Site Possibilities

1. Your duplex (in the scheme's words a dual occupancy: 2 dwellings (whether attached or detached) on a single lot). Not demonstrable on this lot. There is no row for a dual occupancy in the table of assessment for the Low density residential zone, so the catch all row applies and the use is impact assessable, assessed against the whole planning scheme with public notification (Table 5.5.1, rule 16904). Inside that assessment, the Dual occupancy code's first acceptable outcome asks for 3,000 m2 and 40 m of frontage (Table 9.3.6.3.B, rule 15211). The lot is 1,057 m2 and 20.25 m. Every built form outcome we tested in that code (the fourteen listed in section 7) is met on the layout we drew; that one outcome is not, and cannot be. Privacy screening to the neighbouring house, the covered part of each open space and the vehicle swept path are design matters not tested.

2. Two lots, a house on each, optionally a secondary dwelling on each. Available, and already approved. The reconfiguration is a Development Permit Council granted on 2023-03-01 (A005879370), changed on 2026-03-06 (A006914652), for Lot 1 527 m2 frontage 10.086 m and Lot 2 527 m2 frontage 10.071 m. Each of those lots is above the 450 m2 standard lot size (rule 39070), so neither is a small lot, and a house on each is accepted development provided it meets every acceptable outcome of the Dwelling house code (Table 5.10.9, rule 13132). A secondary dwelling of up to 80 m2 within 20 m of the house may be added to either, still as one dwelling house use (rule 15276). The lot widths of about 10 m were approved on the performance outcome of the Subdivision code (PO1, Table 9.4.10.3.B, rule 39070), not its acceptable outcome; that approval is granted and current.

3. One house plus a secondary dwelling on the lot as it stands. Available. Two dwellings, two households, one title, no subdivision. Accepted development provided every acceptable outcome of the Dwelling house code is met (rule 5312 and rule 13132), with 1 car parking space for the dwelling house; 1 car parking space for any secondary dwelling on the same site. The test layout puts a 12.0 x 16 m house at 6.72 m from the frontage with 3.87 m side clearances and a 76 m2 secondary dwelling behind it.

4. Three or more dwellings (a multiple dwelling). Not available. The use is impact assessable (rule 16904) and the zone code says in terms: "Development maintains a low density character in which multiple dwellings are not accommodated." (rule 22118).

5. Rooming accommodation for up to five persons in a house. Available, as accepted development subject to requirements, where there is no more than one dwelling on the lot and the listed acceptable outcomes are met (Table 5.5.1, rule 16900). Listed here for completeness; it was not drawn.

Your words were: "Sample report for a dual occupancy (duplex) on this block: the most that meets every acceptable outcome, drawn to scale, with the frontage, setbacks, separation, open space, parking and access each proved against the scheme's own provisions, what council has approved nearby with any infrastructure charge quoted from a real decision notice, and the pathway. If a duplex does not fit, say so plainly and give the AO-compliant maximum."

We read the planning scheme in force today from Council's own electronic scheme: Brisbane City Plan 2014, revision 272, in force 2026-06-14, read on 2026-09-15. We took the lot boundary, area, frontage and neighbours from the State digital cadastre, the ground surface from the State 1 m laser survey, and every overlay from Council's live mapping queried with the lot boundary itself rather than with a point, so a partial overlay is measured as a share of the lot. We then read Council's own decision documents, information requests, conditions, stamped plans and infrastructure charges notices for this lot and for the applications around it, and we tested each pathway by drawing it on the measured boundary and checking every acceptable outcome against the scheme's own table. A two sheet site analysis plan at A3 accompanies this report.

What was not done, and is not claimed: no site inspection, no title search, no identification survey, no geotechnical investigation, no hydraulic or stormwater design and no bushfire attack level assessment. Boundaries, areas, levels and slopes in this report are measured from public records and are subject to survey. The layouts are test fits that prove what the rules allow; they are not a design and were not prepared by a designer. Section 13 lists every matter we could not resolve.

