MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 1 and 5 Tumut Road, City Beach. Submissions were received from these owners objecting to the side setback variation to the northern boundary and visual privacy variations to the southern side boundary. The applicant has amended the plans to address the privacy concerns of the neighbour to the south. Performance criteria assessment Buildings on boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Porch feature Nil 1.0 metre from right/northern side boundary 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. The portion of porch wall abutting the northern side boundary is a 230mm wide wing wall projecting at 90 degrees from the dwelling and has been designed as an architectural feature. It is 42 courses (3.6 metres) high. As it is on the south side of the adjoining property and on lower ground, it is unlikely to have any significant effect on its amenity in terms of building bulk or access to direct sun for major openings or habitable rooms. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed porch wall on the northern side boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • enhances the amenity of the development; • does not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensures that direct sun to major openings or habitable rooms is not restricted. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 39
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 Visual privacy Rear alfresco/balcony Performance criteria: Proposed 5.9 metres to northern side boundary Acceptable development provision 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 applicant has made a number of amendments to the plan to satisfy the visual privacy requirements for the upper storey windows. The only major opening that now does not meet acceptable development criteria is the rear balcony which is set back 5.9 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres from the northern side boundary. As the adjoining property to the north is currently vacant, it is unclear whether the reduced setback will result in direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining property. Due to the location of the upper storey alfresco at the rear of the dwelling, however, it is likely that it would result in overlooking to these types of spaces in the future development of the adjoining property. It is therefore recommended a condition of planning approval should require the provision of screening along the northern side of the upper storey alfresco/balcony. Should the design of the adjoining dwelling result in no direct overlooking occurring, the requirement for screening to the side of the balcony could be reviewed if requested by the applicant. In addition, the amended plans do not show obscure screening to the west facing office window and the west facing gymnasium window which have the potential to overlook habitable spaces and it is therefore recommended that a condition be placed on the approval requiring that these windows be modified to comply with acceptable development criteria. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed visual privacy variation is not acceptable and does not comply with the performance criteria for the following reasons therefore a condition requiring screening is required. 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\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 40
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes 27 NOVEMBER 2012
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 41: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 93 and 94:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?