minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
Consultation/Communication Implications
The proposal was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with Clause 4.2 of the R-
Codes. The potentially affected neighbours were contacted by mail and invited to view the
plans of the proposal at the City’s administration building. In light of modifications made to
the proposed development, the application was readvertised for a further 14 days.
Submissions received are summarised in the table below:-
Submission
Number
First Round of Advertising
1
Submission Details
After viewing the plans I have concern for
the wall height (including the retaining wall
in the south west corner of the subject
site. As my property is considerably
lowered compared to that of the subject
site there is a concern that the wall height
will directly affect my property
Officer's Comment
The proposed building height variation
has been assessed and is considered to
be consistent with the desired height of
buildings within the locality while
imposing no significant adverse impacts
upon the amenity of adjoining properties.
The finished floor level of the garage
cannot be lowered without otherwise
impacting on an acceptable driveway
gradient.
2
3
I have considered the proposal and wish
to advise that I have no objections to the
variations to the R-Codes proposed.
Residential Building Height- Wall Height
exceeding 6.0m – The proposed height
will impact on natural light from the
North/East to our home theatre/Living,
bedroom and bathrooms- we are therefore
unhappy with the proposal.
Variation to clause 6.3.2.- Proposed
parapet wall runs along our home theatre/
living room border, the extended height
will significantly reduce natural sunlight
from North/East, also making Kitchen 1
meter away from our Theatre/Living area,
thus also creating noise pollution- we are
therefore unhappy with the proposal.
Variation to clause 6.3.1- The proposed
wall setback on the ground floor is
significantly less than standard. This will
create noise pollution to our bedrrom due
to close proximity of proposed entertaining
areas, privacy and any natural sunlight to
the bedrooms and bathrooms will be
impacted- we are therefore unhappy with
the proposal.
The proposed retaining wall referred to in
the objection was removed as part of a
subsequent design amendment.
Comments noted.
The lot and design of the property are
orientated in such a way that the
increased building height is not
considered to increase the impact upon
direct sun and access for habitable rooms
of the adjoining properties.
The building on boundary has now been
reduced to an average of 3.1m. It is
considered that this minor variation now
meets the performance criteria of clause
6.3.2 of the R-Codes.
The dwelling meets the performance
criteria for building setbacks as set out in
the R-Codes (see table above).
The reduced setbacks will not have a
significant adverse impact on the
adjoining property as the adjoining
dwelling does not have any major
openings abutting the proposed
development. The living area is setback
sufficiently as to not be adversely
affected.
219