30RP23615 at 166 Jesmond Road Indooroopilly QLD is a single registered lot of 1,057 m2 (the State cadastral polygon measures 1,059.59 m2), with 20.25 m of frontage to Jesmond Road and a depth of about 53.58 m. It is not a corner lot. The State cadastre records no easement over it, and the title was not searched, so easements, covenants and other encumbrances registered on title remain unknown.

The land is vacant and grassed with trees over the rear half. It falls hard away from the street: RL 19.37 to RL 30.25 m AHD, 10.88 m of fall across the lot, a mean slope of 27.71% and 90.2% of the lot steeper than 15%, measured on the State 1 m bare earth laser survey. The fall is steepest in the first 34 m from the road and the rear third is close to flat. There is an existing crossover at the south eastern end of the frontage, inside the canopy of a street tree; Council's stamped plan for the approved subdivision limits it to a "Maximum 3.5m wide residential type crossover". A sewer main, shown from Council records on the stamped plan, crosses the middle of the lot about 18 to 23 m from the road between the RL 25.5 and RL 24.5 contours, which is under the rear rooms of every house drawn in this report and the front edge of each open space, so the final position of each building must respect it (building over or near a sewer needs Urban Utilities' consent); a 150 mm water main runs in Jesmond Road, and the 2026 approved stormwater plan shows a 225 mm connection at the rear boundary provided by the subdivision behind.

Nil results matter as much as hits. Council's flood, landslide, waterway corridors, biodiversity, heritage, traditional building character, pre 1911 building, transport noise corridor and coastal layers each returned no feature over this lot when queried with the lot boundary on 2026-09-15. That is a measured clear result on Council's mapping, not an assumption, and it is the reason the governing constraints here are slope, drainage and bushfire.

Four further overlays returned no feature inside the lot boundary but are recorded by Council as applying to this land: Council's own Notice about Decision for A005879370 lists the Bicycle network, Community purposes network, Road hierarchy and Streetscape hierarchy overlays over this lot, and Council assessed the reconfiguration against all four overlay codes. They are mapped on the road corridor rather than inside the boundary, which is why a polygon query of the lot returns nothing. Queried again on 2026-09-15 with the lot boundary widened by 30 m, the Road hierarchy overlay returns Jesmond Road as a Neighbourhood road, the Streetscape hierarchy overlay returns it as a Neighbourhood street minor (NS2) and the Bicycle network overlay returns a Local cycle route; the Community purposes network overlay returns nothing on any of its layers within 30 m, which is recorded in section 13. None of the four changes the category of assessment for a dwelling house (rule 13433, rule 13460, rule 7530, rule 12890). For a use that is already assessable, or for a reconfiguration, each adds its overlay code as a benchmark and none lowers an impact assessable use to code assessment (rule 7532, rule 7534, rule 12892, rule 12894, rule 13434, rule 13462; Table 5.10.18 and Table 5.10.20, reconfiguring a lot rows). They must be treated as applicable codes for any application here.

The instrument in force is Brisbane City Plan 2014, revision 272, in force 2026-06-14. The lot is wholly in the Low density residential zone with no zone precinct, and wholly inside the Toowong to Indooroopilly district neighbourhood plan, which makes no change to the category of assessment for a material change of use (rule 18275) or for reconfiguring a lot (rule 18281). There is no priority development area, no state development area, no infrastructure designation, no temporary local planning instrument, no master plan and no structure plan requirement over this land. Where provisions conflict, the scheme's own hierarchy governs: overlays prevail over the zone and use codes, the neighbourhood plan code prevails over the zone code, and the zone code prevails over the use codes (rule 161, rule 162).

