Skip to the record
Search everything, all in one place.

Original source · versioned page text

Pre-Request Response - 226 David Low Way 30 Oct 2017

Attached to the e-mail Pre-Request Response Application - MCU14/0008.03.

of 6

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




The proposed enclosure of the balcony area will not cause any significant adverse changes to
the adjoining and nearby land uses, in terms of light, air quality, noise, accessibility or any
other impact including privacy. This is because the proposed changes do not materially affect
the development in any way, in particular with respect to maintaining current building setbacks
to the residential properties to the east. Further, the use of the balcony area will not materially
increase the ability of a person to overlook any adjoining unit or residential property. In my
opinion, no amenity impacts are raised by the proposal.

 Setbacks
 O5 Buildings and other structures are S5.1 Buildings and structures comply with the
 appropriately designed and sited to—           minimum building setbacks identified in
 a) provide amenity for users of the premises Schedule 1 - Minimum Boundary Setbacks.
    as well as preserve the visual and acoustic
    privacy of adjoining and nearby
    properties;
 b) provide adequate distance from adjoining
    uses;
 c) preserve any existing vegetation that will
    buffer the proposed building;
 d) allow for landscaping to be provided
    between buildings and street frontages
    and between neighbouring buildings;
 e) maintain the visual continuity and pattern
    of buildings and landscape elements
    within the street; and
 f) protect the natural character and visual
    amenity of the beachfront.

Under Schedule 1, the required building setback from the rear property boundary is 6m. The
approved plan shows that the building setback is 5.875m to the eastern edge of the balcony
area, which remains unchanged. Consequently, the proposed development generally
maintains a 6m setback to the rear boundary, with the proposed part enclosure of the balcony
having no bearing on the existing setback. It is noted that under the provisions, a fully enclosed
building with large windows could be located 6m from the rear boundary.

 Site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio No solution provided
 O6 The site cover, gross floor area and plot
 ratio of buildings and other roofed
 structures—
 a) results in a building scale that is
     compatible        with        surrounding
     development;
 b) does not present an appearance of
     excessive bulk to adjacent properties,
     roads or other areas in the vicinity of the
     site;


 17006 – Colin & Michele Middleton

                                                                                        5|Page
Log in to download the original file

Pre-Request Response - 226 David Low Way 30 Oct 2017.pdf · 656 KB (small file)

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.