development committee attachment 1 of 2 to item: dv18 · concrete balcony over l ' stone low l...

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT 1 OF 2 TO ITEM: DV18.48

The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Lot 199 (No. 81) Branksome Gardens City Beach

Three Storey Dwelling 1:1598

The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Lot 199 (No. 81) Branksome Gardens City Beach

Three Storey Dwelling 1:799

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

DA.01ISSUED:

PROJECT: PROPOSED RESIDENCE 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach

DWG:SCALE: as shown @ A3

05-Apr-18

SITE PLAN

-REV: C

boundary 60,310

boun

dary

16,

090

boundary 57,746

boun

dary

20,

109

boundary 59,967

boun

dary

20,

111

boun

dary

15,

084

900

900

900

2,200

1,900

1,800

2,100

258.0 m2 OVERSHADOWINGAT 21 JUNE, 12PM BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT(INCLUDING FENCE ON SOUTH BOUNDARY)(OF SITE AREA : 1,032M2 = 25%)

141.1 m2 OVERSHADOWINGAT 21 JUNE, 12PM BY PROPOSEDFENCE ON SOUTH BOUNDARY(OF SITE AREA : 1,032M2 = 13.7%)

OUTLINE OF ROOF.

OUTLINE OF EXTERNAL WALLS BEYOND.

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TREES TOBE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED SHOWNAS RED DASHED LINE.

Bra

nk s

om

e G

ar d

en

sBi

tum

en

Non

-Mou

nt

Nil

Con

cret

e Pa

th

57.74

80 °45 '0 "

16.0

9

102°39'30"

60.31

72 °4 '0 "

20.1

2

104°

39'30

"

1 6 .7 1

18.95

18.63

18.82

18.47

18.25

17.56

16.95

16.77

16.69

16.65

16.58

16

.59

16

.59

1 6 .6 6

17

.24

1 6 .7 91 7 .0 71 7 .1 41 7 .2 31 7 .2 117.5

91 7 .2 5

18.20 18.0

3

18.30

18

.17

1 8 .45

18.4518

.451

8.0

4

17.43

19

.14

17.62

17

.82

18

.50

18

.82

18

.94

18.9218.88

18.50 18.0016.97 16.58

16.44

16.62

12.91

13.27

13

.71

18.74

16

.50

16.4015.94

15

.46

15.54

15.40

15.37

15.02

14.28

16

.78

15

.72

15

.23

16

.791

6.8

01

6.7

81

6.3

1

16.39

16.46

1 6 .5 11 6 .3 3 15.81 1 5 .1 4 1 4 .4 1

14.19

15.00

16.07

16.33

16

.29

16

.08

16.32 16.11

15.35

14.33

13.8314.0714.4913.80

14.8314.0014.24

14.2214.26

14.7814.05 1

4.0

8

13.71

14.0613.98

13.7113.53

13.03

13.06

13.00

12.82

12.69

12

.72

13.65

14.11

1 4 .1 2

14

.04

14.07

14.05

13

.94

13.60

13

.47

13

.08

13.10

13.20

13.36

13.58

13.36

13

.38

13.31

13

.26

13

.34 13.2

7

13.25

12.99

12.89

Nil

Non

-Mou

nt

13

.23

13

.62

14

.09

12

.96

Bitu

men

Cro

ssov

er

Bitu

men

Cro

ssov

er

Con

cret

eC

ross

over

Con

cret

eC

ross

over

(top&gl)(top&gl)

16.0416.4016.4816.9718.6018.92

18

.94

18

.82

18

.50

(To

p

)

(Top )

17

.33

1 7 .3 51 7 .11 1 7 .0 3 1 6 .6 6

16.621 6 .5 1

1 6 .3 3 15.91 1 5 .1 4 1 4 .4 1

Slabs & Grass Drive

Garden

Garden Bric

kLe

tter B

ox

Law

n

(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)

WM

eter

Lawn

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

(To

p

)

(top&gl)Brick Paving

Concrete Driveway

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

Steps

Steps

Porc

h

Porc

h Ap

prox

.F.

L 16

.21

Und

ercr

oft

Gar

age

Gal

v Pa

tioSl

abs

Slab

s

Slabs

Gat

e

Thick Creeper

Fibro Carport

Wea

ther

boar

d&

Gal

v Ex

tent

ion

Tim

ber w

/C

reep

er P

atio

Gal

vSh

ed

(Top )

(top&

gl)

(top&gl)

(top&

gl) L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

(top&

gl)

17

.04

17

.34

Law

n

TTa

p

BORE

NOT E

:

> > >> > >CDoubleDrive Opp.

