Odd

link (http://http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/masterview/modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=A002012387)

Location

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7805/kang2vw4.jpg

Basic Design

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/705/kang3ox4.jpg

In Situ

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4549/kang4qw4.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7561/kang5yd7.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5024/kang6ee8.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7829/kang7vx7.jpg

I like the render from the south but fro the north it looks like one of those portable heaters.

Bloody love that!! KP has some really different proposals and built buildings, refreshing to see.

Well well well.
Very interesting.
And definitely very odd.
Um....

Absolutely love it. Very contemporary for me.

Certainly haven't seen a lap pool like that before.

Wow - cool design!! There really are a stack of great projects going up in KP at the moment!!

From many angles this really ties in well with Skyline Tower accross the creek. I really like this one. Aong with the unit Anexure, the enviro focused one ( can't rememeber names), KP is finaly getting a bit of modern quality.

Information request has been sent with no major issues.

Shouldn't be too long for approvals!

so, whats going on with this one?

I heard it got cancelled or something... is this correct?

^
No, it's not cancelled.

The developers responded to the council information request, and more recently have asked for the examination period to be extended all the way to June 2009.

ahh, ok, thanx Orfeo

so, whats going on with this one?

I heard it got cancelled or something... is this correct?

I wish, its fucking hideous!

^^

You said that right... I don't get how people can propose such a monstrosity. Don't we have proper architects for smaller residential buildings?

^^^ i think it would be one of the best residential buildings in kangaroo point

I absolutely agree. How exactly is thishideous or a monstrosity? Shame not everyone has taste..

I think of it as "different" - like Brisbanite stated, it really does look like a space heater. I'd prefer something like this to the equivalent boring box.

I agree with BrisbaneROCKS - better than the same old bland.....:ohno:

Yeah well you may think that it looks good now but that kind of shit will date really fast. I dont mind the front or the top-heaviness for that matter but the back and the sides look absolutely fugly and overbearing. Its just a hideous monstrosity for the site that it is on in such a prominent location overlooking the city skyline.

^^ Substanciate your view buddy. Educate us on architectural brilliance? Discriptive words like 'fugly' are a good start..

Yeah Aussie, how about some obfuscating contemporary deconstructivist architectural terminology.

I think it looks brill and question its datability, its a bit to individualistic to be characterised to a time period. Its oddball shape will certainly make it identifiable.

I only just noticed the lap pool over the carpark entrance, how cool!

Approved:

Highrise for Kangaroo Point gets thumbs up (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24564668-952,00.html)

A 20 STOREY unit block at Kangaroo Point has been given the greenlight despite almost 60 submissions and two petitions opposing the development.

The Brisbane City Council's Neighbourhood Planning Committee voted unanimously in favour of Rankeilor Developments project, which is situated on the corner of Lambert and Cairns St and comprises 114 units and almost 190 car parks.

Committee chairwoman Amanda Cooper acknowledged community concerns, which included the development's height, bulk and size, impact on amenity, conflict with the Kangaroo Point Peninsula Local Plan and traffic.

"I think there is that ongoing issue with traffic in that area," she said.

Eight three-storey townhouses also feature as part of the project, which Cr Cooper praised.

"The townhouses are a very interesting feature," she said.

"They really are something we should be encouraging - it's really something that's going to hopefully give some new ideas to developers on how to deal with the tall buildings."

The project was deemed acceptable on the basis that it did not exceed 20 storeys nor dominate the city centre skyline.

Several similar projects are also being considered in the area, including one for Shafston College.

This building will absolutely dominate the Kangaroo Point precinct. It is certainly one of a kind when it comes to Brisbane high rise. I doubt anyone else will attempt similar architecture.

The pure uniqueness of this building will command prices well above the average for the area. Much like a Seidler building sits alone at the top.

[note: I remain neutral as to whether this is good architecture]

Totally agree. It will also define Brisbane in a way, like Torbreck, Riparian and brisbane Square.

That's a good thing whether the architecture is good or not I believe (as long as there isn't too many bad ones!)

Absolutely fantastic news! A big win for Brisbane. Quality design, and will stand out for the right reasons, as the existing stuff at KP is rubbish all in all. Now hopefull those enviro twins get the thumbs up now too.