The neighbourhood plan code itself (section 7.2.20.4) is an assessment benchmark for assessable development in the plan area (rule 13737), and Council assessed the approved reconfiguration on this lot against it. Read in full, it sets no minimum site area and no minimum frontage for a dual occupancy, and its maximum building height table applies only in the Dean Street shops precinct (Table 7.2.20.4.3.B, rule 13746, rule 13761), in which this lot does not sit. That is what makes the Dual occupancy code's own Table 9.3.6.3.B the operative source of the 3,000 m2 and 40 m figures, because AO1 sends the reader to a neighbourhood plan first and only then to that table (rule 15191).

The zone code sets the expectation everything else is read against. It provides for "a variety of low density dwelling types; and community uses, and small-scale services, facilities and infrastructure, to support local residents", and its outcomes say: "Development provides for suburban living in dwelling houses of predominantly 1 or 2 storeys in height, on appropriately sized and configured vacant lots, which maintain the low density detached housing suburban identity of the Low density residential zone." "Development provides for other housing types at a house scale to provide housing diversity offering choice to different household types and individuals to suit residents through different life-cycle stages." and "Development maintains a low density character in which multiple dwellings are not accommodated." (rule 22118). A dwelling house is expected on a lot of at least 400 m2, or 600 m2 for a rear lot (rule 22116).

The categories of assessment, read from the tables today. A dwelling house is accepted development where identified in the Regulation (Table 5.4.1, rule 5312), and because the Dwelling house character overlay covers every lot in this zone, the operative row is the overlay's: accepted development "Accepted development, subject to compliance with identified requirements", the requirement being "If complying with all acceptable outcomes in the: Dwelling house code if not on a small lot; Dwelling house (small lot) code if on a small lot", and code assessment against the Dwelling house code and the zone code if any acceptable outcome is not met (Table 5.10.9, rule 13132). Subdividing one lot into two is code assessment (Table 5.4.2, rule 5315; Table 5.6.1, rule 5927), and becomes impact assessable only if a lot is under 400 m2 (300 m2 where the frontage is within 200 m walking distance of a centre zone), or under 600 m2 for a rear lot (rule 5860). A dual occupancy has no row at all in the zone table, so it falls to the catch all: "Any other use not listed in this table", assessed against the planning scheme, which is impact assessment with public notification (Table 5.5.1, rule 16904).

The built form numbers each pathway is measured against. For a dual occupancy, Table 9.3.6.3.B reads "Low density residential | – | 2 storeys and 9.5m | 3,000 | 40" across the columns zone, precinct, maximum building height, minimum site area in square metres and frontage width in metres (rule 15211), and Table 9.3.6.3.C gives, for a two storey building, "2 storeys and up to 9.5m | 4 | 6 | 4.5 | 6 | 1.5m to 4.5m 2.0m to 7.5m then 2.0m plus 0.5m /3m above 7.5m" across building height, front to balcony, front to wall, rear to balcony, rear to wall and side (rule 15220, rule 15221). For a house, the maximum height is 2 storeys and 9.5 m (rule 15277) and the side clearances come from the Queensland Development Code, which the Dwelling house code names rather than restates. For lot design, Table 9.4.10.3.B Part 1 reads "Development of a residential lot | 450 | 14 x 20 | 15" across use, minimum lot size in square metres, minimum rectangle dimension and average lot width (rule 39070).

Eight overlay mapping layers, belonging to six of the scheme's overlays, return a feature over this lot. Each was queried with the lot boundary itself on 2026-09-15, and the share shown is the union of that layer's features clipped to the lot, so a figure of 2.4% means exactly that much of the land, not a yes or no. Where more than one overlay applies to the same aspect of development, the scheme takes the highest category (rule 7494), and an overlay can never lower an impact assessable use to code assessment.

On the balance of it, the overlays here are mild. The two that do work are Bushfire, which would bring the Bushfire overlay code into any application that increases the number of dwellings and which puts the whole lot in the designated bushfire prone area for building work, and Dwelling house character, which is the row that makes a new house accepted development if it meets every acceptable outcome. The rest are blanket layers that change nothing for a house, a secondary dwelling or a subdivision on this land. Four further overlays are mapped on the Jesmond Road corridor rather than inside the lot, and are set out in section 3.

