Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012
Applicant's justification
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable
development provisions relating to setbacks of buildings generally. A copy of the applicant's
justification is available to view for Elected Members.
Performance criteria assessment
Setback of buildings generally
Primary street
setbacks
Proposed
5.3 metres (garage)
4.7 metres (balcony)
Acceptable development provision
Minimum 6.0 metres
Performance criteria:
Buildings set back from the street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:-
contribute to the desired streetscape;
provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and
allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.
The proposed garage is set back at 5.3 metres from the primary street frontage to
Pangbourne Street. Given that the width of the garage is 6.2 metres and the frontage is only
10.0 metres, the garage will dominate the visual aspect of the lot as viewed from the street.
The proposed upper floor balcony is set back at 4.7 metres from the primary street and has
a width of 4.5 metes. In conjunction with the garage, this will act to dominate the
presentation of the building as viewed from the street and will not contribute to the desired
streetscape. This 6.0 metre primary street setback has not been encroached into by
adjoining dwellings in the locality. Although there are examples of carports within the 6.0
metre setback in the immediate locality, these are predominantly open structures retaining
sightlines to the street and buildings. This proposal would therefore create an inconsistency
in the streetscape and set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.
It is noted that the owner wishes to retain the existing tree to the rear of the proposed
dwelling to provide shade to the dwelling and open space areas which restricts the possibility
of relocating the dwelling further back on the lot.
Overall, it is considered that the reduced primary street setbacks do not comply with the
performance criteria for the following reasons:-
does not contribute to the desired streetscape; and
would set an undesirable precedent for future development.
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was
assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning
Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 19