Awesome news! I'm glad this one gained approval, it will be an interesting project for KP and will add some nice variety to the area.

Excellent!

Hooray for bizarre architecture :banana:

Great news indeed. :)

Bizarre, yes, but interesting and looks well thought out. Wonder how they got presented it to the clients.

They probably approved it for the architectural design more than the features etc.... :lol:
the decision over 60 submissions and two petitions opposing the development possibly was just a way to say; too bad... this design is good, and we rather it than worry about 62 concerned people....

Rankeilor Developments have put this site on the market For Sale. CBRE is the agent, EOIs close 16/07/09.

It is advertised as an approval for a 19 level tower & 8 townhouses. 14,950m2 GFA, 3290m2 site area, and 3 level basement carpark for 193 cars.

Rankeilor is a one time developer, so I'm not sure that they could have pulled this one off anyway, very ambitious. The new purchaser may be inclined to go with a different design given that this approval is expensive to build. We will have to wait and see.

I don't know why I did not object to this.

Can someone please pull down that white eyesore called Millennium Towers instead on Cairns street?Like a White Rendered Tuscan House enlarged.

I have a problem with the location..It's the last cluster of quality houses left in Kangaroo Point.

The Irony is that some of these have just been listed to be included on a Kangaroo Point Heritage Walk...

More density.Less History please.Seems to be the Queensland way.

the developers, like many others, has submitted an application to change the mix of apartments types, from large to small.

Original: 28,33,47,6 = 114 (1,2,3,4 bedrooms respectively)
New DA: 69,103,16,1 =192

A002844289

I hope this goes ahead. I liked the design.

I can't believe the comments here. The single reason the building mushrooms outwards is to scoop in more square footage once it rises past the height of its neighbours. It's admitted so in the DA. The unusual shape is not some witty design element and nor does it make the building more elegant. It's just to ram in as many apartments as possible into the building and, even better, on to the pricier taller levels. It's like they found a tetris-like hole in the view corridor and drew the building to fill it with no regard to how it will actually look. That is what is so depressing.

There is a reason you don't see more T-shape buildings like this in more adventurous cities than Brisbane - because it's ugly. Even more depressing is the cheering here just because it is a) moderately tall and b) ooh has a little cantilever (did i hear someone say seidler??).

Now we see the end game of this building... it's so awful and over-developed for its block they have to chop it up into 1 bedroom squats just to make it saleable. I can't see it being a luxury block with that number of apartments, not being on the river and having so cramped a common area.

On the upside, I don't mind the bronze sunblades. Can't see them ageing well, bit like a 1990s vergola. The glass pool end is a bit dated but still fun. I also like the townhouses but god knows who is going to buy one of those with a 20 storey concrete umbrella over your roof terrace.

See, I'm a bit torn with this one because I love the front of it. I think it looks great. But god I hate the back of it. I mean, just imagine living across the street from this:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7561/kang5yd7.jpg

I really, really hate that. That's a deal breaker for me. The building totally turns its back from the street.

I think the all angles of the design look totally unique and will be fantastic for Kangaroo Pt. I also really hope this proceeds with its current design.

I like this because its different. At least its not the same as every other square box with a coloured wall that seems to go up around Brisbane.

The facade may age quickly, but its hard to tell. But you can tell that the architects at least put some thought and effort into the design. Build it I say.

it looks a bit weird but i don't think it'll stand out as much as those renders suggest.

Im a fan, it is certainly different to anything else in Kangaroo Point at the moment (maybe with the exception of Scott St.)

I really, really hate that. That's a deal breaker for me. The building totally turns its back from the street.

its back isn't that ugly tho. and no one in their right mind would make a building face the 'street' when it is an ugly arterial rd like shafston ave/main st.

.. can't believe people don't like this.

Site works are starting on this ugly beast in October/November. I haven't seen any pre-sales notices yet. They've changed the name from "Bronze Residences" to, err, "@20"

http://at20.com.au/

Does anyone know if the design is the same? i went past today and there are no pictures of the project, just a big @20 sign.

Yes, it is the same. The application to amend the DA was rejected.

i think it was withdrawn rather than rejected??

