MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013alfresco area proposed along the Chipping Road frontage which encroaches into the rearsetback area. A raised portico over the entry to the dwelling, which acts as anarchitectural feature, results in a wall height variation.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback, wall height and privacy variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of thesubject site, being No. 63 Oban Road and No.14 Belford Road. One submission was receivedfrom the owners of No. 63 Oban Road objecting to the proposed variations. One submissionwas received from a neighbour on the opposite side of Oban Road at No. 64 Oban Road,concerned that they were not advised of the proposal and objecting to the dwelling on the basisthat it would be out of character for the neighbourhood and overlook their property.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionRear Setback (south) Nil 6.0 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so inorder 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 ofadjoining properties is not restricted.With regard to the rear setback variation, the bulk of the dwelling is set back between 4.5metres and 7.0 metres from the rear boundary. An upper storey balcony and stairwell isproposed above the alfresco with a setback of 1.0 metre from the rear boundary and a groundfloor alfresco is proposed with a nil setback to the southern/rear boundary. There are no majoropenings at the upper level which have impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss ofprivacy directly facing the side boundary.It is noted that the existing dwelling has similar setbacks with an enclosed addition with acolorbond roof having being built almost to the rear boundary in a similar location to theproposed alfresco area.Whilst the setback of nil in lieu of 6.0 metres seems a large variation to the acceptableprovisions, it is considered that the variation can be supported when considering:-• the portion of dwelling intruding into the rear setback is 7.5 metres long over a boundaryof 32 metres (ie approximately 23% of the length) with the rest of the building beingbehind the 6.0 metre setback.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 54