There is no flood constraint on this land. Council's flood layers returned no feature over the lot, and the lowest ground on it sits at RL 19.37 m AHD. The Landslide overlay also returned no feature, so the filling and excavation triggers that overlay would bring do not apply (rule 13290). What governs this site instead is the fall of the land, where the water goes when it reaches the bottom of it, and bushfire.

Slope. The ground falls 10.88 m across the lot, from RL 30.25 at the street to RL 19.37 m AHD, with a mean slope of 27.71%, a maximum of 65.45% and 90.2% of the lot steeper than 15%. That matters in two places. In the Subdivision code, the acceptable outcome asks for the minimum rectangle from Table 9.4.10.3.B to sit on land with an existing slope of less than 1 in 5 before any earthworks; this lot does not have that, and Council said so in its information request on the approved subdivision: "The proposal has not demonstrated the minimum rectangle dimension specified in Table 9.4.10.3.B of the Subdivision code with an existing slope less than 1 in 5 prior to any earthworks, as per AO2.3 of the Subdivision code." The application was approved anyway, on the performance outcome, with dimensioned earthworks. In the building work, it means cut, fill and retaining: Council's conditions on this lot require retaining walls over 1.0 m to be certified.

Drainage. This is the issue that decides applications in this district. The lot falls away from the road, so stormwater cannot simply go to the kerb; it needs a lawful point of discharge downstream. Council raised exactly that on this lot: "The proposal must provide landowner consent from the downstream property (Lot 79 RP23615) in the absence of an existing upstream drainage connection." It was resolved by the change approved on 2026-03-06, which pipes both lots to the 225 mm connection built at the rear boundary by the subdivision behind. The weight of that is best seen in the one refusal nearby: at 88 Fig Tree Pocket Road Chapel Hill Council refused a change on 2022-09-06 in these words: "The subject site slopes to the rear and the proposed development fails to obtain a lawful point of discharge"

Bushfire. The lot is 65.4% High hazard buffer area and 34.6% Medium hazard area, which puts all of it in the designated bushfire prone area for the building code (rule 195). Practice nearby shows how this is handled rather than fought: on this lot the applicant lodged a site specific bushfire hazard assessment that found a non bushfire hazard class at every reference point, and Council listed the Bushfire overlay code among the benchmarks complied with; the same happened at 28 Jainba Street and at the two Jilba Street subdivisions. For building work, a bushfire attack level assessment goes with the building application, and the code asks for a building protection zone "building protection zone extending a minimum of 20m from the outermost projection of the main building or any habitable structure or to the maximum extent possible on sites less than 2500m2" on a site of this size.

We drew it rather than argued about it. The layout is two attached two storey dwellings, each a 7.5 x 14.0 m module with three bedrooms and a tandem two car garage, set side by side with the garages to the street and the private open space to the north east at the rear. Between the two storey side setbacks there is 15.73 m of usable width, which is what allows two 7.5 m modules to sit inside the envelope with room to spare. Every number in the table below is measured off that drawing on the cadastral boundary.

You asked for separation to be proved as well. The Dual occupancy code sets no numeric separation between the two dwellings of an attached pair; separation is carried instead by the boundary setbacks (AO5 to AO7), the built to boundary rule (AO8) and the privacy outcome (AO17.1). The drawn pair is attached on the party wall, sits 2.37 m off each side boundary against the 2.0 m required, and the nearest neighbouring house is on the south eastern side behind a boundary block wall shown on Council's stamped plan; the privacy outcome and the screening it asks for were not tested and are listed in section 13.

