Planning assessment · MCU21/0171.01

Page 2

     4. preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
     5. allow for space and landscaping to be provided between buildings including adequate area at ground
        level for landscaping with trees, shrubs and outdoor living;
     6. be consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape; and
     7. protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such as
        national parks, waterways and wetlands.

Town planning discussion – AO9.3 of the low density residential code ordinarily seeks a 1.5 metre side
setback up to 4.5 metres high, a 2 metre setback between 4.5-7.5m and a 2.5m setback above 7.5m high.
A flat 1 metre side setback is sought on the northern side of the dwelling however this setback achieves
the performance outcome in the following ways:

1.   A high level of amenity is maintained to the proposed dwelling and adjoining premises as a result of
     the side setback. The dwelling is a high quality built form that achieves substantial compliance with
     the relevant design criteria.

2. The proposed side setback does not impact or obstruct views of adjoining premises, nor does it cause
   overlooking into adjoining private open space. There will be a high degree of separation between
   the house and adjoining neighbour to the north to ensure no view obstruction or overlooking.

3. There will be ample distance between the proposed dwelling and the dwelling to the north. The
   adjacent linear reserve affords an additional 3.6 metres of separation between the dwelling and the
   dwelling to the north on 36 Plover. Combined with the 1 metre side setback provided, an overall
   setback to the adjoining side boundary of 4.6 metres is achieved. This is significantly more
   separation than the usual side setback requirement of 2 metres. In addition, the proposed dwelling
   design along the northern elevation has a large break in built form as a result of the internal
   courtyard. Below is an aerial plan showing the separation to the dwelling to the north and an extract
   from the proposal plan showing the break in built form along the northern dwelling façade.

     Aerial plan showing linear reserve providing separation to the north (in addition to setback)




2

Page 3

    Extract from proposal plan showing large break in built form along northern side boundary




4. Existing vegetation will be retained as far as practicable for amenity and privacy.

5. Ample space is available at ground level for landscaping. The site coverage of the dwelling is 38%
   with compliant front, rear and southern side setbacks proposed. Ample site area remains available
   for landscaping.

6. The proposed side setback to the northern boundary remains consistent with other dwellings in the
   area adjoining the same linear reserve. For example 196 and 198 David Low Way which have side
   boundaries onto this linear reserve have structures closer to the boundary than 2 metres as per the
   aerial photo below.

    Aerial plan showing setbacks of dwellings in the area adjacent to linear reserve




3

Page 4

7.     The proposed dwelling design provides a compliant 6 metre rear setback to the adjacent
       environmental reserve which is adequate to ensure no adverse impacts on the coastal reserve.

    As such, the proposed side setback to the northern boundary is considered to be wholly consistent with
    PO9 of the low density residential zone code.

       Roof design
       PO16 Roof designs:

       1. contribute positively to the character of the streetscape;
       2. incorporate eaves and roof overhangs;
       3. avoid boxy elevations on the front facade of the building;
       4. do not present an appearance of excessive bulk to the street or neighbouring properties;
       5. do not create opportunities for residents or building users to overlook the private open space or view
          into habitable windows or doors of neighbouring properties.

    Town planning discussion – a rooftop deck is sought as part of the changed design. Below are extracts
    from the proposal plans showing the extent of the roof deck. Landscape screening in the form of planter
    boxes are proposed to be incorporated along the southern side to ensure privacy is maintained between
    the roof deck and the southern neighbour. An overlooking section has been provided (refer to proposal
    plans included with application) to demonstrate that the proposed rooftop deck does not create
    unreasonable opportunity for overlooking into habitable windows or doors of neighbouring properties.
    The rooftop deck is located at the rear of the dwelling and will not be visible from the street due to the
    topography of the land falling away to the rear.

    Roof plan extract showing rooftop deck




4

Page 5

    Section plan showing rooftop deck




    Section to demonstrate no overlooking to adjoining neighbour




As such the proposed rooftop deck is considered to be modestly designed with regard for adjoining
neighbours and landscape planters to be provided to ensure no overlooking or privacy conflicts.




5

Page 6

Consequential changes to development approval documents
The proposed changes will not necessitate any changes to the conditions of approval. Only the plans
referenced in the approved plans list is required to be updated.

Planning assessment of minor change
The proposed changes have been weighed against the statutory minor change provisions in the Planning
Act 2016 and the substantially different development provisions in the DA rules. The proposed changes
are considered to wholly satisfy the definition of a minor change as per the town planning commentary
included below.

Planning Act 2016 – definition of minor change
minor change means a change that—
(b) for a development approval— (i) would not result in substantially different development; and

Town planning comment – refer to substantially different development commentary below.

(ii) if a development application for the development, including the change, were made when the change
application is made would not cause—
(A) the inclusion of prohibited development in the application; or

Town planning comment – The changes do not result in the inclusion of prohibited development.

(B) referral to a referral agency, other than to the chief executive, if there were no referral agencies for the
development application; or
(C) referral to extra referral agencies, other than to the chief executive; or
(D) a referral agency, in assessing the application under section 55(2), to assess the application against, or have
regard to, a matter, other than a matter the referral agency must have assessed the application against, or had
regard to, when the application was made; or

Town planning comment – No referral agencies are triggered by the proposed changes.

(E) public notification if public notification was not required for the development application.

Town planning comment – The proposed changes would not alter the level of assessment.

DA Rules Schedule 1 – Substantially Different Development
A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if any of the following
apply to the proposed change:

(a) involves a new use; or

Town planning comment – The application remains for a dwelling house.


6

Page 7

(b) results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or

Town planning comment – The application includes the same parcel of land, with no new parcels
proposed for inclusion.

(c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or

Town planning comment – the dwelling design is different from the original approval, however the
changes to scale, bulk and appearance are not dramatic. The plan comparisons included with this
application show the differences between the two dwelling designs. The design continues to comprise a
residential dwelling with 3 main levels within the building height albeit with some change in design
philosophy and aesthetic.

(d) changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; or

Town planning comment – The proposed changes do not alter the ability of the development to operate
as intended, it remains a residential dwelling.

(e) removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development; or

Town planning comment – The proposed changes do not remove any integral component of the original
approved development.

(f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site; or

Town planning comment – The minor changes will not result in a significant impact on traffic flow in the
surrounding area, the approved use will remain at the same traffic intensity.

(g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts; or

Town planning comment – The proposed changes to not result in the introduction of new development
impacts or increase the severity of any known impacts.

(h) removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative impact of the development;
or

(i) impacts on infrastructure provision.

Town planning comment – The proposed changes do not impact upon the provision of infrastructure to
the development or in the surrounding area.




7

Page 8

Summation

The proposed changes enhance the development, clearly meet the minor change provisions of the
Planning Act 2016 and ought to be approved by Council.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any aspect of this change application.

Kind regards



Pamela Davidson
Director
0427 635 004
[email protected]




8