Pre-application evidence, illustrated
The subdivision case, drawn to scale.
One scrolling page for every point in the investigation of splitting title 51123/1 — each drawn from the same live LIST datasets the research files cite. Nothing here asserts an approval likelihood, a lot value, or a cost. Every claim wears its evidence bucket:
This is the planner-facing one-page case — pre-application evidence assembled ahead of a consultant briefing and a council pre-application discussion, not a lodged proposal.
The block
Title 51123/1: 69.25 ha of forested hill country above Cygnet, one title, one owner. Wholly inside the Landscape Conservation Zone, wholly bushfire-prone, crossed by mapped watercourses that feed the Agnes catchment.
The zone it sits in
Every Landscape Conservation block in the Cygnet locality, drawn to the same scale and coloured by size rank. The zone is a fabric of modest holdings — half its parcels are under — — and one bright-edged title holds — of all its land.
Two doors in the scheme
SPP 22.5.1 offers two ways to subdivide in this zone. The Acceptable Solution needs every lot to reach 50 ha — two lots would need more land than the title has. The Performance pathway sets a hard floor of 20 ha per lot and assesses the rest on merits. One door is arithmetic; the other is argument.
What a split actually looks like
Equal-area desk cuts of the real boundary — 2 lots of 34.62 ha, 3 of 23.08 ha, and the 4-lot cut the scheme itself forbids at 17.31 ha. Each new lot would still be larger than — of the LCZ blocks that already exist around it.
The neighbourhood pattern
The neighbourhood within a true 1500 m of the boundary — LCZ parcels coloured by size, other zones faded. The land around this title is not a landscape of 50-hectare holdings: the LCZ median inside the ring is —, and — of its 41 LCZ parcels sit under 20 ha already.
What the land lays over every lot
The constraints don't move when lines are drawn. Scroll — each layer lands on the same 69.25 hectares any lot design must live inside.
The canvas
69.25 ha, drawn from the registered boundary. Every constraint below is mapped, not assumed.
Bushfire-prone: all of it
100% of the title. Every new lot needs a building area with BAL-19 separation and a certified hazard management plan (C13). FACT
Priority vegetation: 91.3%
63.22 ha sits in the Natural Assets Code's priority vegetation area. Clearing here is assessed under C7.7.2 — and C7 contains no exemption for bushfire clearance. FACT
Landslip bands: ~30%
Low (27.5%) and medium (2.6%) landslip bands cross the title. Building areas are sited outside them in every sketch. FACT
Waterway protection: 6.7%
Riparian buffers along the mapped creeks — 4.65 ha that lot design routes around. FACT
The two clear windows
Just 6.02 ha — two fragments — sit outside priority vegetation. After subtracting landslip, waterway and the easement corridor, each still fits a constraint-clear 25 m × 25 m building area, and both pass the 1:5 gradient and 40 m frontage desk tests. Two of three lots could build clear; the third defaults to the performance pathway. FACT — BAL-19 separation stays TODO for a certified assessor.
Written on the title
The folio is not blank paper. A 1.27 ha right-of-carriageway corridor crosses the land, burdened by seven registered easements benefiting seven neighbouring lots — rights that survive any subdivision — and a registered mortgage sits on title.
Where the case stands
Stage 0. The kill tests run so far have not killed the case; the ones that can are still ahead — and they belong to council and professionals, not this page.
Lot pattern
41 LCZ parcels in 1500 m, median 16.47 ha — the feared "all ≥50 ha" pattern is the opposite of what the cadastre shows.
Code hard stops
No prohibition found in C13 or C7 for a 3-lot split; gradient and frontage desk-pass. BAL-19 needs a certified assessor.
Money sanity
Desk sales evidence suggests the numbers could work — every figure an assumption, no confirmed comparable, costs quote-only.
Council pre-app
The first checkpoint: minutes confirming a P1 pathway is arguable. No surveyor engaged before that signal.
Consultant opinion
Planning consultant feasibility view; can also close the precedent-history tails the desk can't reach.
Current title search
Done 17-Jul-2026. Edition 8 shows seven burdens, unchanged since 1998; M735248 was never registered and no eighth easement exists.
Data appendix — more from the same instruments
Four more figures pulled from datasets already cited above — same LIST layers, same EPSG:28355 computation, nothing new asserted. Not part of the case narrative; kept here for completeness.
Tracks vs. the registered corridor
— of mapped roads/tracks cross the title; — of that runs inside the registered Ways C/D/E carriageway corridor. FACT — legal access status of track segments outside the corridor is TODO.
Fire history
—
Easement corridor footprint
— registered carriageway corridors touch the title's easements
(EASEMNT_TY); — combined mapped area, of which
— sits on 51123/1 itself. FACT
Watercourse & vegetation communities
— of mapped watercourse crosses the title; — TASVEG vegetation communities are mapped, the largest (—) covering — of the area. FACT
Method. Computed from the LIST hydrography, easement, roads/tracks and fire-history layers already used on this page (EPSG:28355, LIST data, July 2026). A fifth figure — slope steeper than 1:5 across the whole title — is deliberately not shown: the lab's contour-spacing gradient method answers a per-candidate-building-window question, not a systematic slope map, and a whole-title slope figure would overstate what the method supports. The per-fragment gradient figures the method does produce are on the page already, in §06 "The two clear windows." None of the figures on this card state an approval likelihood, a lot value, or a cost.
Read next → the full internal subdivision report, or the Landscape Conservation Zone census this page's neighbourhood figures draw on.