Nah BCC totally rejected it but I think the developers are appealing. Not sure how they are going to market it if they don't know what product they're selling.


http://bit.ly/boD8QH

http://pdonline.brisbane.qld.gov.au/MasterView/modules/documentmaster/viewdocumentftp.aspx?key=p4j9mRT%2fiFatWe3QSG2%2baUuZ4mPP7QPwxWAhvefNcWvDvWLQX966ig%3d%3d

So what did they want different? were they going to change the visual aspect of the building?

^^

the developers, like many others, has submitted an application to change the mix of apartments types, from large to small.

Original: 28,33,47,6 = 114 (1,2,3,4 bedrooms respectively)
New DA: 69,103,16,1 =192

A002844289

Good.

ahh ok, thanx Orfeo

And sales have commenced. Good to see.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/SoulVisionQ3/20.png

Soul, ever thought of putting a smaller news or "gossip" feed on BD? Little bits of news like "@20, Kangaroo Point starts presales" - "Grocon confirmed buyer for The Westin" etc would be cool. No need to write a great big fat article about every news item, but keeps readers in the loop.

^^ yeah actually been thinking of doing something like that for a while. Writing big articles gets annoying. Will get on to it :)

I don't like it.

This going to date real bad.

Plus, it's totally overbearing. A wall of balconies like someone cut a T out of the Admiralty Towers. From a distance it just looks like a boring fat box as well.

Big mistake this one, it's going to be one of those towers in 10 years time we'll go 'yeech, can't believe that big fat blob is dominating Kangaroo Point, what idiot approved that?'. Still, the developer must be laughin his head off.

They better not be demolishing the AMAZING two storey white weatherboard house on that site. Has anyone seen it....it's quite old and in need of a fix up but could be incredible.

If memory serves, I'm pretty sure it is... I have a mate who works on this project and he said it's a bloody shame to lose it. I haven't seen it - pics would be appreciated if you have any!

Why wouldn't they sell it to a house mover?

I don't think they are demolishing it, isn't that house heritage listed?

If it's a quality building in terms of the materials used, then I think I will quite like it. It adds diversity and it may not be visually offensive with some nice glass on the balconies and decent cladding on the sides.

Ummm... Is the crane up for this one? I can see a big crane up that I didn't notice last week in that general direction. I think looking straight out from my desk I look at the site.

You're not seeing past it to the Mater Hill area are you? There is a crane up there for a ~10st resi development (in addition to the 4 on the hospital).

..

nah, there is another crane near this site.. i drove past it yesterday too
i am not sure if it is on the actual site, but it is bloody close!!

I just saw it too. Might drive home that way and see what I can find out. An address would help us find a DA if it's not this one.

It's behind that horrible 90s era green building with the curved roof lines - Medina? Or something like that.

Edit: Just checked nearmap to estimate the location of the crane and it has to be either this site or one directly next door.

The crane is on a different site - on the other side of Lambert St. It appears to be on the same block of land as "The Point" hotel (greenish building). It looks as if they're either knocking it down, refurbishing it, or putting an extension on the back. The crane seems too close for a seperate building.

If memory serves, I'm pretty sure it is... I have a mate who works on this project and he said it's a bloody shame to lose it. I haven't seen it - pics would be appreciated if you have any!

Don't have any pics but it's one of the most amazing houses I've seen in BNE.

In the DA the old houses on the street are being demolished, except for the listed one on the corner of Cairns. The name of the developer 'Rankeilor' is actually the name of the grandest of the three houses. A shame to see it go, I used to live on that street and always admired it.

Is it the white weatherboard two storey with double storey verandah going around it, set amongst beautiful lush green overgrown gardens?
It is SO beautiful......SO beautiful.

Anyone have a pic of the house?

The crane you guys are talking about is in the Point Hotel, they are doing a major upgrade of their entertainment / bar area. I think they might be getting rid of their tennis court and making their pool much bigger.

The crane you guys are talking about is in the Point Hotel, they are doing a major upgrade of their entertainment / bar area. I think they might be getting rid of their tennis court and making their pool much bigger.

That's one hell of a crane for a few renos.

My thoughts exactly... It's a big one.

But he must be right. The crane is literally on the tennis court of The Point. Could they be installing a carpark?

