Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 Construction of the dwelling has been substantially completed and the applicant has advised that the owner is not happy with the way the guest bedroom has turned out and wishes to raise the roof to result in a flat, 28 brick course high, ceiling for the guest bedroom rather than a raked ceiling. DETAILS: Development description The subject development comprises a three storey dwelling with undercroft. Due to the slope of the site, the development presents as a two storey with undercroft from the front (third floor not clearly visible on front elevation) and three storeys from the rear (cannot see undercroft on rear elevation). Amendments are proposed to the rear of the third floor to replace the raked ceiling with a flat ceiling throughout the guest bedroom. The amendments include a larger dormer facing the rear boundary and a higher overall height to accommodate the proposed increase in ceiling height. Applicant's justification The Town requested the applicant to provide written justification for the proposed increase in building height that addressed the relevant performance criteria of the R Codes, however, this was not provided. Neighbour submission The owners of five adjoining properties were notified of the amended plans. One submission objecting to the proposed amendments was received from the owners of No. 7 Orana Crescent (west of the subject site). A copy of the submission is available to view for Elected Members. Performance criteria assessment Building height Proposed Acceptable development provision Wall height Max 8.4 m Max 6.5 m Overall (roof) height Max 10.1 m Max 9.0 m for a pitched roof Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the 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 dwelling was initially assessed under the Town’s previous Building Height Policy, which allowed as acceptable development a maximum overall height of 10.5 metres for a pitched roof and did not have any size restrictions for dormers. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 31
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, recent developments in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 just prior to approval of this dwelling to adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for overall height (reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). The Building Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers. The intent of the revising the Building Height policy to a lower maximum overall height restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two storeys and allow roof space for general storage only rather than as a usable floor with a habitable room such as that proposed here. In comparison to the approved plans, the dormer must now be included in the wall height measurement due to its large size and therefore the wall height at the rear has increased to 8.4 metres. As constructed, the approved third floor rear dormer is visible from adjoining properties, however, it is the second storey alfresco that dominates the amenity impact on the adjoining properties. The current proposal will increase the size of the dormer considerably as it will now project out further from the main roof, and will also add additional bulk as the highest ridge of the dwelling is proposed to be increased in length to accommodate the increased ceiling height. The overall bulk of the development will increase as the third storey would become more visible, particularly on the side and rear elevations. Considering the performance criteria, the third floor is central to the dwelling with large setbacks to side and rear boundaries, so access to sunlight and ventilation for the adjoining properties will not be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments. The owners of adjoining properties have not raised specific concerns about loss of ocean views. In relation to protecting amenity, it is difficult to argue that the proposed amendments will protect neighbour amenity. The dwelling as constructed is large and with its sizeable second storey alfresco area, the quiet enjoyment of the private spaces of the adjoining properties has been negatively impacted. Any further amendment to the dwelling that would increase its size and bulk would therefore further negatively impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed building height shown on the amended plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following grounds:- the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and create an undesirable precedent for future development in City Beach. 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. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 32
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes 28 FEBRUARY 2012
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY
Page 33: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY
Page 85 and 86:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY
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:
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:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 Pr
Page 159 and 160:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 5.
Page 161 and 162:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 PO
Page 163 and 164:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 DE
Page 165 and 166:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 Fi
Page 167 and 168:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 Th
Page 169 and 170:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 (d
Page 171 and 172:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 10
Page 173 and 174:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 ST
Page 175:
COUNCIL TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 14
show all

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?