Tree

Ø 0

.4m

Ht 4

m

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 7

m

Tree

Ø 1

.2m

Ht 1

4m

Tree

Ø 0

.8m

Ht 1

4m

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 1

2mR

ock

Wal

l

Tree

Ø 0

.8m

Ht 8

mL'

ston

ere

t. w

all

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 7

m

Gal

v Pa

tioO

ver P

orch

Con

cret

e Ba

lcon

yO

ver L

'sto

ne

Low

L's

tone

& Br

ick

Wal

l

Bric

k &

Gal

vEx

tent

ion

Sew

er M

/Hap

prox

. 82m

(16.

64)

>>>>>>

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Gal

v Le

an T

o

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Fibr

o fe

nce

0.5

high

in g

ood

cond

itionG

ate

Pailin

g 1.

8 hi

ghin

fair

cond

ition

Col

orbo

nd fe

nce

1.9

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

on

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

Pailin

g 1.

8 hi

ghin

fair

cond

ition

PEG

GO

NE

Bric

k &

fibro

on L

'sto

ne (#

79)

Bric

k &

tile

on L

'sto

ne (#

83)

Bric

k &

tile

on L

'sto

ne (#

81)

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

14.3

6at

bot

tom

of d

oor

Appr

ox. L

'sto

neLe

vel 1

6.72

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

16.8

4at

fron

t doo

r

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

16.7

8at

rear

doo

r

Met

erBo

x

M

Bric

k &

fibro

-wel

l cle

ar

(mea

s a b

t 16 .

0 9)

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.015

.5

16.0

16.5

16.517.0

17.518

.0

18.5

14.0

14.0

14.5

13.5

13.0

13.0

13.5

13.5

14.0

14.0

14.514.5

15.0

15.0

15.5

15.5

16.0

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.0

17.5

17.5

18.0

18.018.5

18.5

13.5

Ref

Nai

l at b

ase

of k

erb

A.H

.D. l

evel

12.8

1m (E

stab

lishe

d fro

m B

ench

Mar

k.

866

usin

g da

ta s

uppl

ied

by t

he G

eode

tic

Sect

ion

of L

andg

ate)

1 6 .8 1

Ground Floor

First Floor

208

W

SE

N

81 BRANKSOME GARDENS,CITY BEACHNo.DA.01

DA.02

DA.03

DA.04

DA.05

DA.06

DA.07

NameSITE PLAN

SURVEY PLAN

BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN

GROUND LEVEL PLAN

FIRST LEVEL PLAN

ELEVATIONS

ELEVATIONS

*OPEN SPACE = 685.5 m2

( 66.2% of 1034m² LOT SIZE)REQ'D OPEN SPACE FOR R12.5 LOT = 55%

boundary 60,310

boun

dary

16,

090

boundary 57,746

boun

dary

20,

109

N 0 1 2 3 4 5

LOT 199 (No. 81)BRANKSOME GARDENS

*NOT COUNTING BALCONIES AND TERRACES.

SITE PLAN1:200


DA.02ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

SURVEY PLAN

-REV: C

Bra

nk s

om

e G

ar d

en

sBi

tum

en

Non

-Mou

nt

Nil

Con

cret

e Pa

th

57.74

80 °45 '0 "

16.0

9

102°39'30"

60.31

72 °4 '0 "

20.1

2

104°

39'30

"

1 6 .7 1

18.95

18.63

18.82

18.47

18.25

17.56

16.95

16.77

16.69

16.65

16.58

16

.59

16

.59

1 6 .6 6

17

.24

1 6 .7 91 7 .0 71 7 .1 41 7 .2 31 7 .2 117.5

91 7 .2 5

18.20 18.0

3

18.30

18

.17

1 8 .45

18.4518

.451

8.0

4

17.43

19

.14

17.62

17

.82

18

.50

18

.82

18

.94

18.9218.88

18.50 18.0016.97 16.58

16.4416.62

12.91

13.27

13

.71

18.74

16

.50

16.4015.94

15

.46

15.54

15.40

15.37

15.02

14.28

16

.78

15

.72

15

.23

16

.791

6.8

01

6.7

81

6.3

1

16.39

16.46

1 6 .5 11 6 .3 3 15.81 1 5 .1 4 1 4 .4 1

14.19

15.00

16.07

16.33

16

.29

16

.08

16.32 16.11

15.35

14.33

13.8314.0714.4913.80

14.8314.0014.24

14.2214.26

14.7814.05 1

4.0

8

13.71

14.0613.98

13.7113.53

13.03

13.06

13.00

12.82

12.69

12

.72

13.65

14.11

1 4 .1 2

14

.04

14.07

14.05

13

.94

13.60

13

.47

13

.08

13.10

13.20

13.36

13.58

13.36

13

.38

13.31

13

.26

13

.34 13.2

7

13.25

12.99

12.89

Nil

Non

-Mou

nt

13

.23

13

.62

14

.09

12

.96

Bitu

men

Cro

ssov

er

Bitu

men

Cro

ssov

er

Con

cret

eC

ross

over

Con

cret

eC

ross

over

(top&gl)(top&gl)

