MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013is set back further from the side boundary, and has been stepped to reduce building bulk andprovide sufficient space for ventilation. In isolation, the proposed setback of the south dwellingfrom the south side boundary is considered acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria.In relation to the variations to the north side boundary, the development will have minimalimpact on access to sun to the adjoining property to the north. There are no major openingsfacing the neighbouring property to the north on both the ground and upper floors. With regardto the upper floor in particular, it has a smaller footprint than the ground floor, is set back furtherfrom the side boundary, and has been stepped to reduce building bulk and provide sufficientspace for ventilation. In isolation, the proposed setback of the north dwelling from the northside boundary is considered acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the north and south side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• there is adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building• the development complies with the overshadowing requirements• the stepped setbacks of the upper floor reduces building bulk• there are no major openings facing the adjoining properties and therefore no privacyissues.Notwithstanding the above comments, a reduction in the height of the dwellings would alsoreduce the side setback requirements and improve access to sun and ventilation and reducebuilding bulk for the neighbouring properties.Site worksHeight of a retaining wall andfilling of land within 1.0 metreof a common boundaryPerformance criteria:ProposedMaximum approx 1.0metre on northernboundaryAcceptable development provisionMaximum 0.5 metresDevelopment that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.There is a small section along the north boundary for a length of approximately 8 metres wherethe fill will range in height from 1.0 metre down to 0.5 metres. The applicant has contendedthat as the variation is for a short length it presents very little impact on the northern property,especially since it is the section of boundary abutting the non-habitable dead side of the house.Considering the development as a whole, the variation is minor and could be supported. Thereis a slope up to the rear of the property, but requiring the development to be stepped to followthis slope would be excessive for such a minor variation. A reduction in the height of thebuilding would, however, result in a subsequent reduction in the fill requirements and if 0.5metres or more, likely to result in the development complying with the site works acceptabledevelopment requirements.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 39