DP 2 Sloping Sites

Review of Tweed Development Control Plan
Section A1 - Residential and Tourist Development Code

Part A - Single dwelling houses, alterations and additions
Discussion Paper 2
Sloping sites - managing cut and fill
May 2012
Bark Architects
Sparks Architects
This page intentionally blank

Contents
Introduction 4
What issues will the review address? 5
What about the other parts of the plan? 5
What about major subdivision of land? 5
What will happen next? 5
How long is this review likely to take? 5
The Issues 6
Current Statutory Requirements 8
DCP A1 Residential & Tourist Development Code 8
DCP A5 Subdivision Controls 10
SEPP Exempt & Complying Codes 12
Analysis of the controls 15
Understanding Slope 17
Slope Typologies 19
Slope / Elevation Length / Cut 20
Structural Systems 21
Traditional and Current Practice 23
Sloping sites and vegetation 31
Can and should housing respond better to slope? 33
Designing to Sloping Sites 33
Cut and fill options 36
Summary 40
Sloping sites survey form 43
How can I have a say? 45
Want to know more? 45
This house responds to its up slope allotment condition by incorporating car parking space to the lower part of the
site with living space above in an elevated position. The balcony provides a good address to the street. The post and
beam construction and split level floorplate configuration allows the site level change to take place within the building
design. The strong front yard landscaping also contributes to the streetscape appeal and softens the level changes.
Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 3

Discussion Paper 2 Sloping Sites - Managing Cut and Fill
Introduction
Tweed Shire Council’s Planning Reforms Unit is currently

undertaking a review of Tweed Development Control Plan (DCP)
Section A1 – Residential and Tourist Design Code: Part A –
Dwelling Houses.
An industry and community breakfast forum was held in

September 2010. An issues paper was distributed at the forum
highlighting some of the emerging issues and seeking both
industry and community feedback on the current single dwelling
controls and more importantly on ‘what is working and what is not’
for the construction of houses and how new dwellings present in
the streetscape.
A range of issues have been identified. Each issue will be the

subject of a discussion paper that will provide a summary of:
• the objectives and controls;
• what they seek to achieve;
• how is the housing market meeting or responding to
these objectives and controls;
• is the finished housing outcome meeting the
objectives;
• is the finished housing outcome meeting the owner’s
and neighbour’s expectations;
• is the finished housing outcome integrating with the
site and the neighbourhood;
• a range of options for amendment
No amendments to the DCP have been made to date, the purpose
of this discussion paper is to seek early input from the community
and the development industry to identify what issues are
important, what elements of housing are problematic or desirable.
Council supports community engagement and best practice in the
preparation of important strategic policy.
Broad Actions 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr
2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012
Initial breakfast meeting
Assessment of issues, drafting of
discussion papers
Consultation / feedback on
discussion papers
Drafting of DCP A1 amendments
Public exhibition DCP A1
amendments
Review submissions / final
editing
Report DCP A1 amendments to
Council
Indicative timeframe for the DCP A1 review
4
What issues will the review address?
Based on internal reviews and both industry and community feedback to date,
a range of issues will be consulted on through the following discussion papers:
1. Designing in context
2. Cut and Fill provisions and sloping sites
3. Landscaping and deep soil zones
4. Building envelopes - setback and height; floor space ratio and site
coverage
5. Small lot design
6. Ancillary structures
7. DCP structure
What about the other parts of the plan?

In the first instance, the review concentrates on Part A, the controls that relate
to dwelling houses, alterations and additions and ancillary development.
Part B relates to dual occupancy housing, granny flats, town houses and row
houses and Part C relates to residential flat buildings and shoptop housing.
Whilst it is understood there is an overlap in content, Parts B and C will be
reviewed in subsequent stages.
What about major subdivision of land?
It is acknowledged there is significant relationship between the subdivision
of land (major subdivision) and the development of dwelling houses. The
review of Part A, whilst a separate process, will be considered in the context
of the subdivision codes and assessment practices, ascertaining any gaps and
problems which flow on to housing development. The subdivision code (Part
A5) will be the subject of a separate review.
What will happen next?
The issues will be the subject of a suite of discussion papers to be released for
consultation over the coming months, and will be seeking both industry and
community feedback on the issues and the options presented.
Together the discussion papers and the feedback received will inform the
review of DCP A1 Part A.
Where required, draft amendments to the DCP will be prepared and reported to
Council, which with Council’s approval, will be publicly exhibited for comments.
How long is this review likely to take?

The first stage of the review commenced at the stakeholder breakfast in
September 2010. This is now being followed by the staged release of the
discussion papers, anticipated to be released for comment over the second half
of 2011.
The table on the facing page outlines the next steps and estimated timeframe.

The Issues
In the Tweed, like many other locations on the North Coast and
South East Queensland there is a limited supply of available, flat,
flood free land. Our investigation shows that of land (yet to be
zoned) that may accommodate major greenfield development over
the next 5-30 years, the mean slope is 9.8 degrees (approximately
18%), with large portions of these lands having a slope greater
than 14 degrees (approximately 25%).
The topography and vegetation in Tweed’s urban and greenfield

development areas is an important part of Tweed’s landscape
and visual character. This visual character is highly valued, as
demonstrated through submissions to the Tweed Community
Strategic Plan.
Maintaining the integrity of the scenic background, natural

topography, ridge lines, and treed landscape features is an
important objective of the DCP, and is to be encouraged.
Sloping sites present a number of design challenges and generally

require greater design input than flat sites. Sloping sites offer
unique amenity opportunities that benefit from elevated positions
As the supply of relatively level land diminishes, many new including views and outlook, access to cooling breezes. Buildings
residential release areas turn to bulk land forming (see
large batters above) at the subdivision stage to achieve less that are designed to suit a sloping site often result in more
steep building sites. This bulk land forming may, under interesting building forms which, when well designed, integrate
DCP Part A5 for residential subdivisions, permit finished within the landscape.
surface levels that depart from natural surface levels by up
to 5.0m and greater than 5.0m for no more than 10% of
the site. Variations up to 15% may be considered where
Current building practice favours creating a level building site
demonstrated environmental benefit. (benching) on which a single concrete slab on ground house
can be easily constructed. In order to create a level building
site on sloping land, extensive cutting and filling occurs and the
construction of retaining walls, most often on property boundaries,
is required. The perception is that this is easier and cheaper than
designing to suit the slope, and frequently this is the only option
considered.
Many of the residential release areas have already been subject

to substantial bulk earth works for subdivision, with residential
subdivision controls allowing finished surface levels to depart
from natural surface levels by up to 5m and greater than 5.0m
to no more than 10% of the site. Any subsequent earthworks
post subdivision represent a further recontouring of the natural
topography and further compromises the landscape integrity of
undulating residential land and the scenic background to the
locality.
Extensive site earthworks above have resulted in a large Many landowners, builders and designers are seeking to place
double tiered rock retaining wall running the full width single level, generic house designs onto land parcels that cannot
of the block. This leads to awkward interface issues with
the adjoining property and will require a fence on top to easily be accommodated on the sloping sites without extensive
comply with the BCA. cutting and filling. In effect, the emerging practice is for the site
to be modified to fit the house, where traditionally the house was
designed to fit the site.
6
Modifying the site to fit the house impacts on the visual
presentation of the locality. The built form and streetscape tends
to take on a ‘stepped’ appearance, losing the natural rhythm of the
topography and appearing disjointed. We would like to know how
the community ‘perceives’ this approach to construction.
In addition to the wider visual appearance of the streetscape, this

form of construction also impacts on the residents of the site and
adjoining sites.
Some of the impacts of full width site benching include:
• Creation of awkward boundary interfaces, often resulting in

large costly retaining walls.
• The construction of large retaining walls, which have the
potential to detrimentally impact on the amenity of an area
and add considerably to the cost of the land and/or the
proposed development for the end customer.
• Building large retaining walls on the boundaries of an
individual lot may give rise to drainage and subsidence
issues if construction is not structurally appropriate.
• Erection of a dividing fence on top of the extensive retaining
Both photos show how site benching has resulted in significant wall to maintain privacy and safety, which in effect
side retaining walls with its overall height amplified by the significantly increases the overall height at the boundary
dividing fence on top of the wall. This results in an overlooked
and significantly overshadowed backyard. The use of a timber
(often over 3.0m) resulting in unsightly walls, in a range of
retaining wall could result in its structural integrity being various materials, overshadowing and overlooking issues.
undermined in the future which could lead to drainage issues • Deep excavation cuts disturbing the pattern of subsoil
and landslip. water flow and soil stability which may adversely affect
neighbouring properties and the natural environment.
• The filling of front yards on up slope blocks to achieve
a level area impacts the visual quality and streetscape
character by creating a wall or large earthen berm to the
street edge.
• excessively steep driveways.
The issue of cut and fill is the single most challenged control in the
Tweed DCP A1.
There is currently a lack of understanding of designing to slope,

of slope appropriate housing being offered by the volume housing
builders and a lack of development control guidelines to achieve
appropriately structured housing on slopes greater than 10
degrees (approximately 18%).
In the photo above the side fencing ‘steps’ at 5 different levels

within the side boundary of the two dwellings.

