2018-11-06 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                 6 NOVEMBER 2018


Furthermore, the presentation of the pavilion to the rear boundary in conjunction with the
significant wall heights is not consistent with the preferred outcomes for the locality. The height to
the fascia/gutter of this pavilion is 7.6 metres, with the roof being 8.7 metres.
The following image details the elevation which faces the rear boundary, and adjacent residential
properties.




The northern (rear) elevation of the pavilion adjacent to the rear boundary has a length of
approximately 30.8 metres. A central section of wall 15.8 metres in length is inset 300mm from
walls on either side. These walls are 7.5 metres in length. Further articulation is provided by
windows and shutters to each wall. A 300mm eave is provided to that part of the wall which is
inset 300mm. The amount of articulation to this elevation is limited. Whilst improved articulation
could be provided by the inclusion of additional windows and decks the resultant noise would
likely have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties. As noted earlier in this report it is
recommended that a condition be included to reduce the building heights, and in this instance it
is also recommended that this pavilion be required to provide further articulation by variation to
the colours and materials of the northern elevation. It is also recommended that a condition be
included to require screening landscaping within the setback to assist in reducing the bulk of this
elevation and screening it to neighbouring properties.
With regards to the front setback the application seeks variation relating to an open sided roof
structure above the entrance stairs at Mary Street frontage which is proposed to be setback 4.8
metres in lieu of the required 6 metre setback. This variation is considered reasonable due to the
open form of the structure, the minor extent in relation to overall frontage length and the
significant extent of the development which is setback beyond the required 6 metres.
The variation to the eastern side is 200mm and relates to the upper and lower eastern elevation
of the eastern pavilion. The side wall of the pavilion to the rear of the site otherwise complies.
The minor variation is adjacent to a commercial development which is setback 2 metres from the
common side boundary. It is considered that the variation will not result in amenity loss. It is
recommended that a condition be included to require some separation to the adjoining property
with landscaping.
Similarly, the variation to the western side setback relates to the both the upper and lower levels
of the western pavilion. The setback is adjacent to an adjoining dwelling which is setback 2.0
metres from the common boundary. No objection has been received from the owners of this
property to the reduced setback or the development as a whole. The plans detail that the area
between the pavilion and the side boundary can be accessed via openable doors from the lower
level units. As the occupation of this area may result in noise impacts on the adjoining residential
property Council’s Environmental Health Officer has recommended the acoustic fence be
continued for the full extent of this boundary.
The variation to the rear setback is a consequence of a sewerage infrastructure which is located
between the front of the northern pavilion and the pool. The following image details the location
of the infrastructure:




                                                                                      Page 58 of 84