16.0416.4016.4816.9718.6018.92

18

.94

18

.82

18

.50

(To

p

)

(Top )

17

.33

1 7 .3 51 7 .11 1 7 .0 3 1 6 .6 6

16.621 6 .5 1

1 6 .3 3 15.91 1 5 .1 4 1 4 .4 1

Slabs & Grass Drive

Garden

Garden Bric

kLe

tter B

ox

Law

n

(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)(top&gl)

WM

eter

Lawn

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

(To

p

)

(top&gl)Brick Paving

Concrete Driveway

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

Steps

Steps

Porc

h

Porc

h Ap

prox

.F.

L 16

.21

Und

ercr

oft

Gar

age

Gal

v Pa

tioSl

abs

Slab

s

Slabs

Gat

e

Thick Creeper

Fibro Carport

Wea

ther

boar

d&

Gal

v Ex

tent

ion

Tim

ber w

/C

reep

er P

atio

Gal

vSh

ed

(Top )

(top&

gl)

(top&gl)

(top&

gl) L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

(top&

gl)

17

.04

17

.34

Law

n

TTa

p

BORE

NOT E

:

> > >> > >CDoubleDrive Opp.

Tree

Ø 0

.4m

Ht 4

m

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 7

m

Tree

Ø 1

.2m

Ht 1

4m

Tree

Ø 0

.8m

Ht 1

4m

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 1

2mR

ock

Wal

l

Tree

Ø 0

.8m

Ht 8

mL'

ston

ere

t. w

all

Tree

Ø 0

.6m

Ht 7

m

Gal

v Pa

tioO

ver P

orch

Con

cret

e Ba

lcon

yO

ver L

'sto

ne

Low

L's

tone

& Br

ick

Wal

l

Bric

k &

Gal

vEx

tent

ion

Sew

er M

/Hap

prox

. 82m

(16.

64)

>>>>>>

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Gal

v Le

an T

o

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Fibr

o fe

nce

1.8

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

Fibr

o fe

nce

0.5

high

in g

ood

cond

itionG

ate

Pailin

g 1.

8 hi

ghin

fair

cond

ition

Col

orbo

nd fe

nce

1.9

high

in g

ood

cond

ition

on

L'st

one

ret.

wal

l

Pailin

g 1.

8 hi

ghin

fair

cond

ition

PEG

GO

NE

Bric

k &

fibro

on L

'sto

ne (#

79)

Bric

k &

tile

on L

'sto

ne (#

83)

Bric

k &

tile

on L

'sto

ne (#

81)

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

14.3

6at

bot

tom

of d

oor

Appr

ox. L

'sto

neLe

vel 1

6.72

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

16.8

4at

fron

t doo

r

Appr

ox. h

ouse

F.L

16.7

8at

rear

doo

r

Met

erBo

x

M

Bric

k &

fibro

-wel

l cle

ar

(mea

s a b

t 16 .

0 9)

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.015

.5

16.0

16.516.517

.0

17.518

.0

18.5

14.0

14.0

14.5

13.5

13.0

13.0

13.5

13.5

14.0

14.0

14.514.5

15.0

15.0

15.5

15.5

16.0

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.0

17.5

17.5

18.0

18.018.5

18.5

13.5

Ref

Nai

l at b

ase

of k

erb

A.H

.D. l

evel

12.8

1m (E

stab

lishe

d fro

m B

ench

Mar

k.

866

usin

g da

ta s

uppl

ied

by t

he G

eode

tic

Sect

ion

of L

andg

ate)

1 6 .8 1

Ground Floor

First Floor

208

W

SE

N

S

SURVEY PLAN1:200


DA.03ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN

-REV: C

1234567891011121314151617

UP

boundary 60,310

boun

dary

16,

090

boundary 57,746

boun

dary

20,

109

N 0 1 2 3 4 5

19,609 20,496 8,732 11,473

4,271 10,24013,429

11,92916,709

1,500

2,400

2,397

3,268

SFL 14.100

RL 14.050

RL 14.050

RL 14.040

RL 13.722RL 14.750

NDA.07

EDA.06

SDA.07

W DA.06

BR

AN

KS

OM

E

GA

RD

EN

S

ENTRY

BED 1

W.I.R

. 1

ENSUITE 1

BED 2W.I.R. 2ENSUITE 2

CELLAR LIFT LIFT LOBBY

STORE

GYM

PDR 1 GARAGE

DRIVEWAY

GFA = 197.0 m2

GROSS FLOOR AREA

LEVEL

SITE

BASEMENT

GROUND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

Area (m²)