Current Statutory Requirements
DCP A1 Residential & Tourist Development Code

The current objectives for topography, cut and fill in relation to dwelling houses are:
• to retain the existing landform
• to limit the extent of excavation
• to moderate the effects of building height and bulk on sloping land
• to minimise the extent of earth works on residential land and earthworks associated with
residential development
• to ensure that the building design is appropriate for site’s topographical conditions
• to ensure development is sympathetic with the existing topography and water cycle of the site
The current controls for topography, cut and fill in relation to dwelling houses are:
• Building siting is to relate to the original form of the land.
• Alternatives to slab on ground construction are to be encouraged where it is obvious that due to the
gradient and characteristics of the site, major excavation or filling as a result of raft slab construction
would be inappropriate. Examples of alternative construction includes: Bearer and joist construction;
Deepened edge beam; Split level design; Suspended slab design.
• On sloping sites step buildings or utilise site excavation and suspended floors to
accommodate changes in level rather than levelling the site via cut and fill.
• Dwellings must not be designed to be on a contiguous slab on ground type if the building site has a slope
of greater than 10%. Development on such land is to be of pole or pier construction or multiple slabs or the
like that minimise the extent of cut and fill.
• Site excavation / land reforming is to be kept to a minimum required for an appropriately
designed site responsive development.
• The maximum level of cut is 1m and fill is 1m.
• Retaining walls maximum 1.2m.
• Cut areas are to be set back from the boundaries at least 900mm; fill areas are to be setback from the
boundary a minimum of 1.5m.
• Cut and fill batters shall not exceed a slope of 1:2 (v:h) unless geotechnical reports result in Council
being satisfied with the site stability. All batters are to be provided with both short term and long term
stabilisation to prevent soil erosion.
• Excavations in excess of one metre within the confines of the building and on driveways may be permitted,
to allow for basement garages providing the excavations are adequately retained and drained, in
accordance with engineering details.
• Filled areas are to be located where they will not impact on the privacy of neighbours.
• Stormwater or surface water runoff shall not be redirected or concentrated onto adjoining
properties so as to cause a nuisance and adequate drainage is to be provided to divert water away from
batters.
• The top of any battered cut (or retaining wall) and the toe of any battered fill (or retaining wall) is not to be
closer than 900mm for cut and 1.5m for fill to any property boundary, where the overall height at any point
exceeds 500mm.
The current variations provisions to Cut and Fill Design
• Variations to the requirements above will be permitted to create a flat yard space not
exceeding 15% of the area of the lot for the purposes of outdoor living, recreation, clothes drying,
swimming pool and the like.
• Proposed variations to the controls must demonstrate that the excavation or filling of the site is in harmony
with the natural landform/environment and will not adversely affect the adjoining properties.
• Where a property is burdened by stormwater or water and sewerage mains then Council will generally
preclude any excavation or filling within that easement.
8
What is the purpose of cut and fill development
controls?
The inclusion in the DCP of objectives and controls for cut

and fill is to manage the impact on the natural environment
including drainage, soils stability, structural integrity, privacy
of adjoining neighbours, and the visual impact on the
streetscape of substantially changing landforms.
GPA Architects
The nominal setbacks to buildings and the on site drainage
This house responds to its up slope by having its garage requirements are generally easily managed on relatively flat
recessed under a projecting upper level balcony. Part of the upper sites, without undue impact to the adjoining properties or
level is suspended reducing the need for full site width cut and fill.
significant visual impact on the streetscape. However, as
the slope of land increases, there is the potential for greater
impacts and the need for greater design detail to manage
those impacts.
What is desirable?
The DCP cut and fill provisions seek to find a balance that:
• ensures housing selection and design understands

and responds to the topography of the area;
• discourages recontouring of land post subdivision as
being the preferred method of construction;
• promotes the retention of the existing topography
resulting in the houses retaining a consistent
This house responds to its side slope by having its garage on relationship with the natural topography;
the lower level with living space above. The visual impact of the
double garage is reduced by projecting balconies which provide • creates greater flexibility to ensure design responds
the occupants with good outdoor living space, and access to to slope appropriately, encourages a more holistic
views, breezes and light. approach to site planning and provides for appropriate
cut and fill over slope categories to allow a range of
housing choice;
• moderates the effects of building height, bulk and
mass on sloping land;
• reduces the instance of drainage problems and
retaining wall subsidence;
• provides guidances for sites that may have a slope
greater than 10 degrees (approximately 18 %);
• considers the wider community impacts such as
streetscape, privacy, overshadowing, access to
breezes;
• facilitates home owner requirements, such as good
housing design, usable outdoor spaces; and
• does not unduly impact on housing affordability.
This house responds to its down slope by suspending part of
the upper floor, and having half a level down slope reducing the
amount of cut and fill required.

DCP A5 Subdivision Controls
What is the relationship of the cut and fill provisions with

the subdivision requirements?
Part A5 of the DCP contains the controls in relation to subdivision.
This part of the DCP clearly articulates the need for undertaking
a site analysis to ensure that the context of the location and the
opportunities and the constraints of a residential release site are
considered in the evolving design iterations.
This section of the DCP requires, in summary, in relation to land

forming that:
• Land forming should be kept to a minimum;
• Subdivision should be designed to fit the topography rather
than altering the topography to fit the subdivision;
• Land forming should preserve levels at site boundaries and
retaining walls to, or within 3m, of the boundaries should not
exceed 1.2m;
• For residential land uses, the proportion of a site that
contains cut and fill areas with finished surface
levels that depart from natural surface levels by more
than 5m shall not exceed 10%. Variations up to 15% of
the site area may be considered if such variations have a
demonstrated environmental benefit;
• Batters and retaining walls are not permitted for the
purpose of creating terraced lots;
• The finished landform should mimic existing and local
surrounding natural topography;
• For residential subdivisions, the combined height
of retaining walls or cut and fill batters on an allotment
boundary shall not exceed 1.2m at boundary, 1.8m
above street level and 2.4m below street level;
• Scenic Impact Assessment is required for subdivisions of
more than 50 lots or 15,000m2 of earthworks.
From the above it can be seen that the residential subdivision

requirements maintain similar objectives with regard to
undertaking rigorous site analysis and seek similar management
of sloping sites, essentially that subdivision should be designed
to fit the topography rather than altering the topography to fit the
subdivision.
Notwithstanding, the subdivision controls allow land forming

whereby the finished ground surface levels may depart from
natural surface levels by up to more than 5m and not exceeding
10% of the site.
For large residential release areas this has a significant impact

on the natural landform, topography and visual appearance. It
is a common practice within new land release areas to include
retaining walls to terrace land to enable flatter building sites.
10
These terrace sites are then further modified with additional cut
and fill to enable a slab on ground dwelling to be constructed.
In general, individual site cut and fill requirements have been kept
to a minimum as significant land forming is frequently already
undertaken at the subdivision stage.
The perception is that the market is demanding single level slab

on ground dwellings. However, as part of this process we are also
interested in finding out if the people choosing new housing:
• understand the process of site analysis and responsive
design;
• are aware of other construction options and/or their costs;
• or are offered other choices by housing providers.
Your feedback is sought
In your opinion is land forming at

the subdivision stage acceptable?
Do you think that more cut and

fill to a site, which has already
been altered is acceptable?
Significant land forming has been carried out to create these

subdivisions resulting in recontouring of the topography to
‘remove’ many hills and create flatter building sites. This results
in many substantial sections of retaining walls and large areas
of earth batters.

SEPP Exempt & Complying Codes
Relationship with the State Environmental Planning

Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes)
2008
The Code SEPP is a State Government policy which allows for
single dwellings and alterations and additions to single dwellings
(and other specified development), which meet a standardised
range of development standards, to be lodged and processed in an
expedited manner, i.e. within 10 days.
The Code SEPP is a state wide and generic suite of controls

aimed at stimulating housing construction and speeding up the
assessment time for development which the State percieves to be
low impact.
The Codes SEPP for complying development requires, with regard

to earthworks and drainage, specifically cut and fill, works must be
consistent with the following:
3.29 Excavation of sloping sites

1. Excavation associated with the erection of, or alterations or
additions to, a dwelling house or ancillary development (other
than a swimming pool) must:
a. be not more than 1m below ground level
(existing), and
b. be constructed using a retaining wall or
unprotected embankment that meets the
standards of sub-clause (2) or (3), respectively.
2. A retaining wall:
a. must not redirect the flow of surface water onto
adjoining property, and
b. must not extend more than 2m horizontally from
any external wall of the dwelling house or ancillary
development.
3. An unprotected embankment must not extend more than 2m
horizontally beyond the external wall of the dwelling house or
ancillary development.
4. Excavation associated with the erection of, or alterations or
additions to, a swimming pool must be not more than the
depth required for the pool structure.
12
3.30 Fill of sloping sites
1. Fill associated with the erection of, or an alteration or addition to, a
dwelling house or ancillary development must:
a. be contained wholly within the footprint of the dwelling
house or ancillary development, or
b. be adequately contained by a retaining wall that:
(i) is not higher than 600mm (including the height
of any batters) above ground level (existing), and
(ii) does not redirect the flow of surface water onto

adjoining property.
2. Despite sub-clause (1), exposed fill may be constructed using

an unprotected embankment if the dwelling house or
ancillary development has a setback of more than 2m from
a side or rear boundary, if:
a. the fill is not more than 600mm above ground level (existing),
and
b. the fill (but not the embankment) does not extend more than
1m beyond an external wall of the dwelling house or ancillary
development, and
c. the toe of the unprotected embankment has a setback of at
least 400mm from a side or rear boundary.
Analysis
Complying development applications must meet these standards (and a
range of other development standards), otherwise the application is lodged
as a standard development application and the development standards of
the local Council DCP apply.
The Tweed DCP is a suite of controls developed to meet a wide range of

situations and development types. The differing objectives of this plan to the
Code SEPP means there will be some minor variations within the controls.
In regard to cut and fill both the Code SEPP and the Tweed DCP A1
provisions have a consistent intent.
The DCP A1 requirements for cut and fill are currently more generous than
the SEPP Code requirements, as a DA and greater assessment is required.
Council’s DCP A1 currently allows +/-1.0m cut and fill across a site where
as the SEPP Code only allows 1.0m cut and 600mm fill within the confines
of the building envelope.
Additionally, retaining walls are not required to be limited to within 2m of

the wall of a dwelling house in the current DCP A1 controls.
Both DCP A1 and the Code SEPP require that drainage is to be managed on
site and water is not to flow onto adjoining properties.