Ok, its not for a pool after all, they are actually building more rooms / units. Another 30 i was told, over how many floors i don't know.

They are making the entertaining / dining area bigger as well and definitly getting rid of the tennis court.

Well they need to refurbish the whole tower coz it's damn ugly.

yeah its definitely imposing, but i think it could turn out ok. I like the design, i think, because at least its different. I think i will have to wait and see the finished product before really making a judgement.

Is the link at the start of this thread broken? Can't seem to get it to work.

The comments on this building have got me eager to see it!!

^^
with the link, you'll have to click it, accept the conditions and then re-click.

all the images are working for me on the first page, but if they're down for you, there is another render on p3.

^^
with the link, you'll have to click it, accept the conditions and then re-click.

all the images are working for me on the first page, but if they're down for you, there is another render on p3.

Thanks for the assistance Orfeo,

Turns out it's just internet restrictions placed on the work computers in our office!

The company obviously doesn't want me to start looking at gratuitous 'naked' buildings!

Cheers

that seems a touch vindictive of them. i suppose it is an addictive habit.

Bump... Developer has gone bust on this one. Not likely to see this anytime soon.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=119_356_204&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1

This looks to have been bought by Metro Property... So it's got a decent chance of getting up.

http://www.metroprop.com.au/apartments/coming-soon/lambert-street/

^^ Most likely a different design with significantly watered down quality.

Another Madison Heights...?

I hope they keep it as is, i actually like the current design.

But yes, their track record suggests otherwise...

^^ Most likely a different design with significantly watered down quality.

Sigh... :(

Looking at the website it gives the impression they are keeping the design. We'll have to wait and see.

did get a redesign after all. now 22 levels. similar height.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4142/screenshot20121216at131.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/screenshot20121216at131.png/)

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4142/screenshot20121216at131.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/screenshot20121216at131.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Looks pretty decent from that angle, but I would presume the back of it is pretty bland. Better than the original design though.

Edit: No, I was wrong, the back is pretty similar to this angle too.

Orfeo, are those images from a revised DA? Know the DA number? My search has nothing.

I still think it comes off as too bulky for the area, a bit of restraint would go a long way.

disagree. I think it is fine for the area. A good addition overall.

Orfeo, are those images from a revised DA? Know the DA number? My search has nothing.

That one is indeed from the new DA, which is A003511428.

Thanks Nathan

Excellent revision.

Slightly better than the original IMO, but nothing to get too excited about, design wise. Still, good filler for adding a bit of height and density to KP.

I think it is a big step up from the previous design and we will see another crane near the city. It breaks up the white of all those apartments. All around good news.

Sad to see it lose the overhangy bit. At least thats all they really changed though, so a good result. Includes 15 sub penthouses!

Hello everyone !
I live very close to this site and it is all fenced up, has this been approved? or is it just fenced so that people don't squat in those houses.
Thanks

I'm not sure about the exact status of the DA you could check pd online but it's still listed on metros site as seeking approval.

14th February 2013

RE: Information Request under Section 276 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009

Architectural Issues
1. The proposal seeks many performance solutions, especially on height and gross floor area. As such, to ensure that the height and bulk of the development accords with P2 and P3 of the Kangaroo Point Peninsular Local Plan Code, 3D generated modelling could be provided to be added to BCC virtual Brisbane programme to better assess this application and its impacts. (Attached to this information request is a document called “Guidelines for the lodgement of digital 3D models” to assist in this process.)
2. The proposal is considered to be generally well articulated in form. However, the proposed articulation is not considered sufficient to adequately reduce the appearance of the building bulk. Variation in vertical form with sun awnings and building elements would add variety. The variation in vertical form could be achieved by some horizontal banding (or accentuating some segments or squares) across the façade by variations in projections, colours, materials and balustrade forms.

