minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
My response and justification:
This objection should not even be considered a valid objection as all adjoining
properties have the same/similar ground floor setbacks.
Adjoining neighbor objection 3:
The proposed upper storey setback is less than the standard setback and affects the
adjoining property’s privacy and sunlight.
My response and justification:
The proposed building lot/land size is 10,000mm in width, this is considerably less than
the standard building lots so I feel consideration should be made when addressing
standard setbacks on non-standard lots and as for privacy there is no overlooking into
adjoining properties and as for sunlight I have justified this in the first response
regarding wall heights.
I first submitted my planning application on April 18 th 2012 since then I have made
substantial changes to my proposed building design including the orientation of the
plan left to right due to refusal of verge tree to be moved, reducing the RL of the
building, reducing retaining wall heights, reducing floor levels down towards the rear of
the lot and reducing parapet wall heights.
After all the compromises and design changes to date I have demonstrated that I am
more than willing to work with the City of Stirling council and also appease the
adjoining neighbors regarding their objections, even after all the changes my
application has now been recommended for review at City of Stirling’s next council
meeting on September 11 th 2012 therefore delaying planning approval again, almost 5
months thus far is a long time to obtain planning approval especially when the same
plans had been approved for construction on the previously owned adjoining lot which
was subdivided and sold little over a year ago.
In closing I would like City of Stirling to look favorably upon my current planning
application and consider granting approval before the next council meeting in
September.”
Comment
The application is seeking a performance based assessment in relation to proposed building
height, buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, sightlines at vehicular
access, and total open space.
A performance based assessment of these particular elements has been undertaken
previously in this report, and the proposal is considered to meet the relevant performance
criteria of the R-Codes.
The City notes that the objections have been received for proposed dwelling. These have
been considered cannot be supported on planning grounds.
The proposed development is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the relevant
conditions.
222