15.0m
HOW MUCH CUT AND FILL IS ACCEPTABLE ON A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL LOT?
The diagram above illustrates the relationship between site benching, slope and retaining wall height, based on standard volume housing dimensions
and setbacks.
Current controls limit cut and fill to 1.0m across typical residential allotments and limit continuous slabs to slopes of 10 degrees (approximately 18%)
and less.
14
Analysis of the Controls
Analysis of the effectiveness of the controls

Whilst cut and fill controls apply to all sites and housing
Your feedback is sought development applications, they are generally the most relevant to
construction of a single level contiguous slab.
In your opinion do houses
As the current maximum cut & fill level is +/- 1 metre, over
with high retaining walls have
an averaged sized project home elevation length a continuous
a negative impact on the
slab construction can only be accommodated on slopes up to 4
streetscape?
degrees, or 7%, as shown in the Diagram opposite. This would still
result in a rear retaining wall approximately 1153mm high.
In your opinion do large changes
in levels between houses affect The current provisions do not suitably provide guidance or
privacy or access to sunlight? qualitative objectives for greater slope situations. Thus, there
is increasing pressure to solve the issue by increasing the
permissible cut and fill and resultant retain walls.
A common situation, particularly on down slope lots, is that in

addition to a 1500mm high retaining wall, most sites then include
an 1800mm fence above effectively increasing the “walled”
effect to around 2.3m at the rear boundary interface. These sites
generally also include a significant earth berm or retaining wall to
the street elevation.
Current practice of site benching houses on slopes up to 10%

(approximately 18%), increases the rear boundary interface
to approximately 4.7m and the side boundary interface to
approximately 3.5m to accommodate a typical continuous slab on
ground home creating a enclosing wall effect to many rear yards.
Thus the current ‘topography, cut and fill controls (d), (f) and (g)’
do not relate as well as they should and on many sites cannot be
achieved.
Depending on the design of neighbouring houses, such as

balconies or verandahs on the up slope house, and how close
the house is built to the boundary, this greatly increases privacy
impacts and overlooking into neighbouring houses and yards.
This form of siting of houses greatly alters the streetscape creating

a ‘stepped’ appearance and greater housing bulk and visual
impact than siting that follows the contours of the site.
An issue of streetscape and designing an appropriate street

address also arises where a large retaining wall or batter is
located in the front setback, or on the property’s front boundary.
This results in very steep driveway access, exacerbates drainage
requirements and depending on orientation may reduce access to
sunshine, shade or cooling breezes.

Flat Site 0-60 (0-10%)
Moderate Slope 6-120 (10-21%)
Steep Slope over 12 - 180 (21-32%)
Extreme Slope over 200 (over 32%)
16
Understanding Slope
To understand the cut and fill provisions, it is first crucial to

Calculating Slope understand slope.
One of the characteristics of a quality and livable house is that it

is designed to suit the specific site conditions rather than trying
CALCULATING SLOPE to significantly alter the site through earthworks to enable a
pre-determined building and structural system.
TAN 
CALCULATING SLOPE
RISE
RUN Recognising the type of slope you are designing for and
RISE
TAN  RISE
understanding what might be an appropriate structural system
 (ANGLE)
to employ for a particular site is imperative to good design.
TAN 20°
RUN 36.4  36.4% Slope
100 RISE RUN RISE
 Slope can be divided into four broad typologies, each which
(ANGLE)  (ANGLE)
TAN 20°  36.4  36.4% Slope require different design considerations:
RUN RUN
100
10% Slope  10  0.1  TAN  • Up slope
• Down slope
THEREFORE
10% Slope  10  0.1  TAN  • Side Slope
TAN-1 0.1  
 5.71° Slope • Rolling Slope (two or more slopes)
100
THEREFORE For the purpose of this discussion paper, degree of slope has
-1
TAN 0.1    5.71° Slope been divided into four broad categories:
Convert Degree
100 to Percent
• Flat 0 - 6 degrees - approximately 10%
DEGREES → PERCENT • Moderate
PERCENT →6-12 degrees - approximately 21%
DEGREES
SLOPE
SLOPE
• Steep 12 -18 degrees
SLOPE - approximately 32%
SLOPE
RISE
PERCENT
RUN
→ DEGREES
DEGREES
ANGLE
→ PERCENT
(DEGREES)
PERCENT • Extreme
RISE RUN
20 degrees PERCENT
ANGLE
PERCENT → DEGREES
(DEGREES)
and over - > approx 32%
0.0175 SLOPE
100 SLOPE1° SLOPE
→ SLOPE1.75% 0.0100 100 SLOPE 0.57° SLOPE← 1%
RISERISE RUNRUN ANGLE ANGLE PERCENT RISE RUN ANGLE
NT 0.0349 (DEGREES)
100 2° →
(DEGREES) 3.49%
PERCENT 0.0200 100
(DEGREES)1.15°PERCENT ← 2%
0.0524 100 3° → 5.24%
Why planning for site and slope is
0.0300 100 1.72° ← 3%
0.0100
0.0175 100 100 0.57°
1° → ← 1%1.75% 0.0100 100 0.57° ← 1%
0.0699 100 4° → 6.99% important
0.0400 100 2.29° ← 4%
0.0200
0.0349 100 100 1.15°
2° → ← 2% 3.49% 0.0200 100 1.15° ← 2%
0.0875 100 5° → 8.75% 0.0500 100 2.86° ← 5%
0.0300
0.0524 100 100 1.72°
3° → ← 3% 5.24% A site and100
0.0300 slope responsive
1.72° design
← 3% minimises cut and fill,
0.1051 100 6° → 10.51% 0.0600 100 3.43° ← 6%
0.0400
0.0699 100 100 2.29°
4° → ← 4% 6.99% and maintains
0.0400 100 the integrity
2.29° of the
← natural
4% landscape and
0.1228 100 7° → 12.28% 0.0700 100 4.00° ← 7%
0.0500
0.0875 100 100 2.86°
5° → ← 5% 8.75% character
0.0500 of
100 a locality while
2.86° significantly
← 5% improving streetscape
0.1405 100 8° → 14.05% 0.0800 100 4.57° ← 8%
0.0600
0.1051 100 100 3.43°
6° → ← 10.51%
6% appearance.
0.0600 100 The maintenance
3.43° of the←natural
← 6% topography is a
0.1584 100 9° → 15.84% 0.0900 100 5.14° 9%
0.0700
0.1228 100 100 4.00°
7° → ← 12.28%
7% key objective
0.0700 100 in100
terms of preserving
4.00° ← 7% the Tweed’s landscape and
0.1763 100 10° → 17.63% 0.1000 5.71° ← 10%
0.0800
0.1405 100 100 4.57° → ← 14.05%
8% ← 8%
0.1944 100
8°
11° → 19.44%
visual0.1100
0.0800 character.
100
100
4.57°
6.28° ← 11%
0.0900
0.1584 100 100 5.14°
9° → ← 15.84%
9% 0.0900 100 5.14° ← 9%
0.2126 100 12° → 21.26% 0.1200 100 6.84° ← 12%
0.1000
0.1763 100 100 5.71°
10° → ← 10%17.63% Conversely,
0.1000 100the cumulative
5.71° visual impact
← 10% of subdivision wide
0.2309 100 13° → 23.09% 0.1300 100 7.41° ← 13%
0.1100
0.1944 100 100 6.28°
11° → ← 11%19.44% site benching
0.1100 100 and construction
6.28° ←of 11%
large retaining walls impacts
0.2493 100 14° → 24.93% 0.1400 100 7.97° ← 14%
0.1200
0.2126 100 100 6.84°
12° → ← 12%21.26% streetscape
0.1200 100character, which in←turn
6.84° 12%impacts on locality and
0.2679 100 15° → 26.79% 0.1500 100 8.53° ← 15%
0.1300
0.2309 100 100 7.41°
13° → ← 13%23.09% shire wide100character.7.41°
0.1300 The levelling
← 13% or benching of sloping
0.2867 100 16° → 28.67% 0.1600 100 9.09° ← 16%
0.1400
0.2493 100 100 7.97°
14° → ← 14%24.93% blocks also
0.1400 100then limits the built←form
7.97° 14%variety which can be
0.3057 100 17° → 30.57% 0.1700 100 9.65° ← 17%
0.1500
0.2679 100 100 8.53°
15° → ← 15%26.79% constructed
0.1500 100 across 8.53°
the site. ← 15%
0.3249 100 18° → 32.49% 0.1800 100 10.20° ← 18%
0.1600
0.2867 100 100 9.09°
16° → ← 16%28.67% 0.1600 100 9.09° ← 16%
0.3443 100 19° → 34.43% 0.1900
It is, however, 100 10.76° ← 19%of flat land is
0.1700
0.3057 100 100 9.65°
17° → ← 17%30.57% 0.1700 100 understood
9.65° that ← an 17%
element
0.3640 100 20° → 36.40% 0.2000 100 11.31°
0.1800
0.3249 100 100 10.20°
18° → ← 18%32.49% important
0.1800 on sloping
100 blocks
10.20° car←space,
for←a 18% 20%
clothes line,
0.1900
0.3443 100 100 10.76°
19° → ← 19%34.43% outdoor entertaining
0.1900 100 area
10.76° and place
← 19%for kids to play. It is
0.2000
0.3640 100 100 11.31°
20° → ← 20%36.40% therefore100
0.2000 important11.31°
to understand what
← 20% is an appropriate
balance of cut and fill to both meet individual lifestyle
requirements and maintain the visual and landscape character
of the Tweed.
DOWNSLOPE
Characteristics Site falls away on the ‘low’ side of the
road.
Garage doors and driveways are generally
positioned closer to road edge to avoid
steeply sloping driveways often making it
difficult to comply with the 1.0m setback
to the front door.
On downsloping blocks going up a storey to the rear significantly
More likely to have a rear deck taking
increases the overall building height and mass to the rear elevation advantage of elevation, natural light
access, breeze and view in split level or
two storey design.
More likely to require excavation to
accommodate a lower (half) level which
often exceeds 1.0m but is concealed from
view from the road.
Living spaces often disconnected from
backyard due to preference for living
space to be elevated taking advantage of
elevation, natural light access, breezes and
views.
More likely to appear bulky and visually
prominent from down slope elevation if not
integrated with the slope.
Potential for privacy and overlooking issues
for adjoining neighbours to rear backyards.
UPSLOPE
Characteristics Site rises up from the street.
Generally requires more cut to allow lower /

