Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012
Performance criteria:
Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise
the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:
• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;
• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and
• access to views of significance.
Compared with the 24 November 2011 plans that were refused, the current plans show less
wall projection and less roof. The roof shown on the refused plans had a large projection to
the rear, whist the roof shown on the current plans angles downwards. This results in a less
bulky projection. Furthermore, the window has substantially decreased in size from the
window proposed on the refused plans and shown on the approved plans.
The dwelling was initially assessed under the Town’s previous Building Height Policy, which
allowed as acceptable development a maximum overall height of 10.5 metres for a pitched
roof and did not have any size restrictions for dormers.
In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, recent developments
in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 just prior to approval of
this dwelling to adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for
overall height (reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres).
The Building Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for
dormers.
The intent of the revising the Building Height policy to a lower maximum overall height
restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two
storeys and allow roof space for general storage only rather than as a usable floor with a
habitable room such as that proposed here.
As constructed, the approved third floor rear dormer is visible from adjoining properties,
however, it is the second storey alfresco that dominates the amenity impact on the adjoining
properties. The current proposal will increase the size of the roof projection and will also add
some additional bulk, as the highest ridge of the dwelling is proposed to be increased in
length to accommodate the increased ceiling height. The overall bulk of the development
will increase as the third storey would become more visible, particularly on the side and rear
elevations. However, the streetscape elevation will not be affected as the amendment is at
the rear.
Considering the performance criteria, the third floor is central to the dwelling with large
setbacks to side and rear boundaries, so access to sunlight and ventilation for the adjoining
properties will not be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments. The owners of
adjoining properties have not raised specific concerns about loss of ocean views. In relation
to protecting amenity, it is difficult to argue that the proposed amendments will protect
neighbour amenity.
Whilst the previous plans showed little regard for impact on the adjoining properties, the
current plans have been more sympathetic, with a reduction in the size of the window and
roof projection. The amendment is now unlikely to result in further significant bulk, privacy or
overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties. Furthermore, there is no change to the
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\AUGUST 2012\B DV.DOCX 47