Engineering Issues
Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing Code / Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing Planning Scheme Policy
3. A new Traffic Report certified/ signed by a Registered Professional Engineer in Queensland (RPEQ) is to be provided to support the application and amendments as necessary as outlined in this information request.
4. A performance solution has been provided to address onsite servicing and vehicular movement, which is unsuitable to Council. The proposal is to be in accordance with City Plan 2000. Consequently, all onsite vehicular areas for parking, manoeuvring and servicing are to be designed in accordance with Transport Access, Parking and Servicing Planning Scheme Policy (TAPS). Australian Standards may be referred to if a particular point is not addressed in TAPS. Plans for the application are to be amended accordingly. Due to the above point, a full assessment will be undertaken after compliant plans have been submitted. Compliance may not be limited to the following points which are provided to assist with preparation of amended plans.
5. Car parking layout has generally been proposed on a performance basis that is not supported by Council. However with a better utilisation of the space left around proposed parking bays, minor relocation of some columns and provision of bays in compliance with Figure‘t’ of TAPS, an outcome may be possible that is in compliance with TAPS and may be considered for support.
6. Performance solution proposed for car parking numbers is not supported. Parking rates are to be in accordance with P9 of the Kangaroo Point Peninsula Local Plan as outlined in the prelodgement meeting held in July 2012. Previous applications over this site since 2008 have proposed parking rates generally above TAPS/ Kangaroo Point Peninsula Local Plan requirements. Total car parking spaces to be provided for the proposed development are to be within a minimum of 304 to a maximum of 340 spaces with visitor spaces being at the rate of 0.2 of spaces provided which would be between a minimum of 51 to a maximum of 57 of the total number provided.
7. Tandem car parking spaces are to be allocated for individual units only. This requirement may impact on the total number of parking spaces to be provided.
8. Tandem parking spaces are not covered in AS/NZS 2890.1. Tandem spaces if proposed are to be in accordance with 6.8.2 of TAPS i.e. 10.8 metres long and 2.6 metres wide. Manoeuvring in long narrow spaces or occupant access and or egress may be difficult as outlined in Note 1 under Table 1.1. of AS/NZS 2890.1
9. Car parking bay 2 on Floor B3 to be moved to provide clear access to the fan room.
10. Provide sections to demonstrate height clearance to service vehicle manoeuvring and parking areas. All works are to be in accordance with Transport Access, Parking and Servicing Planning Scheme Policy of City Plan 2000 (TAPS).

11. Traffic Report provided with the application, in Section 5.3 Table 5.3 states that an Alternative Requirement for Residential (class3) parking bays may be 2.4 in width.
However AS/NZS 2890.1 clearly states in Table 1.1 and Figure 2.2 (d) that Class 3 bays are to be 2.6 metres. Plans are to be amended accordingly to comply. AS/NZS 2890.1 and TAPS. Table 16 in TAPS set out that class 3 car spaces are to be 2.6 metres wide.
12. Crossover to be provided as a Type B2 in conjunction with works outlined in the Services, Works and Infrastructure Code Section of this information request.
13. Submit amended layout plans at a suitable scale to be clearly viewed showing gradients with dimensions of crossovers, parking aisles, ramps, parking bays length and widths and manoeuvring areas including swept paths. All works are to be in accordance with Transport Access, Parking and Servicing Planning Scheme Policy City Plan 2000 (TAPS).

Kangaroo Point Peninsula Local Plan
14. Performance solution proposed for car parking is not supported. Parking rates are to be in accordance with P9 of the Kangaroo Point Peninsula Local Plan as outlined in the prelodgement meeting held in July 2012.
Services, Works and Infrastructure Code 15. Provide written approval from Brisbane City Council City Waste for the onsite refuse collection arrangement proposed for this development.
16. NOTE: A foul water line exists through the site. It will be conditioned to maintain the integrity of the system if the development achieves approval. The foul water line may be connected to the proposed internal drainage system to maintain the integrity of the system to a lawful point of discharge.
17. Demonstrate how pedestrian safety will be achieved from the vehicular crossovers off Cairns Street into the development.
18. Provide plans to scale and clearly dimensioned to show the vehicular crossover into Cairns Street and the location of the proposed stormwater gully in Cairns Street with surface levels to clearly demonstrate free draining of the pavement and channel. The crossover is to be moved to the west to facilitate the crossover to standard and the proposed stormwater gully on the eastern side of the crossover.
19. Applicant to contact Gregg Buyers of Brisbane Infrastructure in Council on 3403 8888 or gregg.buyers@brisbane.qld.gov.au to obtain approval for the development within the zone of influence over the Clem 7 tunnel.

