Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012
Visual privacy
Upper roof deck
Performance criteria:
Proposed
Minimum 3.0 metres at a
45 degree angle
Acceptable development
provision
Minimum 7.5 metres
Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is
minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active
habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.
Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid
overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal
impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.
Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the
distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.
The upper roof deck is located adjacent to the northern boundary but set well back from the
street (approximately 15.5 metres). Whilst the northern side of the deck is enclosed with a
brick wall, the west facing opening is likely to have views into the private areas and windows
of the adjoining property to the north at the 45 degree angle, as the deck is set so far back
from the street. Requiring screening along the western opening of the deck will negate the
purpose of the deck. Combined with the wall height variation, the visual privacy variation
further confirms that the upper roof deck is not acceptable and cannot be supported.
Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed overlooking from
the deck is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following
reason:-
• the upper roof deck will have views to the active habitable spaces and outdoor living
areas of the adjoining property to the north.
Landscaping in the primary street setback area
The plans show less landscaping and more paving in the primary street (Oceanic Drive)
setback area than what was shown on the plans submitted and approved for a building
licence. The additional paving is not supported, as the secondary street setback area is
almost fully paved, apart from a small area in front of the garage and there is no requirement
for paving for a driveway as the garage and both accesses to the garage are off Tumut
Road.
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was
assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning
Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\AUGUST 2012\B DV.DOCX 53