Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011
however this has already been approved. Objections were received from No. 23B Jukes Way,
No. 27A Jukes Way, No. 27B Jukes Way and No. 15 Jukes Way. A petition signed by twentyfour
(24) residents of Jukes Way was also received objecting to privacy, open space, setbacks,
building height and infill development.
Assessment against the performance criteria
Buildings Setback from the Boundary
Unit 2 setback kitchen and
dining room from northwestern
boundary
Proposed
Acceptable development provision
1.026 metres - 2.5 metres 1.5 metres
Performance criteria:
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;
assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;
assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.
The reduced setback to the kitchen and dining room is as a result of the angle of the boundary
and the irregular lot shape. Only a small portion of the wall intrudes into the required setback
and overall will have less of an impact than a compliant wall set back 1.5 metres for the length
of the boundary. The wall is staggered to reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining
property. The upper floor complies with all setback requirements.
All major openings on this elevation are set back more than the required 1.5 metres from the
boundary and therefore will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. The
reduced setback is to the northwest, and any shadow cast from these properties will be directed
to the street and the common property driveway.
Notwithstanding neighbour's objections to sunlight, it is considered the staggered set backs
provided allow adequate sunlight and ventilation to their dwelling.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for the
following reasons:-
the reduced setback to the kitchen and dining is minor, and overall produces a better
outcome than a compliant wall for the length of the boundary;
the reduced setback will have little impact on overshadowing as it is to the north-western
boundary, and the wall is staggered to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining
property.
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 65