level / garage for two-storey or cut and fill
to create a level platform for construction.
more visually dominant from the street.
More likely to have a front deck over
On up sloping blocks care needs to be taken with treatment of
earthen berms or retaining walls to the front facade. In very steep
looking the street in two storey design.
locations, the visual intrusion of retaining walls becomes significant Living spaces often well connected to
and dwellings may ‘sit on’ the modified topography rather than backyard with level transition from living
integrating with the topography.
space to rear yard.
Often results in excavation and need for
retaining walls to rear yard to create a flat
backyard area.
More likely to require excavation, which
often exceeds 1.0m, to accommodate a
part lower level.
More likely to appear bulky and visually
18 prominent from the street.
Slope Typologies
SIDESLOPE
Characteristics Site falls across the site from side boundary
to side boundary.
Traditionally, garage doors and driveways
positioned on the lower side of the block,
however, recent practice tends to position
on the high side to achieve level transition
between street, living space and backyard.
Full width site benching has resulted in significant retaining
Opportunity for elevated deck to take
wall elements to the side boundary. Once the boundary fence advantage of the elevation, natural light
is added the effective neighbouring building height is over 3 access, breezes and views.
stories. In addition to privacy and overlooking concerns, if this
occurs on the northern boundary the lower house is substantially More likely to require excavation to
overshadowed. accommodate a part lower level (garage)
which often exceeds 1.0m within the
building envelope and is often a full level
(2.9m).
Can achieve good relationship and level
transition from living space into the
backyard.
More likely to require creating a wall or
earthen berm to side boundary.
More likely to create a ‘stepped’ streetscape
appearance.
Potential for privacy and overlooking issues
for adjoining neighbours to the lower side.
ROLLING SLOPE
Characteristics Site slopes in two or more directions.

positioned on the lower side of the block to
reduce the amount of cut and fill.
More likely to have a deck over the garage
taking advantage of the elevation, breezes
and views.
Most sloping sites also have an element of cross fall combined More likely to require excavation to
with an up or down slope depending on the site’s relationship
with road access. Rolling slope lots provide the opportunity to
accommodate a part lower level (garage)
explore house design with split levels to step with the slope which often exceeds 1.0m within the
of the site or take up the level change within the building. The building envelope and is often a full level
house above uses the undercroft of the deck as a car space and
integrates well with the landscaped garden.
(2.9m).
Depending on up or down slope relationship,
living spaces can often be disconnected from
backyard due to the elevated living space
away from the street interface.

Slope / Elevation Length / Cut
0-60 or 0-10%
Elevation Length Cut / Fill Required
Slope 2o
Slope 4o Slope 6o
8m +/- 0.28m +/- 0.55m +/- 0.84m
10m +/- 0.35m +/- 0.69m +/- 1.05m
12m +/- 0.42m +/- 0.84m +/- 1.26m
14m +/- 0.48m +/- 0.98m +/- 1.47m
16m +/- 0.56m +/- 1.11m +/- 1.68m
18m +/- 0.63m +/- 1.26m +/- 1.89m
20m +/- 0.70m +/- 1.40m +/- 2.10m
Denotes compliance with current

cut and fill provisions of +/-1.0m
8-120 or 14-20%

Slope 8 o
Slope 10o Slope 12o
8m +/- 1.12m +/- 1.41m +/- 1.70m
10m +/- 1.40m +/- 1.76m +/- 2.12m
12m +/- 1.69m +/- 2.16m +/- 2.55m
14m +/- 1.97m +/- 2.47m +/- 2.97m
16m +/- 2.25m +/- 2.82m +/- 3.40m
18m +/- 2.53m +/- 3.17m +/- 3.80m
20m +/- 2.81m +/- 3.53m +/- 4.25m
14-180 or 25-30%
Slope 14o Slope 16o Slope 18o
8m +/- 1.99m +/- 2.29m +/- 2.60m
10m +/- 2.49m +/- 2.86m +/- 3.25m
12m +/- 2.99m +/- 3.44m +/- 3.90m
14m +/- 3.49m +/- 4.00m +/- 4.55m
16m +/- 3.98m +/- 4.58m +/- 5.20m
18m +/- 4.48m +/- 5.16m +/- 5.84m
20m +/- 4.98m +/- 5.73m +/- 6.50m
The above sliding scales illustrates the limited ability of a single slab on ground construction to comply
with the +/- 1.0m cut and fill requirement including site slopes of 20, 40, and 60 (only where the
elevation length is less than 8.0m). The sliding scales demonstrate that even if the amount of cut and
fill was increased to 1.5m, the continuous slab would only comply in a limited capacity. This reinforces
the need for houses on sloping blocks to take up level change within the building which will reduce the
need for large retaining walls at site boundaries.
20
Structural Systems
Single Slab on Ground (Controlled to 6 degrees only)

• Single reinforced concrete slab;
• Appropriate on sites up to 6 degrees, over 6
degrees typically requires significant cut and fill and
retaining walls;
• Require minimal site preparation on flat sites;
• Require drainage at base of concrete slab;
• Conducive to project home design.
Split or Raft Slabs (Typically 2-18+ degrees)

• Two or more reinforced concrete slabs at different
levels;
• Allows building design to follow the slope of the
site;
• Can easily take up level change (up to 2.7m) within
building design;
• Good for side sloping blocks;
• Drop edge beam becomes a waterproofed retaining
element.
• Good for taking up level change within building;
• Results in more interesting internal arrangement
ArcoEco Architects and varying ceiling heights including higher
volumes over living, dining and kitchen areas.
Part slab / Part Suspended (Typically 6 -18 degrees)

• Structure often results in a half lower floor (on slab)
with upper level being part suspended / post and
beam
• Allows good internal transition to backyards / street;
• Good for taking up level change within building.
• Good for moderately sloping sites;
• Reduced downstairs area minimises the amount of
site cut and fill.
Suspended or Platform (Typically 0-18+ degrees)

• Typically preferred structural approach on steeply
sloping lots;
• Timber or steel post and beam construction;
• Minimal site cut and fill significantly reduces site
preparation works;
• Conducive to ‘light weight’ materials and split level
designs;
• Opportunity to ‘infill’ lower portion as an extension;
• Less likely to have drainage issues with surface
water able to flow across site.

Traditional responses to slope Current responses to slope
In many traditional established areas the natural topography has In newly established areas, the natural topography has
largely been retained. Roads and allotments have been planned predominantly been altered through significant land forming to
to follow the slope and the areas exhibit a diversity of dwellings remove the slopes and create flatter building areas.
and landscape elements.
Methods of managing slope in traditional established areas Methods of managing the slope in newly established areas are
are frequently built into the public areas and form part of the predominantly confined to the individual properties and exhibits
consistency and character of the locality. a wide range of treatments and materials.
Most traditional areas display visually discrete or period style Newly established areas tend to rely heavily on visually
fencing. In may locations there is an absence of fencing, instead prominent colourbond fencing.
relying on a landscaped corridor.
22
Traditional and Current Practice
Many established areas of the Tweed enjoy elevated, sloping

aspects that take advantage of the scenic views, elevated
positions and cooling breezes.
Traditionally, the sloping sites were not subject to significant bulk

earthworks, instead the subdivisions are characterised by roads
that both follow and cross contours, providing visual interest and
enabling a variety of housing forms and allotment sizes. This
results in a more diverse character and more diverse housing
forms.
Where retaining walls are used, the materials are generally more
natural, such as dry stone walls and rock walls. In established
areas the retaining walls form part of the public landscape of the
area, highlighting changes in public or private spaces, delineating
walkways and incorporating landscaping elements.
Newly established areas predominantly use retaining walls within

the private zones as a means of achieving a flat yard area, often
with little integration to the interface with the public spaces.
Characteristic of the traditional areas is the extensive mature

vegetation. Trees soften the harsher elements of the landscape and
have a ‘healing effect’ on the ‘scaring’ of altering the landfrom.
Clearly newly established areas require time for the mature

vegetation to establish and soften the landscape appearance,
however, the emerging character of the newly established areas
is one of low scale shrub landscaping and a noticeable absence
of larger tree species. This leaves the land forming and resulting
retaining walls and fencing as an obvious visual element.
The traditional established areas generally contain visually

discrete fencing, predominantly timber paling, which blends with
the natural elements of the landscape. In many areas there is
no fencing, instead privacy to individual properties is achieved
through landscaped corridors along the boundaries.
The predominant character of the newly established areas is

the use of colourbond fencing and in the absence of significant
landscaping, this has a tendency to become a predominant feature
of the streetscape, exacerbated when on top of retaining walls.
Each of these landscape characteristics creates the character

of the street or locality, whereby, generally, housing in traditional
areas integrates within the landscape and offers a unique and
diverse character. The emerging character of newly established
areas is of housing that sits ‘on top of the landscape’ and offers
less diversity in form and character and negates the benefits of
elevated view and cooling breeze.