Stormwater Management and Services Works and Infrastructure
20. There is an existing Council stormwater drainage line that currently traverses this site. The proposal to suspend a Council stormwater drain in the basement as a proposal to relocate the stormwater drain through the site is not supported. Provide amended plans with long sections to show the stormwater drainage line along Lambert Street and into Cairns Streets as in the previous applications for this site.

Filling and Excavation Code
21. Provide amended plans to demonstrate the extent of proposed onsite cut and fill to comply with the Fill and Excavation Code including location of any retaining walls their material of construction and interface with adjoining lots.

Infill ICP Charges
22. For calculation of infill ICP charges and credits, submit a tabulation showing updated inputs if previously submitted details for the proposed development varies in relation to commercial/industrial areas/buildings in m² and the use thereof or the number of dwellings or units that have previously been approved and demolished to facilitate the development if applicable for credits.

General Advice
23. Please be advised that under the Queensland Coastal Plan the site is located in the “Coastal Zone” and as such DERM should be contacted for advice in relation to this proposal.

Water and Sewer Issues
24. The proposed solution to relocate the sewer within the basement is not the preferred option. The relocation of the sewer between the manholes with a curved PE sewer located in the ground is preferred. This may require some modification to the basement design at that point. Please provide detail of an acceptable solution.

Environmental Issues
Stormwater Quality
25. The Site-Based Stormwater Quality Management Plan no.49021, prepared by Glynntucker Consulting Engineers and dated 17th December 2012, fails to meet the requirements of the State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters, the State Planning Policy 4/10 Guideline for Healthy Waters and Urban Stormwater Quality Planning Guidelines 2010. A revised Stormwater Quality Management plan is required along with submitted an electronic copy of the Stormwater Quality Modeling using the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) for
assessment. The plan must contain specific details of the location, size, maintenance and operation of all proposed stormwater quality improvement devices. Furthermore, site plans must be presented that demonstrate all run-off will be directed to these proposed devices before discharge off-site.

Acid Sulfate Soils
26. As the development has levels which are below RL5m the applicant is required to provide an assessment against State Planning Policy 2/02 – Planning and Managing Development Involving Acid Sulfate Soils and State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters. An Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation Report is required if greater that 100m3 of soil is disturbed (eg- filling, excavation, drainage works, stripping of topsoil or the like). Any investigation report and subsequent Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan must be developed in accordance with this policy and other associated technical guidelines.

ASS Investigation
27. An ASS investigation will be necessary to determine possible impacts of soil disturbance and filling. The ASS investigation and ASS management plan (if required) should be consistent with the Guidelines for sampling and analysis of lowland acid sulfate soils (ASS) in Queensland 1998 (Ahern et al, 1998), State Planning Policy 2/02: Planning and Managing Development Involving Acid Sulfate Soils, the State Planning 2/02 Guidelines: Acid Sulfate Soils (Qld Govt, 2002), the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines and State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters. The following information must be supplied with an ASS Investigation as a minimum;
- Provide a site map defining the dimensions and locations of area(s) where fill is to be placed, the depth and volumes of fill at these locations and the location of all investigative boreholes dug within the area(s) to be filled.
- Define where the fill will be sourced from (both on-site and off-site). Fill should not be untreated ASS. This may need to be verified with the fill supplier.
- Using information collected in the ASS investigation report, identify the extent of any in situ potential acid sulfate soils or actual acid sulfate soils that may be exposed or disturbed by displacement and extrusion of soil or changes to groundwater levels associated with the proposed works.
- Provide information as set out in Section 8.5 of the SPP 2/02 Guideline (supported by geotechnical investigations or similar) and Section 6.2 of the QASSMAC ASS Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines to assess how the load associated with placing of fill (or any other structures associated with the filling activity) will effect the underlying soil, ground water levels and surface water runoff at the site.

demolishing and clearing the site
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/159/20130509141429.jpg

So has this been approved? I thought they had to change the design.

No but they have to demolish the houses within 6 months of the demolition permit otherwise they have to re-apply for a new permit and on May 9th a new TLPI came in for pre 1911 houses (regardless of DCP zoning) saving them from demolition. I would imagine some of the houses were from around then.

FYI: The site is zoned High density residential with no DCP or heritage overlays.