MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DETAILS:Development description• The proposed patio is an extension of the main ground floor roof of the dwelling. Thisroof is a skillion roof with a pitch of 6 degrees falling from north to south.• The proposed patio is 9.0 metres wide and ranges in depth from 2.6 metres to 4.6metres.• The rear boundary is angled, and the edge of the patio is also angled to maximise itsarea. The setback of the patio from the rear boundary ranges from 1.5 metres to 2.0metres.• The application requires a Council determination at the patio is closer to the rearboundary than the R Codes acceptable development requirements and an objection hasbeen made to the proposed setback of the patio from the rear boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided justification for the rear setback variation which is summarised in anattachment to this agenda.• The building has been designed to make best use of the northern aspect of the site withthe single storey section located on the south side and having a skillion roof.• The rear boundary of this property abuts the side boundaries of the adjacent sites to theeast. These properties would normally have the benefit of side boundary setbacks onadjacent sites in accordance with Table 2 of the R Codes. It would appear to be ananomaly in this instance to have to provide a 6 metre setback for the benefit of anadjoining side boundary site.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the four properties that adjoin the subject site; No. 41 OceanicDrive to the north, No. 32 Arbordale Street to the south, No. 39 Oceanic Drive to the north-east(rear) and No. 14 Oakdale Street to the south-east (rear). Comments were received from theowners of No. 39 Oceanic Drive and No. 14 Oakdale Street which are summarised in anattachment to this agenda.The submission from the owners of No. 39 Oceanic Drive related more to the currentinsufficient dividing fence along the rear boundary that this property shares with the subject siteand concern over pool safety, rather than the proposed patio or the rear setback variation.The owner of the subject site has advised that it is his intention to replace this fence with astandard 1.8 metre high Colorbond fence. An advice note relating to dividing fences is includedin this regard. In addition, there will be an isolation fence around his proposed pool.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionRear (east) setback 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres Minimum 6.0 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 97
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.The patio is an extension of the skillion roof of the single storey section of the dwelling, whichruns parallel to the south side of the property. The rear boundary is angled with a length of9.45 metres shared with No. 39 Oceanic Drive, and a length of 9.45 metres shared with No. 14Oakdale Street. It is the latter part of the rear boundary that the proposed patio is closest.The patio has two posts, a north post set back 2.0 metres from the rear boundary, and a southpost set back 1.5 metres from the rear boundary. Facing the rear boundary, the proposed patioranges in height from 4 metres for the north post to 3.5 metres for the south post.With regard to the performance criteria, the proposed setback will not have a significantdetrimental impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining property to the southeast(No. 14 Oakdale Street). Any overshadowing will occur in the afternoon and will notimpact on the dwelling which is a significant distance away from the vicinity of the patio. Thebackyard of No. 14 Oakdale Street is currently well vegetated with large trees.Whilst the posts of the patio are relatively high to support the skillion roof, the patio is alightweight structure with a thin roof and open on three sides, which will reduce its bulk impact.Furthermore when considering the two storey development as a whole, the bulk impact on therear neighbours is considerably less compared with a development that has a two storeycomponent at the minimum acceptable development requirement of 6.0 metres. It is alsoimportant to note that approval has been granted for a pergola in the same location as theproposed patio. The pergola has the same posts, fascia and beams as the patio, the onlydifference is the addition of a roof which is not so visible when viewed from the east (rear).Notwithstanding these comments, it is considered that there is scope for increasing the setbackof the patio from the rear boundary, in particular the southern post which is closest to the rearboundary to slightly reduce bulk impact. A condition is therefore proposed to increase thesetback of this post from 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the patiofrom the rear (east) boundary (subject to the setback of the southern post being increased to2.0 metres) satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the patio does not have a significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to theadjoining property;• the patio is open sided and extends for a short length (7.6 metres) adjacent to theneighbour’s side (41.4 metre long) boundary;• the patio is at ground level and there are no variations to the privacy acceptabledevelopment requirements.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 98
Page 1 and 2:
Council Minutes26 FEBRUARY 2013
Page 3 and 4:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 99: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
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:
show all

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

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

Delete template?

Save as template?