MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 Buildings on boundary Garage wall Proposed Acceptable development provision Site 1: Nil Min 1.0 m Site 2: Nil Min 1.0 m Performance criteria: Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties is not restricted. A double garage built up to each side boundary is proposed. In isolation, the walls are not considered excessive as they are 7.0 metres long and approximately 3.0 metres high. With the previous application, initially the owner of the adjoining property to the west (No. 9 Lake Monger Drive) had no objection to the garage wall but subsequently withdrew her support. The owner of the adjoining property to the east (No. 5 Lake Monger Drive) is objecting to loss of views to the lake. The applicant has submitted a diagram showing that the current plan with the garage set back 6.0 metres from the front boundary and nil from the side boundary provides a greater view corridor than a building compliant with the R Codes acceptable development requirement (ie. front setback of 4.0 metres and side setback of 1.0 metre). Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the garages on the east and west side boundaries is the most practical and effective use of space and will not unduly affect neighbour amenity. Wall height Wall height Performance criteria: Proposed Site 1: Max 6.3 metres Site 2: Max 6.4 metres Acceptable development provision Max 6.0 metres 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. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 29
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 The plans submitted with the previous application showed a large loft area with large windows on the front and side elevations facing the neighbouring properties. The wall height was measured to these windows as they were larger than the size of dormer windows allowed in the Town's Building Height policy. The maximum wall height ranged from 7.9-8.0 metres for the development. The plans submitted with this application show a smaller loft area and each dwelling with a small dormer on the front elevation and on one side elevation (total of four dormers for the development). The dormers meet the size requirements of the Town's Building Height policy and are therefore exempt from the wall height measurement. The wall height is measured from natural ground level to the underside of the first floor eaves. The natural ground level at the front of the site is lower than the rear, resulting in the front of the dwellings measuring 6.3 metres and 6.45 metres in wall height. The majority of the dwelling is, however, less than 6.0 metres as the rear has been significantly cut so that the ground floor sits on one main level. With regard to the above performance criteria, the building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality. The development presents as two storey from the street, with the high roof pitch required by Council's Streetscape Policy for developments in West Leederville. Impact on access to views of significance from the rear properties is related to the overall height of the building, which complies with the acceptable development requirements. With regard to access to direct sun, the development complies with the acceptable development requirements relating to overshadowing. Furthermore, the upper floor complies with setbacks from the side boundaries and is stepped in from the side boundaries to reduce the bulk impact on the neighbouring properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the additional height at the front of the dwellings is unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the neighbouring properties. Visual privacy Site 2: RHS/west Front balcony Proposed Acceptable development provision 2.5 metres Min 7.5 metres Performance criteria: 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. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 30
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes 27 NOVEMBER 2012
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 31: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 83 and 84:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 The projec
Page 225 and 226:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 10.2 FORME
Page 227 and 228:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 COMMUNITY
Page 229 and 230:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 11. URGENT
show all

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?