The result is unambiguous. Front setback 6.38 m against 6.0 m required; sides 2.37 m against 2.0 m; site cover 19.9% against a 50% maximum; building length 15.0 m against 25 m; 45 m2 of private open space for each dwelling against 35 m2, facing north east off the living rooms; garages 31.6% of the frontage against a 40% maximum; 4 car spaces against 4; one driveway from the existing crossover. Every built form outcome we tested is met; privacy screening to the neighbouring house on the south eastern boundary (AO17.1), the 12 m2 covered part of each open space (AO13.1) and the vehicle swept path are design matters not tested here. The first acceptable outcome in that code is not: it asks for 3,000 m2 and 40 m of frontage, and the lot has 1,057 m2 and 20.25 m. The shortfall is a factor of about three on area and two on frontage. No layout, no variation and no overlay changes that.

So the only route is impact assessment, arguing the performance outcome that sits behind that acceptable outcome: "Development has a site area and frontage width that is sufficient to: accommodate the scale and form of dual occupancy buildings considering site features such as heritage or character buildings, significant vegetation and slope; deliver useable private open space for each dwelling; achieve safe and convenient vehicle access to the site; accommodate on-site parking and vehicle manoeuvring for residents and visitors; minimise the impact of new driveways on the streetscape and the availability of on-street parking; not adversely impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents" (PO1, rule 15191). Against that, the code's own overall outcome says: "Development in the Low density residential zone is located on larger sites and reflects the low density form and character of these locations." (rule 23302), and the zone code says the zone is for "Development provides for other housing types at a house scale to provide housing diversity offering choice to different household types and individuals to suit residents through different life-cycle stages." (rule 22118). An assessment manager weighing a 1,057 m2 lot against a 3,000 m2 acceptable outcome has the code's own words on the other side of the scale, and the application would be publicly notified to neighbours on a street of detached houses.

How nearby approved applications handled the overlay this triggers. A dual occupancy would pull in sections A and B of the Bushfire overlay code, because it increases the number of dwellings (rule 11492), and section B of the Transport air quality corridor overlay code (rule 38214). Three nearby approvals show what Council accepts on the bushfire side: on this very lot (A005879370) the applicant lodged a site specific bushfire hazard assessment finding a non bushfire hazard class at every reference point, and Council listed the Bushfire overlay code among the benchmarks complied with, with no bushfire condition beyond the standard package; at 28 Jainba Street Indooroopilly (A005451059, approved 2021-01-25) in the same sub categories Council wrote that the development complies with the Bushfire overlay code; and at 43 Jilba Street Indooroopilly and 85 Jilba Street Indooroopilly (A006632449, A006141300), which carry High hazard area as well as buffer, the same assessment route was accepted. Bushfire is not what stops a duplex here. Land area is.

Nothing in the practice supports the duplex itself. We found no application for a new dual occupancy in a Low density residential zone among the 300 nearest applications on the register since 2019, which reach about 1.2 km from this lot, and none anywhere in Brisbane in our register since 2019. The one record that looked like an exception, A004989906 at 46 Pampling Street Camp Hill, is on Council's own notice in the Low medium density residential zone, where the use is code assessable on 600 m2; even there Council's information request said "The proposal does not meet the minimum site area requirements specified per AO1(b) of the Dual occupancy code". The verdict for this lot is therefore not demonstrable, and we say so plainly rather than sell you an application.

Pathway 2: the two lots Council has already approved, with a house on each. This is the answer to your question about the maximum, and it is already in hand, with one qualification: the two lots were approved on the performance outcome of the Subdivision code for average lot width and minimum rectangle, not on its acceptable outcome, while each house on them can meet every acceptable outcome of the Dwelling house code. A005879370, decided 2023-03-01 and changed by A006914652 on 2026-03-06, is a Development Permit for reconfiguring one lot into two: Lot 1 527 m2 frontage 10.086 m; Lot 2 527 m2 frontage 10.071 m; depths 53.607 m to 53.740 m. On the drawn test fit, split on the cadastral polygon at the plan's own dimensions (the polygon's frontage is 20.25 m against the plan's 20.157 m), Lot 2 takes 10.07 m of frontage and measures 527 m2 and Lot 1 the remaining 10.18 m with 533 m2; the stamped plan gives 527 m2 each with frontages of 10.086 m and 10.071 m, subject to survey. Both are above the 450 m2 standard lot size (rule 39070) and both are well above the 400 m2 at which a reconfiguration in this zone would become impact assessable (rule 5860), so neither is a small lot and the Dwelling house code, not the small lot code, applies to the house on each.