Traditional responses to side slope Current responses to side slope
Traditionally the dwellings are constructed in a split level form More recently dwellings are being constructed as a single level
following the contours of the land. This results in a streetscape slab on ground. This results in significant full site width cut and
that flows with, and replicates the natural topography. fill and the characteristic ‘stepped’ streetscape, where dwellings
sit on the altered topography.
Traditionally there is no side boundary retaining wall as the More recent construction seeks to maintain a single level
house follows the natural topography. dwelling and relies heavily on full width site cut and fill which
results in significant level changes between the side boundaries,
the need for retaining walls and a mosaic of fencing treatments
and heights.
Traditionally dwellings were constructed as a split level form, More recent construction favours a single level dwelling which
generally with the garage below the dwelling on the low side of requires the site to be levelled to accommodate the dwelling
the slope. This enables the dwelling to integrate with the natural and results in significant land reshaping.
topography.
24
Side slopes
Traditionally the dwellings on side slopes have been generally

Your feedback is sought constructed in a split level form, with the garage occupying the
lower level.
Do you have an opinion on the
The split in levels is accommodated within the building footprint,
way housing looks when the
generally resulting in different levels between the front door
site is subject to extensive site
and the garage entry. Accommodating the level change within
benching to level the site?
the dwelling removes the need to create level changes across
the width of the site. In examples reviewed, the change in level
Do you think that this creates
within the building footprint can be up to a full storey (2.4-2.7m).
privacy or overshadowing
However, this results in very little retaining wall construction
impacts?
required between houses as the change in level is accommodated
within the building footprint and dwelling, rather than across the
Are these issues of importance
site.
to you?
With this form of development the dwelling integrates with
Do you think that the construction the slope and the built form of the streetscape flows with and
method of cut and fill is OK for replicates the natural topography.
sloping sites?
The more recent trends are for single level housing on a concrete
Would you prefer to see housing slab. The housing market appears to prefer this form as it is
that integrates with the natural perceived to be more cost efficient, maintains all living on a
topography? single level and enables the creation of flat yard spaces. However,
this form of housing frequently results in overshadowing and
overlooking issues, steeper driveway access and extensive and
costly earth retaining measures. It also significantly impacts on
regional views and streetscape appearance with large, often un-
landscaped, retaining walls at boundaries.
As the houses do not respond to slope, the resultant building form

8.5m is also of less architectural or visual interest.
As part of this consultation, Council is seeking feedback from the

industry and the community on their perceptions of the built form
outcomes of houses on slopes.
BUILDING STEPS WITH
SLOPE CREATING o
33
ELEVATED POSITION DIFFERENT INTERNAL
SUN
PROVIDES MORE VOLUMES ER
NT
ACCESS TO WI
PREVAILING BREEZES
EASY TRANSITION
BETWEEN LIVING
SIDE
SIDE BOUNDARY
SPACE AND REAR /

SIDE YARD
SIDE BALCONY
PROVIDES VIEW &
EXTERNAL LIVING
AREA 9m
GARAGE AT LOWER
LEVEL & CARPORT
UNDER DECK SIDE
LEVEL CHANGE TAKEN

UP WITHIN BUILDING
DESIGN RATHER THAN
Side Slope Design Principles SIDE BOUNDARIES

Traditional responses to down slope Current responses to down slope
Traditionally down slope dwellings are constructed in a split More recent construction seeks to maintain a single level
level form following the contours of the land. This results transition from the street and double garage to living spaces,
in a streetscape that flows with, and replicates the natural reducing the need for steps between. In attempt to maintain
topography. the 6.0m setback this house is forced down the hill creating an
sunken street interface.
Traditionally narrower building footprints running across the More recently, down slope dwellings are constructed as a single
site reduced the amount of cut and fill required. This split level level slab on ground to the street with 2 or sometimes 3 storeys
house utilises the flatter front yard as outdoor living space. to the rear of the allotment. This results in significant building
height and bulk to the rear elevation, leading to overshadowing
and overlooking issues.
Traditionally dwellings on down slopes have a less front New dwellings are required to comply with a 6.0m front
setback and a more generous front deck which addresses setback irrespective of an up slope, down slope or side slope
the street, with two storeys to the rear (undercroft often for configuration. On down slope lots, garages are more difficult to
storage). Garages are either located to the rear of the site, or as integrate with dwelling design, often resulting in a significant
lightweight carports to the side enabling access directly off the amount of hardstand driveway and manoeuvring space.
street.
26
Down slopes
The lots in down slope areas are commonly smaller. Traditionally

dwellings in down slope areas respond to the topography by entering at,
or lower than, street level, with single storey to the street and two storeys
or a split level to the rear. Where appropriate rear balconies are often
included.
9m
Depending on the subdivision character, garages are typically located
either down slope to the rear of the property or suspended at street level
to the front of the property.
Dwelling are frequently set closer to the front boundary, with the property
‘hugging’ into the slope.
Many traditionally sloping areas incorporate rear lane ways for garaging,
thus also providing vehicular access at a different level to the front door
access. This again accommodates the level changes within the building
footprint.
In more contemporary down slope examples, dwellings often present as

a single storey to the street with two and sometimes three storeys to the
9m
rear. Whilst from the street the building appears of an appropriate scale,
the side and rear elevations are longer, higher and bulkier than traditional
counterparts accommodating increased floorspace requirements. This can
lead to overlooking and overshadowing issues and a series of balconies
which rarely get used.
On down slope allotments the garage or carport is more visible from

the street, and arguably more difficult to integrate into the design of the
house.
In newer development this is made more difficult by the 6.0m front

setback and requirement that the garages should be 1.0m behind the
buildings front elevation. This increases the amount of hardstand area
9m
and can create a level disconnect between the garage and house on down
slope allotments. These requirements to a large extent shape the front
elevation of newer developments as designs seek to meet the minimum
requirements, in effect creating a more homogenous streetscape, rather
than encouraging a built form which responds to the slope.
BUILDING STEPS WITH

SLOPE CREATING EASY TRANSITION
ELEVATED POSITION DIFFERENT INTERNAL BETWEEN STREET
PROVIDES MORE VOLUMES AND LIGHTWEIGHT
ACCESS TO
PREVAILING BREEZES
CAR PORT / GARAGE STREET
GARAGE DESIGN TO
INTEGRATE WITH
HOUSE DESIGN
9m
REAR BALCONY
PROVIDES VIEW
EXTERNAL LIVING
AREA
TRANSITION BETWEEN
LOWER FLOOR AND
REAR YARD
REAR
LEVEL CHANGE TAKEN
UP WITHIN BUILDING
DESIGN
Down Slope Design Principles
Traditional responses to up slope Current responses to up slope
Traditionally up slope dwellings have deeper front yards to take In more recent up slope designs, dwellings are often only set
advantage of elevated views and access to cooling breezes. This back the requisite 6.0m from the front building line to maximise
often results in garages or carports being detached located at a the development footprint over the site. In terms of floorplan
lower level on the site. configuration, many new dwellings fail to integrate internal living
spaces with rear yards.
Deeper front yards provide more opportunity for significant More recent construction seeks to maintain a single level building
landscaping. This above detached garage has been used as platform in order to build a continuous slab on ground dwelling.
an elevated outdoor terrace. Large elevated balconies taking In the above example this has resulted in a significant retaining
advantage of view and breezes feature prominently on the wall on the street edge dominating the streetscape exacerbated
buildings front elevation. by the up slope.
Traditionally dwellings on the upslope lots have a strong This house addresses the up sloping site with a small footprint
relationship with the street and a clearly identifiable pedestrian excavation for the garage area and suspended post and beam
entrance, landscaped front yard and elevated front porch or structural system for the upper level allowing cooling air
balcony. The single car garage integrates with the overall building circulation around the house. The inclusion of a balcony onto
design. the front elevation would have more successfully addressed the
street. Landscaping rather than a large grassed area would also
help to integrate the building with the slope.
28
Up slopes
In older subdivision areas, lots on the up slope were frequently larger

with the dwellings set back further from the street boundary to take
advantage of views and cooling breezes. This also resulted in large
landscaped front yards which now contribute strongly to streetscape
character.
8.5m Depending on the severity of the slope and the character of the
established areas, garages are sometimes located separately to the front
boundary of the property, sometimes angled across the slope to a side
entry, and at other times accessed through rear lane ways at a different
level.
This again accommodates the level changes within the building

footprint, which is the prevailing characteristic of traditional responses to
construction of dwellings on sloping sites.
In more recent up slope designs, dwellings are often only set back the
requisite 6.0m from the front building line to maximise the development
footprint over the site. This often leads to more of a built form weighting
9m towards the street elevation, often two storeys and to within 900mm of
the side boundaries. These larger floor plate dwellings leave little room
for vegetation to grow up between up slope blocks, which would have
otherwise softened or served to reduce the visual bulk of the dwelling.
There are also two broad construction types used on more recent up
sloping blocks. The first is to cut and fill creating a flat platform to build
a single or double storey house of a continuous slab and then retrofitting
or shaping large retaining walls to the front and rear of the site to
accommodate the level change. The second technique is to excavate a
part lower floor for garage and guest room with a suspended upper level
with bedrooms and living areas to the upper level.
9mDespite this later structural type providing a desirable level transition

from living space to the rear yard, many floor plan configurations fail to
capitalise on this access, instead having services including laundries and
bathrooms as interfaces with the rear yard.
BUILDING STEPS WITH SMALL REAR CUT

