lot 1<br />
would have a “frontage” of greater than 190m and Lots 2 and 3 would each<br />
have a “frontage” of greater than 700m.<br />
Internal legal consideration has been given to this interpretation of the above<br />
definition of frontage and it is considered to not be correct or reasonable. To<br />
create 3 new parcels from the subject property it would be necessary to<br />
provide either direct frontage to Kings Road, or a right-of-way access of at<br />
least 6m in width, per new lot, to Kings Road.
Change language