What fits on each new lot. Between the two storey side clearances there is 5.92 m of usable width on Lot 1 and 5.8 m on Lot 2 as drawn (about 5.8 m on each at the plan's own frontages, the lot width being the frontage times the cosine of the 13.1 degree skew, less 2.0 m each side). That takes a house of 5.92 x 14.0 m (83 m2 of footprint) on Lot 1 and 5.8 x 14.0 m (81 m2) on Lot 2, at front setbacks of 6.3 m and 8.55 m with 2.0 m side clearances, and leaves room for a secondary dwelling of 53 m2 behind one house and 52 m2 behind the other, both inside the 80 m2 cap and within 20 m of their house (rule 15276). Site cover lands at 25.6% and 25.3%. Each house is a narrow one; that is the price of two 10 m frontages on a 20 m lot, and it is why Council approved the lot widths on the performance outcome rather than the acceptable one.

The pathway for pathway 2. The reconfiguration needs no new application: it is approved, and what remains is to satisfy the conditions, obtain the operational work permit, build the stormwater connection, pay the levied charge when Council approves the plan of reconfiguration, and give Council the plan of subdivision before 31 May 2027. Each house then needs no development application either, provided it meets every acceptable outcome of the Dwelling house code (rule 13132); it still needs a building approval and a bushfire attack level assessment. If a design misses an acceptable outcome, the house becomes code assessable against the Dwelling house code and the zone code, which is an application but not a notified one.

Pathway 3: one house plus a secondary dwelling, leaving the lot whole. If the subdivision is not wanted, the lot as it stands carries two dwellings today. The Dwelling house code's first acceptable outcome allows "not more than one dwelling house and one secondary dwelling, each occupied by one household" (AO1.1, rule 15276), and a secondary dwelling is "a maximum of 80m2 in gross floor area; located within 20m of the dwelling house." (AO1.2). Parking is 1 car parking space for the dwelling house; 1 car parking space for any secondary dwelling on the same site (AO4, rule 15279). The test fit puts a two storey house at 6.72 m from the frontage with 3.87 m side clearances and a 76 m2 secondary dwelling 6.0 m behind it, at 25.4% site cover. This is accepted development on the same terms as pathway 2, and it does not use up the subdivision approval. The trade off is that the second dwelling cannot be sold separately: one title, and the secondary dwelling stays subordinate to the house.

Which is better. If the object is value, pathway 2: two separately saleable titles in Indooroopilly with a house on each, on an approval that is already granted and already charged. If the object is one household with a second dwelling for family or rent, pathway 3 gets there without the subdivision cost, the operational work and the deadline. Pathway 2 does not foreclose a secondary dwelling later; it allows one on each of the two lots.

What the code says. Development that is not major development provides "a single site access driveway in the road area to the lowest order road to which the site has frontage" (AO9.2, rule 4378), so one crossover serves this lot however it is developed. The driveway standard is Council's own: "Access driveway design is shown on BSD-2021 and BSD-2022 (for a dwelling house)." (rule 27084). The Subdivision code sets the widths: "... internal driveways serving a single dwelling that are a maximum of 3m wide; driveways serving more than 3 lots that are at least 4m wide." (AO36.1). For a house, one on site space is required, plus one for a secondary dwelling (AO4, rule 15279); for a dual occupancy, "Dual occupancy | 1 space per 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling" for one or two bedroom dwellings and two spaces for three or more bedroom dwellings, which may be in tandem (rule 29655).

