Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012
Applicant's justification
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable
development provisions relating to setback of buildings generally and buildings on the
boundary.
Neighbour submission
The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the eastern and
northern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 1 and 1B Tate Street, West Leederville.
One submission was received from the owners of No.1B Tate Street, West Leederville
objecting to boundary wall due to the impact on the amenity of the development in terms of
privacy, access to direct sun and building bulk.
Performance criteria assessment
Setbacks of buildings generally
Balcony setback to primary
street boundary
Garage setback to primary
street boundary
Proposed
Acceptable development
provision
2.75 metre setback 4.5 metre setback
3.117 metre setback 4.5 metre setback
Performance criteria:
Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:
• contribute to the desired streetscape
• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and
• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.
With the Railway Line and Patersons Stadium located across Railway Parade, the reduced
setback to the primary street boundary is unlikely to have an impact on adjoining neighbours'
amenity. A number of dwellings in the immediate locality, such as the adjoining lot to the
east, have solid walls within the setback area to protect against the noise pollution in the
area. This proposal is a preferable outcome. Also, the proposal of the balcony within close
proximity to Railway Parade allows the dwelling to maintain passive surveillance of the
street. This is a valuable contribution to the streetscape in this particular area.
The subject site is constrained by a sewer line in the middle of the lot as well as the narrow
width of the lot and so Unit 1 cannot be moved further towards the rear without having a
detrimental impact on the internal or outdoor living areas of Unit 1. Maintaining adequate
internal and outdoor living areas is essential as well as providing a safe access way down
one side of the lot so the need to extend the dwelling laterally is apparent.
Given that the garage and balcony only consume 7.4 metres of the 13.88 metre frontage,
and that the remainder of the frontage is open, it is not considered that the proposal will not
have a detrimental impact on the streetscape.
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\AUGUST 2012\B DV.DOCX 22