SLOPE CREATING CREATES FLAT AREA
DIFFERENT INTERNAL o FOR EXTERNAL LIVING
VOLUMES 33
SUN
ELEVATED POSITION ER
PROVIDES MORE NT
WI
ACCESS TO
PREVAILING BREEZES LEVEL TRANSITION
BETWEEN LIVING
SPACE AND REAR
YARD REAR
FRONT BALCONY
PROVIDES VIEW TO
STREET AND BEYOND
9m
STREET
LEVEL CHANGE TAKEN
UP WITHIN BUILDING
Up Slope Design Principles DESIGN

Traditional responses to landscape Current responses to landscape
Extensive landscaping and greening of front and rear yards Whilst recent development has not had the benefit of time for
substantially improves streetscape character and the ability of a substantial landscape to ‘grow up’, there is a growing trend to
dwelling to nestle into the landscape. Landscaping can soften reduce the amount of landscape areas and especially planting
the ‘scarring’ of excavation and conceal unsightly undercroft of trees that will grow into more substantial species. This is
services. replaced by small mulched garden beds with small shrubs and
larger grassed areas.
30
Sloping sites and vegetation
How does this improve the appearance of

development on sloping sites?
In this review and search for examples of how to construct

Your feedback is sought dwellings on sloping sites, looking at what works and what
doesn’t, vegetation has stood out as a key consideration in
Do you think that planting designing for and constructing on sloping sites.
‘softens’ the transition of
A key characteristic of the established steep areas is that trees
changes in slope and levels?
and substantial vegetation has either been retained following
construction of a dwelling or has been substantially replanted with
Why is there less vegetation,
larger species, including trees.
especially trees, being planted in
newer developments? This has the effect of softening the ‘scars’ of any cut and fill, hiding
large undercrofts of dwellings and earth berms, integrating the
dwelling more with the natural environment, and blending the built
response to the slope with the natural topography.
Newly established areas, generally are characterised by the

absence of mature vegetation. Over time it would be expected
that vegetation grows up and provides a similar type of screening
as is typically found in the established areas. However, there is a
noticeable lack of substantial vegetation, specifically trees, being
planted. Instead vegetation is generally ornamental low growing
shrubbery.
The benefits of planting with appropriate trees, in appropriate

locations are not just limited to visual appearance. Well located
vegetation also assists with moderation of the micro climate
around a dwelling, shading to exposed western aspects, privacy
where topography results in overshadowing and greatly assists
with integrating the outdoor spaces with the indoor spaces.
As part of this review we are seeking comments on the possibility

of linking vegetation requirements with cut and fill.

LIMITED OPPORTUNITY
FOR SIDE BOUNDARY
LANDSCAPE
OVERSHADOWING HOUSE DESIGN FAILS HOUSE DESIGNED ALL ON ONE

BY RETAINING TO CAPTURE VIEW, LEVEL, LITTLE VARIATION IN
WALLS AND FENCES BREEZE & SUNLIGHT ROOF FORM
AIR FLOW IMPEDED

BY RETAINING
WALLS
BREEZE
NATURA
L GROUND LE
VEL NO VIEW
LEVEL CHANGE AT SIDE

BOUNDARY WITH GROUND WATER
RETAINING WALL PRESSURE ON
RETAINING WALL
SIDE SLOPE BENCHING

RESULTS IN ENGINEERED MORE HOMOGENOUS SLAB MORE CUT AND FILL
STREETSCAPE DOMINATED ON GROUND BUILT FORM
BY RETAINING WALLS & SIDE BOUNDARY
SIDE BOUNDARY
SIDE BOUNDARY
FENCES
GOOD OPPORTUNITY UPPER LEVEL BALCONY GARAGE TO LOWER LEVEL

FOR SIDE BOUNDARY TO CAPTURES VIEW, WITH LIVING SPACE AND
LANDSCAPE BREEZE & SUNLIGHT BALCONY ABOVE
VARYING ROOF FORM
GOOD AIR FLOW PROVIDES GOOD INTERNAL
BETWEEN LOTS VOLUME
VIEW
NATURA
L GROUND LE
VEL
LEVEL CHANGE WITHIN

BUILDING DESIGN
STEPPING BUILDING FORM

MORE NATURAL APPEARANCE MORE INTERESTING LESS CUT AND FILL
TO STREETSCAPE BUILDING FORMS WHICH
STEP WITH LANDFORM
Diagram - Two Approaches to Sloping Sites
Bark Architects Saville Isaacs
Sparks Architects
Glen Petersen Architects
Low ground modification approaches to sloping sites
32
Designing to Sloping Sites
Can and should housing respond better to slope?

The general feedback on the current DCP cut and fill controls is
that they are too restrictive and do not enable the types of cut
and fill required to build most volume houses, being a standard
Your feedback is sought slab construction house on the increasingly sloping sites in
Tweed.
Do you think housing should be
The Diagram on page 14 diagrammatically indicates the
chosen or designed to suit the
scale of cut and fill requirements to manage slope above 4-6
slope of the site or do you think
degrees (8-10%), considered as the ‘standard maximum’ as
the slope should be re-contoured
this generally complies with the DCP, and the type of outcome
to suit the house?
resulting. This diagram also indicates that above a 4 degree
slope (8%) it becomes difficult to comply with the DCP cut and
fill provisions.
The diagram on the facing page illustrates a comparison over

an 8 degree slope between site benching, where the level
SLOPING SITE RULES OF
change is taken up at the side boundary, or the alternative,
THUMB where the level change is incorporated into the building design.
The key benefits are providing occupants with access to views,
;; Get a survey to accurately plot the
contours and determine the slope of your
prevailing breezes and greater sunlight access as well as
block. reducing large level changes on the side boundary between
;; Single slab on ground construction is only dwellings. Avoiding site benching also improves the streetscape
really appropriate up to a slope incline of amenity with more interesting building forms and greater
60 or 1:9.5 as the cut/fill required becomes opportunity for landscaping.
excessive (over 1.5m);
;; On slopes of 6-120 (up to 1:5) think about The analysis demonstrates that residential development may be
stepping two or more slabs or using part achievable on slopes of up to 18 degrees (approximately 32%)
slab / part platform construction. given the use of an appropriate structural system.
;; On slopes over 120-180 (1:5-1:3) look at
suspended or platform construction which The analysis finds that slopes over 18 degrees may be too
steps with the site. difficult to build on without significantly altering the locality’s
;; Slopes over 180 (1:3) are difficult sites landform and topography or being able to avoid significant
to build on. Look at suspended or pole amounts of bulk earth works. This would undermine the visual
construction. landscape character and soil stability of the natural undulating
;; Look at building design which takes the topography.
level change within the building rather
than at the boundary, which requires Similarly, the analysis demonstrates that the standard site
retaining walls. benching is not appropriate on slopes greater than 6 degrees
;; The change of level within building design and that there are better design solutions for slopes in the
often results in desirable increased ceiling moderate range of 6-12 degrees.
heights over living spaces.
;; Hidden costs of building on sloping sites Your feedback is sought
can include scaffolding hire, additional
engineering input, insulation under Should the cut and fill maximum allowance be increased?
elevated timber floors and general
increased labour costs. Should the cut and fill maximum requirements be retained?
;; Offset these additional construction
costs by reducing the amount of floor Rather than setting a prescriptive cut and fill requirement that
area you are building or even stage your would apply to all sites, would the cut and fill controls be better
development to ‘infill the undercroft’ at a related to slope gradients and/or construction types?
later stage.
FLAT 0-6O
Slope Indicative Building Type Cut and Fill
8.5m
+/- 1.0m
9m
MODERATE 8-12O
9m
+/- 2.0m
Within building
envelope
9m
9m
STEEP 14 -18O
+/- 3.0m
9m Within building
envelope
Sparks Architects
10m
EXTREME < 20O
10m
+/- 1.0m
Diagram - Relationship between degree of slope and appropriate structure types

34
Appropriate Structure Type Housing example Cut and Fill Notes
0-2o
• Limited site disturbance and good access off street and
• Broad residential housing type limited cut and fill or retaining walls required, less than
• Single slab on ground 1.0m
• No level changes required within 4-6o
building design • Cut and fill up to 1.5m over an elevation length of 14m
with some need for battered landscaped beds or retaining
walls
• Retaining walls may be required up to 1.5m
• A slope of 1:40 is required for drainage
• May be considered for all slope types 8-12o (14-21%)
• No Single slab on ground • Moderate fall of approximately 5m over a 30m site (on an
100 site)
• Stepping slab system
• Moderate graded access of 1:5.6 up or down from street
• Split slab system
• Over 1.5m cut and fill required with stepping or suspended
• Part slab / part platform system
slabs
• Platform system (suspended post &
• Often results in half lower storey or undercroft.
beam)
• Often need for battered landscaped beds and/or small
• Pole House
retaining walls
• Level changes within building design
12-14o (21-25%)
• Garage set under protruding decks
• Steep fall across site of approximately 7.4m over a 30m
on up slope sites reduces visual
site (on a 140 site)
impact
• Steep graded access up or down from street of
• On down slopes garage under house
approximately 1:4
may result in steep driveway grades
• Cut and fill over 1.5m required with stepped or suspended
• On down slopes a detached garage
slabs
reduces bulk building form
• May require full level change within building envelope
• Results in need for battered beds and/or retaining
walls
• May be considered for all slope types 14-18o (1:3.5 - 1:3.0)

