MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

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