Cover Letter - Response to Information Request · 132003.221108.3

     4. Provide a revised assessment against Performance outcome PO9 of the Low Density Residential
        Zone Code.

Response

Item 2

In response to Council’s Information Request, the plans have been amended to incorporate a larger planter
above the garage and pedestrian entry. Additional renders have also been provided to demonstrate that
the design will contribute to a well-landscaped streetscape and that the garage structure will visually recede
into the surrounding natural environment.

In relation to the issues raised by Council, particular emphasis has been given to addressing Performance
Outcome PO9(a), (e), (f) and (g) of the Low Density Residential Zone Code, as detailed below.


In relation to (a):

The proposal will provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises, including
the provision of visual and acoustic privacy, access to breezes, and protection from noise, odour and
artificial lighting.

In this regard, the garage will not give rise to visual or acoustic privacy impacts on adjoining dwellings, as it
maintains a 1.5 metre setback to the side boundary and is positioned adjacent to an existing garage on the
neighbouring property.

The additional garaging will also provide covered car parking that is more conveniently and safely accessed
than the existing arrangement, thereby improving the overall functionality and usability of the dwelling for its
residents.

In relation to (e):

The dwelling allows for sufficient space to provide landscape buffering between buildings, including a 1.5
metre setback along the north-western side boundary. This exceeds the relevant acceptable outcome,
noting that a garage is otherwise permitted to be constructed on the boundary for a length of up to 9 metres.

In addition, landscaping is provided to the front, eastern side and rear of the site, ensuring a well-integrated
and vegetated setting that enhances amenity.

In relation to (f)

While including new structures within the front 6m of the property, it is considered that the proposal will
achieve the performance outcome for the following reasoning:

The key wording paragraph (f) above is:

“contribute to open streetscapes by avoiding buildings and structures…”

It does not say “must not include” or impose a strict prohibition of structures within the front 6m of the property.
Further, it cannot be interpreted to strictly prohibit structures with the front 6m, as this would be in direct
conflict with the associated acceptable outcomes which allow for structures within the front 6m of the
property under certain circumstances.

Instead, it expresses an intended outcome (open streetscape), with “avoiding” as the