• No single slab on ground • Extremely steep fall across the site of approximately 8.6m
• Split level design over a 30m site
• Part slab part platform system • Steep graded access up or down from the street of
approximately 1:3.5
• Platform system
• Limited cut and fill appropriate given the resulting
• Level changes within building design retaining walls and extremely limited ‘level’ areas which
Saville Isaacs Architects
• Garage set under protruding decks could be achieved
on up slope sites reduces visual • Relies on balcony areas for open space
impact
• Full level change within building envelope required
• On down slopes garage under house
may result in steep driveway grades • Results in battered landscaped beds and/or retaining walls
• On down slopes a detached garage
reduces bulk building form
Sparks Architects
• Appropriate for down slope sites only over 18o

• Pole design • extremely steep fall across the site of approximately 9.7m
over 30m
• Platform system
• steep graded access up or down from the street of
• Split level approximately 1:2.7
• Not suited to cut and fill which would require large
engineered retaining elements.

Cut and fill options
Development Control Options for feedback

Clause Existing DCP A1 cut & fill Comment Option A Option B
Number controls
(Numerical increase in cut (Design led qualitative
and fill related to slope) increase in cut and
fill based on design
principles)
a Building siting is to relate to This relates to how a That DCP A1 is amended to Amendment would require
the original form of the land. building is positioned on provide greater detail and greater consideration of the
site. guidelines on building siting slope relationship to the
under the site analysis proposed development.
This could include best requirements.
position for house and This would require greater
garage relating to sloping Building siting under information to be developed
site. For example on a cut and fill becomes an and included in the DCP,
downsloping site, position of objective rather than a in terms of information to
garage maybe best on the control. be provided on plans and
high side of the lot closer to drawings .
the road.
Also, greater detail could
It also relates to what is be provided in a matrix
the appropriate building guideline format addressing
floorplate dimension. For slope, construction types,
example a narrow floorplate cut and fill maximums,
requires less cut and fill on retaining walls and drainage
a sloping site. based on the format and
general information on
Note: Building siting pages 20 and 34-35 of this
should also relate to best document.
orientation in terms of solar
path, view, and prevailing Amendment would be
breezes. required to both educate
and provide ease of
understanding of slope and
construction responses.
This would also require

greater explanation and
strengthened site analysis
requirements prior to
housing selection or design.
b Alternatives to slab on This is more of an objective This control could be This clause could
ground construction are or design principle rather reworded as an objective become an objective and
to be encouraged where it than a control. with slope appropriate supplemented by design
is obvious that due to the construction types principles which identify a
gradient and characteristics integrated into the cut and slope / construction method
of the site, major excavation fill provisions. matrix, which could restrict
or filling as a result of raft single slab on ground to
slab, construction would Should this clause remain slopes of 6 degrees or less.
be inappropriate. Example greater detail would be
of alternative construction required to explain the With this method increased
includes: Bearer and joist appropriate construction cut and fill maybe allowed
construction; Deepened types for incremental slope for buildings which respond
edge beam; Split level increases, based on where appropriately to sloping
design; Suspended slab increased cut and fill would conditions (i.e. level change
design. be outside of the building is taken up within building
footprint. design rather than retaining
walls at boundaries.)
36
Number controls
principles)
c On sloping sites step As above in ‘b’. As above in ‘b’. As above in ‘b’.
buildings or utilize site
excavation and suspended
floors to accommodate
changes in level rather than
levelling the site via cut and
fill.
d Dwellings must not be A typical single slab on Controls ‘d’ and ‘f’ Controls ‘d’ and ‘f’
designed to be on a ground construction on a combined into one set of combined into one set of
contiguous slab on ground 60 slope generally results in provisions as detailed under provisions as detailed under
type if the building site the need for 1.5m of cut and ‘f’ below. ‘f’ below.
has a slope of greater than fill to accommodate floor
10%. Development on such plate which presently does
land is to be of pole or pier not comply. Controls need
construction or multiple to reflect more accurately
slabs or the like that what can be achieved on
minimise the extent of cut the ground.
and fill.
e Site excavation / land This is more of an objective Incorporate as an general Incorporate as an general
reforming is to be kept to or design principle rather objective for cut and fill objective for cut and fill
a minimum required for an than a control. provisions. provisions.
appropriately designed site
responsive development.
f The maximum level of cut is As above in ‘d’. This option provides This option provides
1m and fill is 1m. quantitative controls based qualitative design led
If the allowable cut and on a sliding scale of slope to principles and objectives
fill quantity is increased building structural type and within a matrix based on
without related design dimensions. a sliding scale of slope to
objectives, the issues as building structural type
identified within this paper Maintain the +/- 1.0m cut and dimensions. The onus
would increase. and fill provision whilst would be on meeting a set
providing increased cut of detailed design principles
It is likely this increased and fill allowances based similar to the diagrams
figure (say to 1.5m) would on meeting a range of on pages 34-35 of this
then become the subject design principle objectives document. This approach
of additional variations (eg including promoting may not include a strict
1.7m, 1.8m), as currently building design which numerical control.
occurs, because a fixed accommodates level change
number doesn’t provide the within the building footprint. Generally this would provide
flexibility or design context greater flexibility where
to be able to respond to By way of example, cut appropriate, address greater
slope issues. allowances could be cut and fill requirements
increased to a full level within the confines of the
(2.7m) if contained within building envelope to suit
the building envelope. In appropriate construction
addition any cut and fill methods and level changes,
outside of building envelope and limit site benching.
would be controlled by the
+/-1.0m control. This qualitative approach
could give rise to the need
for other variations e.g.
height limit (if possible
within the LEP) and potential
concessions to the rear of
downslope buildings.

Number controls
principles)
g Retaining walls maximum This control could be This control could be This control could be
1.2m. retained. retained. retained.
The additional 200mm If more than one retaining If more than one retaining
above the 1.0m cut and fill wall or multiple terraces are wall or multiple terraces are
figure provides the ability proposed or if a variation proposed or if a variation
for a capping stone or over the 1.2m height is over the 1.2m height is
similar atop of the retaining sought, engineering details sought, engineering details
wall allowing creation of a addressing structural addressing structural
landscape bed. integrity and drainage need integrity and drainage need
to be provided. The distance to be provided. The distance
between the top and the toe between the top and the toe
of two or more terraced/ of two or more terraced/
retaining walls must be retaining walls must be
equal or greater than the equal or greater than the
height of the cut. height of the cut.
h Cut areas are to be set back The intent of this control This control should be This control should be
from the boundaries at least is to avoid awkward cut retained. Consider grouping retained. Consider grouping
900mm; fill areas are to be and fill interface issues like controls under sub- like controls under sub-
setback from the boundary with adjoining property heading ‘Retaining walls heading ‘Retaining walls
a minimum of 1.5m. boundaries. and Batters’ and then and Batters’ and then
supplement with common supplement with common
Setback also serves to objectives and design objectives and design
reduce the overall perceived principles. principles.
height at boundaries which
is exacerbated when fences
sit directly atop of retaining
walls.
Retaining wall offset from

