minutes - City of Stirling

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Submission Number Submission Details Variation to clause 6.3.1- The proposed wall setback on the Upper floor is less than half the standard. This raises concerns of proximity of the windows to or home theatre/ living, bedrooms and bathrooms this affecting privacy, close proximity of the proposed dwelling to bedrooms creating noise pollution and concerns of affect on natural sunlight to our home theatre/ living room, bedroom and bathroom from the North/ East- we are therefore unhappy with the proposal. Variation to clause 6.6.1- Our concerns are that the natural ground level of the proposed dwelling is already higher than our property. Now with an increase in height of retaining the boundary wall is extremely high from our side - we are therefore unhappy with this proposal. Officer's Comment The retaining wall identified in the objection has now been removed by the applicant as part of a design amendment. The proposed development has been reviewed in relation to the approved plans of the objectors dwellings. Based on this review, the City’s officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the objectors dwelling. Second Round of Advertising 4 In summary, we as owners of a neighbouring property have concerns that the proposed variations to normal/ standard are significant variations- and are not merely minor variations. As such we would appreciate these proposed variations be reviewed with our concerns considered. Residential Building Height- Wall Height Exceeding 6.0m The proposed height has only been reduced by 100mm, with the wall height still 400mm above the required 6m. This will still have an impact on natural light from the North/East to our home theatre/living, bedroom and bathrooms we thus request a further reduction in this wall height. Variation to clause 6.3.1- Buildings setback from the boundary The proposed wall setback on the ground floor is still 540mm less than the standard i.e) 1.26m in lieu of 1.8- and not been amended. This will create noise pollution to our bedrooms due to the close proximity of the proposed entertaining areas being alfresco and family which are high noise areas used for entertaining, privacy, and any natural sunlight to our bedrooms and bathrooms will be impacted- we therefore still request that this be amended. Ground Floor Setbacks: The proposed variations have been assessed in relation to the relevant R-Code performance criteria, and are considered to meet those criteria. The proposed minor variation is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. Upper Floor Setback: The proposed variations have been assessed in relation to the relevant R-Code performance criteria, and are considered to meet those criteria. The proposed minor variation is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The objection refers to the impact the reduced setback would have on the privacy of the adjoining property’s theatre room; however, there are no major opening to habitable rooms included within proposed upper storey and adjoining neighbour’s theatre room. 220
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Submission Number Submission Details Variation to clause 6.3.1- Buildings setback from boundary The proposed wall setback on the Upper Floor is almost less than half of the standard ie) 1.26m in lieu of 2.8m and not been amended. This is a significant variation from the norm, this raises significant concerns of the proximity of the windows to our home theatre/living, bedrooms and bathrooms thus affecting privacy, close proximity of proposed dwellings to bedrooms creating noise pollution and concerns of affect on any natural sunlight to our home theatre/ living room, bedroom and bathroom from the North/East- we are therefore extremely unhappy with this proposal and request this to be amended. Officer's Comment Four (4) Submissions Received – Relative Location Submissions Received Within 100m of proposed site Remainder of City All Submissions SUPPORT 0% 0% 0% OBJECT 75% 0% 75% OTHER (Not stated/ no opinion/ 'conditional') 25% 0% 25% Applicant’s Justification “I accept the importance of building R-Codes and I also understand neighboring residences must be informed and invited to comment on proposed building application that don’t meet them however the objections listed below from my adjoining neighbors objecting to my building proposal I believe there is no considerable impact to their properties, please see my response and justifications. Adjoining neighbor objection 1: The proposed building height exceeds the permitted 6m. The building height will have an impact on natural light to adjoining properties. My response and justification: The proposed building wall heights being 6400mm would not be of considerable impact to the adjoining properties natural light if the wall heights were at the permitted 6000mm. Adjoining neighbor objection 2: The proposed wall setback on the ground floor is less than standard and will create noise pollution to the adjoining property. 221
Page 1 and 2:
MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
Page 5 and 6:
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE 10.1/AP7 LOT 678,
Page 7 and 8:
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
125 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 219: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361:
show all

minutes - City of Stirling

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?