Subdivision design sketches

These grid sketches are deliberately naive baselines. They cut equal-area bands and ignore the parcel's real access network — read every score below with that caveat. The terrain-following design that uses it is on the main subdivision report, §02b — its Lot 2/3 boundary is anchored where the internal track enters the upper parcel. Fact — see report

The internal south–north track is distinct from the C/D/E easement corridor. Owner-attested and desk-verified on LIST: 823 m of mapped vehicular track runs inside the title (the main segment 747 m, bearing ~344°), of which only 0.3% overlaps the mapped C/D/E footprint — two separate features. Crown Casement/Reserved-Road cadastral parcels adjoin the boundary: 1,231 m shared on the east, 530 m on the west. Neighbouring blocks rely on the internal track for access (owner-attested). Fact — computed from LIST cadastral data (July 2026), EPSG:28355 Risk — a reserved road on paper is not a formed road; no access rights inferred Todo — Crown Lands register extract; the east reserved road may change Lot 3's access story

Where use and rights diverge, there is a design and a negotiation. The seven registered easements burden ways C, D, E as drawn on Diagram 51123. If neighbours' actual access runs on the track instead, formalising it — realigned or new easements, surveyed once for everyone — is a candidate shared-cost exercise (neighbours contributing to survey work) and, where a party gains a right it does not currently hold, a priced grant. The same surveyed spine could serve new lots here. Choice — owner's capital-unlock play Risk — never price or assert rights over ways already registered Todo — lawyer + surveyor before any approach to neighbours; long-user rights may already exist

Two lots is the easy geometry. In the north–south and long-axis splits both lots clear every desk test (≥20 ha, a constraint-clear 25 m × 25 m building area); only the east–west split strands the northern lot without an envelope. Fact — mapped resolution

Three lots always leaves one lot with no non-PVA envelope. There are only two non-PVA fragments, so under any equal-area band split the third lot is 100% priority vegetation: its building area defaults to the C7.7.2 performance test (P1), the discretionary battleground the report describes. The east–west 3-lot split is the strongest of the three — every lot touches the C/D/E corridor and two of three fit clear envelopes. Fact — mapped resolution Assumption — P1 acceptance

Access is the unscored dimension. The C/D/E corridor (shared with seven — possibly eight — benefited neighbours) reaches only part of the parcel; lots not touching it need new access design and the A2/P2 frontage test. No sketch here addresses road construction, wastewater or BAL-19 footprints. Risk Todo

What changed vs 02b. Lot areas moved slightly (Lot 1 27.28 ha vs 02b's ~28.8 ha; Lots 2/3 ~21.0 ha each vs 02b's 20.3/20.1 ha) because the boundary now follows actual contour vertices and the track's real bearing rather than hand-tuned points. Fact — computed geometry Fragment 1 stays in the south lot and Fragment 2 in a northern lot in both designs — that containment constraint, not the exact line shape, is what the desk tests actually depend on. Todo Neither design is a substitute for a surveyor's traverse; both are desk-resolution GIS sketches at mapped-layer accuracy.