What is there now, measured. There is one existing crossover at the south eastern end of the 20.25 m frontage, sitting inside the canopy of a street tree about 9 m tall. Council's stamped plan for the approved subdivision carries the note "Maximum 3.5m wide residential type crossover", which sets the ceiling on its width. The ground falls steeply from the road, so the grade transition at the crossover is the constraint that matters, not the width: Council said so on this lot in its information request, "Access must be in accordance with the City Plan standard drawings BSD-2022 and BSD-2024 ensuring maximum grade transitions are not exceeded."

What that means for each pathway. Pathway 2 gives each new lot its own frontage, so each takes its own crossover and a driveway serving a single dwelling, at the standard width; the existing crossover serves one of them and the street tree governs where the second one goes, which is why Council's conditions on this lot and on the comparable approvals nearby require street trees at crossovers to be retained and protected. Pathway 1 and pathway 3 keep one lot, so one crossover and one driveway serve everything; on the duplex layout that is a shared drive at the south eastern side feeding two tandem garages, which is what holds the covered parking to 31.6% of the frontage against the 40% maximum.

What was not tested. Vehicle swept paths were not modelled, and the driveway grades were not designed against the standard drawings. Both are design work for the next step, and both are listed in section 13 as matters for resolution. What this report establishes is that the code's access requirements can be met on the measured geometry, not that a particular driveway has been engineered.

This lot's own history is the most useful record in the file. On 2023-03-01 Council approved A005879370, reconfiguring one lot into two, with a currency period to 31 May 2027. Its statement of reasons reads: "Subject to the development conditions contained within the attached approval package, the development is able to comply with the applicable assessment benchmarks against which the application was required to be assessed." In its information request of 13 December 2021 Council raised four things, and all four were resolved: justification against PO1 of the Subdivision code for average lot frontage and minimum rectangle dimension, the minimum rectangle on slope under 1 in 5, access to the standard drawings, and a lawful point of discharge through the downstream property. On 2026-03-06 Council approved A006914652, a change under section 81 of the Planning Act 2016 that simplified the earthworks, stormwater and erosion conditions and piped both lots to the connection built by the subdivision behind. Council's notice on that change records: "The requested change does not result in an amended infrastructure charges notice." There is no material change of use approval and no building approval on the land; it is vacant, and the plan of subdivision has not yet been registered, so it remains one lot on the cadastre.

The charge, from a real notice. ICN-024874, dated 2023-03-01, levied $15,498.37 on this lot for one extra lot of demand, after a credit of one lot for the lot that already exists, across Council's stormwater, transport, public parks and land for community facilities networks. The notice states that the charge is payable, for reconfiguring a lot, when Council approves the plan of reconfiguration; the amount payable at that time comes from the Infrastructure Charges Quote. Urban Utilities charges for water and sewer are separate and are not on Council's notice. Comparable notices nearby, each read from the notice itself, run from $15,498.37 at 168 Jerrang Street Chapel Hill in 2023 (ICN-024320, Resolution No. 11), through $16,079.07 at 85 Jilba Street in 2024 (ICN-026235, Resolution No. 12) and $17,034.48 at 43 Jilba Street in 2025 (ICN-027733, Resolution No. 13), to $18,026.28 at 21 Jainba Street in February 2026 (ICN-029616, Resolution No. 14). The notice on this lot says that the levied charge may be increased from the date of the notice to the day it is paid by the Producer Price Index, and that an Infrastructure Charges Quote must be requested before payment showing the amount payable at that time; it is the indexed 2023 figure that is payable, not a fresh charge under the current resolution. For comparison only, Resolution (No. 15) 2026 sets the adopted charge at $18,793.33 for each additional lot, and the same amount for each three or more bedroom dwelling.

