Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.123 LOT 231 (NO. 93) EMPIRE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PERGOLA<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a pergola requiring assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 419DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Roger and Kimberley Walpot<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Pitched Pergolas<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 946 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
Pergola structure located within the rear setback <strong>of</strong> dwelling, south-western corner <strong>of</strong> lot.<br />
Structure is to be 2.4 metres high in total, and positioned on an existing raised paving<br />
area approximately 400mm high.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback variation:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Our proposed structure will have a western boundary setback <strong>of</strong> 2.0 metres which is more<br />
than the usual 1.5m required. The structure will be located on an existing raised paved<br />
area approx 400mm above lawn level and will be approx 2.4 metres high .<br />
There is already partial lattice fence screening on the boundary fence, and the landscaper<br />
intends to plant screening trees starting at approx 1.8-2.0 metres high along the 2.0<br />
metres wide western and southern boundary garden beds, which should provide<br />
adequate screening to deal with any ‘privacy/noise’ issues.<br />
The other two affected neighbours, to the south and south-east, have both signed <strong>of</strong>f on<br />
the plan and the property owner feels that the objection by the western neighbour is<br />
unjustified because he appears to be ‘upset’ by the noise <strong>of</strong> kids having fun in the<br />
swimming pool.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from owners <strong>of</strong> the property to the western side and are summarised<br />
below:<br />
Submission one (91 Empire Avenue)<br />
<br />
The proximity <strong>of</strong> this structure to our back patio corner - approx 4 metres - is likely to<br />
impact negatively on our outdoor living and relaxation, due to increased noise from so<br />
close. We become the victims and the affected and this is unfair.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 102
Change language