boundary also provides
more ground or structural
stability.
i Cut and fill batters shall The intent of this control is This control should be This control should be
not exceed a slope of 1:2 to ensure structural integrity retained. Consider grouping retained. Consider grouping
(v:h) unless geotechnical of batter slopes. like controls under sub- like controls under sub-
reports result in Council heading ‘Retaining walls heading ‘Retaining walls
being satisfied with the and Batters’ and then and Batters’ and then
site stability. All batters are supplement with common supplement with common
to be provided with both objectives and design objectives and design
short term and long term principles. principles.
stabilisation to prevent soil
erosion.
j Excavations in excess This control is to allow This control could This control could
of one metre within the some flexibility of cut and potentially be deleted and potentially be deleted and
confines of the building fill within the building the intent incorporated into the intent incorporated into
and on driveways may footprint. However if greater control ‘f’ above. control ‘f’ above.
be permitted, to allow flexibility is built into cut
for basement garages and fill provisions, in the
providing the excavations form of design principles
are adequately retained and and controls, it is no longer
drained, in accordance with needed.
engineering details.
38
Number controls
principles)
k Filled areas are to be This is more of an objective Incorporate as an general Incorporate as an general
located where they will not or design principle rather objective for cut and fill objective for cut and fill
impact on the privacy of than a control. provisions. provisions.
neighbours.
It is suggested that fill It is suggested that fill
should be substantially should be substantially
used from the site and that used from the site and that
imported fill material is not imported fill material is not
encouraged. encouraged.
l Stormwater or surface This is more of an objective Incorporate as an general Incorporate as an general
water runoff shall not be or design principle rather objective for cut and fill objective for cut and fill
redirected or concentrated than a control. If this provisions. provisions.
onto adjoining properties becomes an objective
so as to cause a nuisance then relevant development
and adequate drainage is to controls should be
be provided to divert water developed to support.
away from batters.
m The top of any battered The intent of this control This control could This control could
cut (or retaining wall) and is to avoid awkward cut potentially be deleted as potentially be deleted as
the toe of any battered fill and fill interface issues it is superfluous given it is superfluous given
(or retaining wall) is not to with adjoining property the purpose and scope of the purpose and scope of
be closer than 900mm for boundaries. control ‘h’ above which control ‘h’ above which
cut and 1.5m for fill to any could be further refined to could be further refined to
property boundary, where For all intent and purposes incorporate any residual incorporate any residual
the overall height at any this control is the same as purpose of ‘m’. purpose of ‘m’.
point exceeds 500mm. control ‘h’ above.
Variations
n Variations to the The variations are This control could be This control could be
requirements above will be included to allow a degree retained. retained.
permitted to create a flat of flexibility for minor
yard space not exceeding development. Need to further consider Investigate the use of
15% of the area of the lot possible non-compliance balconies and suspended
for the purposes of outdoor This variation provides with retaining wall height structures in lieu of at grade
living, recreation, clothes for flat utility spaces and controls. flat areas for utility purposes
drying, swimming pool and outdoor areas on sloping and outdoor entertaining to
the like. blocks. reduce further cut and fill on
steep sites.
o Proposed variations to the This variation seeks to This control could be This control could be
controls must demonstrate ensure the maintenance of more fully reworded as more fully reworded as
that the excavation or filling overall landscape integrity an objective or a design an objective or a design
of the site is in harmony despite some localised or principle. principle.
with the natural landform/ site by site adjustments
environment and will by cut and fill. This has
not adversely affect the streetscape, character
adjoining properties. and drainage/hydrological
implications.
p Where a property is This isn’t really a cause This control could be This control could be
burdened by stormwater or for variations but and retained and moved from retained and moved from
water and sewerage mains overarching standard variations into general cut variations into general cut
then Council will generally control. and fill controls. and fill controls.
preclude any excavation or
filling within that easement.

Summary
The main issues arising from the cut and fill Industry concern that volume housing development increasingly cannot be
provisions? accommodated within the maximum 1m cut and fill requirement.
Appropriateness of the cut and fill controls given that the supply of relatively
flat land is limited and new residential land release areas are likely to have an
average slope of about 10 degrees or greater.
Increasing the understanding of sloping sites and selecting or choosing a house
to suit the slope, rather than modifying the slope to suit a standard flat site
housing design.
The impact on the environment in terms of natural drainage and water flows,
significant stormwater detentioning systems, soil stability, and the like.
The increasing engineering requirements for retaining walls and benching.
The impact of significant cut and fill works on the adjoining properties through
overlooking, overshadowing and blocking of cooling breezes.
The visual appearance of significant cut and fill works on the streetscape and
the character of the locality.
Site ecology and movement of wildlife across the site adversely affected.
The visual amenity of the hillside development from afar ends up being roofs
and retaining walls with less ability for landscape to thread between, in front of
and behind buildings.
What are the key options for making Maintain the current 1 metre cut and fill standard for all housing development.
amendments to the residential housing code
Part A1?
Strengthening the cut and fill development control format by more clearly
defining the objectives and including detailed design principles.
Consider increasing the 1 metre cut and fill allowance for housing development,
within the building footprint, potentially to one level, where construction
methods are appropriately designed and full site benching is not used.
Consider height concession for downslope buildings where they meet the
design objectives in terms of appropriate structural type, relationship of plan to
site and rear elevation articulation. Note: This may not be possible under the
standard LEP Template which will control height.
Consider relaxing front setback on downslope blocks for garages to reduce the
amount of hardstand including a variation to the 1.0m setback of garage behind
front building elevation in lieu of design objectives.
Consider a more holistic approach (in the form of a matrix) to the cut and fill
allowances that is integrally linked to the slope and a range of construction
methods.
Consider expanding the site analysis requirements to address in greater detail
the requirements, in particular with regard to slope.
Consider expanding the Statement of Environmental Effects requirements to
ensure that the opportunities and the constraints of a site are fully considered
at the siting, design selection phase.
Consider the future review of DCP Part A5 for Subdivision and the relationship
between these two parts.
40
DP 2 Sloping sites
Agree Disagree Comment
Detach along dotted line

Following is a survey form seeking your opinion
on the issues raised within this discussion paper.
This may be detached and mailed to Council as
addressed.
Alternatively this survey form may be completed

more conveniently and quickly on line at:
www.yoursaytweed.com.au/tweedhousing
42
How do you ‘agree’ with the following statements? Sloping sites survey form
My house is located on a site that is:
flat gently undulating moderately indulating steep very steep

Maintaining the natural characteristics of Tweed’s undulating landscape is important.
strongly disagree disagree undecided agree strongly agree

Additional comments:
The general design of houses in new subdivisions retains the natural character of the Tweed.

Significant cut and fill to create flat building lots should be undertaken when new housing estates are created.

Creating a flat building lot through cut and fill greater than 1 metre is acceptable when building a house.

It is more acceptable to cut a site than it is to fill a site.


The type of structural design of a house should be based on the existing slope of the site.

Houses on steep land should be smaller to offset the additional building cost and reduce their footprint rather than
resorting to to excess cut and fill to accomodate a larger house.


Background information 44
I am a property owner I am in the building industry
I am a local resident I am an architect
number of years lived in the area Number of years in the industry
If you would like to be kept informed of other discussion papers please provide contact details (optional)
Name
Address
Phone No email
FOLD
FOLD
Murwillumbah NSW 2484
PO Box 816
Tweed Shire Council
DCP A1 Single Dwelling Review
Planning Reform Unit
Attention:
STAMP
POSTAGE
AFFIX
How can I have a say?
We encourage you to review the discussion paper, consider the issues,

review the provided examples and options and provide feedback to inform
the drafting of amendments to DCP A1 Part A.
All documentation and a survey form is available on-line during

the consultation period, at:
www.yoursaytweed.com.au/tweedhousing
You are encouraged to fill out this online survey
A survey form has also been included in this discussion paper. You may
simply fill out the survey form, fold up seal and post back to Council as
addressed.
Alternatively you are invited to make a more detailed written submission

and either mail to:
Attention:
Planning Reform Unit
DCP A1 Single Dwelling Review
Tweed Shire Council
PO Box 816
or email to :
planningreforms@tweed.nsw.gov.au
Want to know more?
All documentation related to the DCP A1 Part A review is available on

Council’s website, at:
www.tweed.nsw.gov.au
Should you require any further information, please contact Council’s

Planning Reform Unit on 6670 2562.

Customer Service 1300 292 872 (02) 6670 2400
tsc@tweed.nsw.gov.au
www.tweed.nsw.gov.au
Fax (02) 6670 2429

PO Box 816
46

DP 2 Sloping Sites

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DP 2 Sloping Sites

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Tweed Development Control Plan

Section A1 - Residential and Tourist Development Code

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 3

Tweed Shire Council’s Planning Reforms Unit is currently

An industry and community breakfast forum was held in

A range of issues have been identified. Each issue will be the

What about the other parts of the plan?

How long is this review likely to take?

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 5

The topography and vegetation in Tweed’s urban and greenfield

Maintaining the integrity of the scenic background, natural

Sloping sites present a number of design challenges and generally

Many of the residential release areas have already been subject

In addition to the wider visual appearance of the streetscape, this

Some of the impacts of full width site benching include:

• Creation of awkward boundary interfaces, often resulting in

There is currently a lack of understanding of designing to slope,

In the photo above the side fencing ‘steps’ at 5 different levels

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 7

DCP A1 Residential & Tourist Development Code

The inclusion in the DCP of objectives and controls for cut

• ensures housing selection and design understands

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 9

What is the relationship of the cut and fill provisions with

Part A5 of the DCP contains the controls in relation to subdivision.

This section of the DCP requires, in summary, in relation to land

From the above it can be seen that the residential subdivision

Notwithstanding, the subdivision controls allow land forming

For large residential release areas this has a significant impact

The perception is that the market is demanding single level slab

Your feedback is sought

In your opinion is land forming at

Do you think that more cut and

Significant land forming has been carried out to create these

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 11

Relationship with the State Environmental Planning

The Code SEPP is a state wide and generic suite of controls

The Codes SEPP for complying development requires, with regard

3.29 Excavation of sloping sites

(ii) does not redirect the flow of surface water onto

2. Despite sub-clause (1), exposed fill may be constructed using

The Tweed DCP is a suite of controls developed to meet a wide range of

Additionally, retaining walls are not required to be limited to within 2m of

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 13

HOW MUCH CUT AND FILL IS ACCEPTABLE ON A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL LOT?

Analysis of the effectiveness of the controls

A common situation, particularly on down slope lots, is that in

Current practice of site benching houses on slopes up to 10%

Depending on the design of neighbouring houses, such as

This form of siting of houses greatly alters the streetscape creating

An issue of streetscape and designing an appropriate street

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 15

Moderate Slope 6-120 (10-21%)

Steep Slope over 12 - 180 (21-32%)

Extreme Slope over 200 (over 32%)

To understand the cut and fill provisions, it is first crucial to

One of the characteristics of a quality and livable house is that it

Generally requires more cut to allow lower /

Garage doors and driveways are generally

Review of DCP A1 Residential and Tourist Development Code 19

Denotes compliance with current

Elevation Length Cut / Fill Required

Single Slab on Ground (Controlled to 6 degrees only)

Split or Raft Slabs (Typically 2-18+ degrees)