MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• A visual privacy setback variation from the front balcony towards the western sideboundary within the cone of vision is also proposed.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the wall height and visual privacy variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 51 Hesperia Avenue and No. 15 West Coast Highway. In addition, theowner of the property directly across the road at No. 50 Hesperia Avenue was notified. Twosubmissions were received from the owners of No. 51 Hesperia Avenue and No. 15 WestCoast Highway objecting to the wall height, roof height and privacy variations. (Note the planshave now been amended to bring the overall height lower so that this is no longer a variation).Performance criteria assessmentBuilding heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height 7.8 metres 6.5 metres to eaves with pitchedroof abovePerformance criteria:Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The principal floor level of the existing building has a level that matches the dwellings on eitherside. An excavated area towards the centre of the site provides for the existing undercroft andcarport with an existing roof deck. Therefore, the wall heights as viewed from both sideproperties is close to the 6.5 metre height limit. However, the section of wall across the front ofthe dwelling for the new front balcony over the existing carport has a wall height of 7.8 metreswhen measured from the 'cut' or existing ground level of the carport. This overheight section ofwall is set back over 9.0 metres from the front boundary. Further, it is noted that the overheightsection of wall is actually to a pier to the balcony and that the balcony has aluminium, visuallypermeable 1.0 metre high balustrading which will still allow views to the ocean through thebalcony from the adjoining property to the east.It is considered that the building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality, many of which are two storey with undercroft garages. As the overheight section ofbuilding is across the front and in the centre of the site, there is no direct impact on adjoininglandowners in terms of access to adequate daylight and direct sun.It is noted that the applicant has amended the plans to lower the overall height of the roof tomeet acceptable development provisions.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 90