The pattern in the district. Of the applications we read in full, eight reconfigurations of one lot into two or three lots, counting this lot's own approval, were approved within about 700 m of this land since 2019, including the lot immediately behind, and a ninth approval at 106 Boundary Road Indooroopilly reconfigured two lots into three. The register itself lists 48 approved records of the type reconfiguring a lot, at 33 addresses, within 1.2 km since 2019 (the nearest 300 applications, reaching 1,221 m), counting this lot's two and 14 change requests to earlier approvals; the eight are the nearest ones and the ones whose notices we read, not the whole count. Council's recurring conditions on them are consistent: retain and protect street trees at crossovers, certify retaining walls over 1.0 m, kerbside refuse collection, and written downstream consent for the lawful point of discharge. The closest comparable in size and zone is 43 Jilba Street Indooroopilly (A006632449), a 1,067 m2 lot in this zone split into two with a shared access and approved on 2025-03-20; and the steepest is 168 Jerrang Street Chapel Hill (A006139590), approved with a 424 m2 lot on slopes over 1 in 3.

And the two refusals, which say more than the approvals. At 88 Fig Tree Pocket Road Chapel Hill a change to the stormwater solution was refused on 2022-09-06 because the site fell to the rear and no lawful point of discharge had been obtained. At 37 Fig Tree Pocket Road Chapel Hill (844 m from the subject) a new house on a small lot was refused on 2019-06-13 for exceeding the maximum building height and for not being "consistent with building height of dwelling houses prevailing in the immediate vicinity". Those two, drainage and height, are the district's live issues, and both are manageable here. No refusal, and no approval, of a new duplex in this zone appears anywhere in the record we searched.

1. Decide about the subdivision approval before 31 May 2027. It is the single most valuable thing this land holds and it has an end date. Everything below assumes you intend to use it; if you do not, say so early, because the operational work and survey lead times run to months, not weeks.

2. Order a title search. Nothing in this report reflects what is registered on title, and easements, covenants and building envelopes can only come from there.

3. Commission an identification and contour survey. Every boundary, area, frontage and level here is measured from the State cadastre and the 1 m laser survey, and the cadastre's stated accuracy is 1.5 m. The lot widths on the approved plan are about 10 m; that is not a dimension to design against without a surveyed boundary.

4. Get the operational work permit moving: earthworks, retaining, the driveway crossovers and the stormwater connection to the rear, all as conditioned. A geotechnical investigation belongs here too, on a lot with a mean slope of 27.71% where retaining over 1.0 m must be certified.

5. Request an Infrastructure Charges Quote from Council before the plan of subdivision is given to it, so the indexed amount payable is known rather than assumed. The 2023 notice on this lot is $15,498.37, increased by the Producer Price Index to the day of payment under the notice's own terms; for comparison, the adopted charge under Resolution (No. 15) 2026 is $18,793.33 for each additional lot. Confirm the Urban Utilities charge separately.

6. Design each house to the Dwelling house code's acceptable outcomes, in particular the 2 storeys and 9.5 m height outcome, and confirm the setback source at the time, since the Queensland Housing Code is listed as replacing the Queensland Development Code parts the code points to. Staying inside those outcomes is what keeps each house accepted development rather than an application.

7. Order the bushfire attack level assessment with the building application, and keep the 2021 site specific bushfire assessment on this lot in the file; it found a non bushfire hazard class at every reference point and is the kind of material Council has accepted here.

8. If you still want the duplex after all of this, ask Council for a pre lodgement meeting before spending anything on a design. Take this report's table of tested outcomes to it. The answer to expect is the code's own: 3,000 m2 and 40 m, on a lot with 1,057 m2 and 20.25 m.

Every conclusion in this report is an assessment of record: it is what the scheme in force on 2026-09-15 says, measured against what the State cadastre, the State laser survey and Council's live mapping show, and tested against what Council has actually decided nearby. The table below sets out what could move it, how likely that is and on what basis, what it would do, and what closes it out. None of these risks touches the central finding: the duplex fails on land area and frontage, and the two lot approval, with a house on each lot built to every acceptable outcome of the Dwelling house code, is the maximum this land can hold.