685.50

196.96

19.28

225.97

207.80

1,335.51 m²

BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN1:200


DA.04ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

GROUND LEVEL PLAN

-REV: C

GFA = 226.0 m2

1234567891011121314151617

DN

boundary 60,310

boun

dary

16,

090

boundary 57,746

boun

dary

20,

109

N 0 1 2 3 4 5

18192021222324

UPWM DR

NDA.07

EDA.06

SDA.07

W DA.06

2,400

1,500

14,854 8,961 27,376 9,119

6,537 2,424 22,467 2,424 11,604

8,7765,31314,578

13,400

7,500 SETBACK

2,550

4,000

SFL 17.100

RL 17.080

RL 17.080

SFL 17.100

RL 17.780

RL 17.050

RL 16.750

SFL 17.100

RL 17.780

RL 17.080

RL 18.500

3m HIGH x 6m LONG RENDEREDBRICK SCREEN WALL.

CABANA ROOF OVER. STEPPED RENDERED BRICKBOUNDARY WALL;

STEPPED RENDERED BRICKBOUNDARY WALL; 1.6m HIGH PRIVACY SCREEN

1.6m HIGH PRIVACY SCREEN.

STEPPED RENDERED BRICKBOUNDARY WALL;

EXISTING TREE TO BERETAINED.

POOL FENCE

BR

AN

KS

OM

E

GA

RD

EN

S

UP UP

RAMP UP

GATE

GATE

PLANTER

PLANTERPLANTER

PLANTER

TERR

ACE

1

PDR 2

DINING

LAWN STORELAUNDRY

PANTRY

LIVING

LOUNGE

KITCHEN

LIFT

LIFT

LOB

BY

TERRACE 2

POOL CABANA

ALFRESCO

FIRE PITDRYING COURT

POOL

GROSS FLOOR AREA

LEVEL

SITE

BASEMENT

GROUND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

Area (m²)

685.50

196.96

19.28

225.97

207.80

1,335.51 m²

GROUND LEVEL PLAN1:200


DA.05ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

FIRST LEVEL PLAN

-REV: C

GFA = 207.8 m2

boundary 60,310

boun

dary

16,

090

boundary 57,746

boun

dary

20,

109

N 0 1 2 3 4 5

242526272829303132333435

DN

NDA.07

EDA.06

SDA.07

W DA.06

7,500 SETBACK

1,176 1,824 13,111 2,855 9,936 4,088 5,590 8,386

10,6534,3624,23820,0161,506

1,7001,430

3704,790

1,800

6,685

4,145

3,033

2,239

9,135

1,690

2,400

SFL 20.400

RL 20.293

RL 20.400

RL 20.293

1.6m HIGH PRIVACY SCREEN.

1.6m HIGH PRIVACYSCREEN.

LINE OF ROOF OVER.

1.65m HIGH OBSCURE GLAZING TO WINDOW.

LINE OF ROOF OVER.

ROOFBELOW

ROOF BELOW

ROOFBELOW

EXISTING TREE TOBE RETAINED

STUDY

GUEST BED

BED 3W.I.R. 3

LIFT

LIFT

LOB

BY 3

MASTERBED

MASTERENSUITE

MASTERW.I.R.

BALCONYPASSAGE

BATH

GROSS FLOOR AREA

LEVEL

SITE

BASEMENT

GROUND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

Area (m²)

685.50

196.96

19.28

225.97

207.80

1,335.51 m²

FIRST LEVEL PLAN1:200


DA.06ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

ELEVATIONS

-REV: C

14.100BASEMENT

14.100BASEMENT

17.100GROUND FLOOR

17.100GROUND FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

23.100ROOF LEVEL

23.100ROOF LEVEL

3,000

3,300

2,700

RL 16.000

RL 14.800

1,600

1,600

R.L. 23.400 R.L. 23.272

R.L. 18.100

4.300

R.L. 20.293

R.L. 18.850

R.L. 14.957

1,600

1,600

RL 14.957

CLEAR GLASS BALUSTRADE.

PRIVACY SCREEN.

PRIVACY SCREEN.

BRICK RETAININGWALL ON BOUNDARY.

PRIVACY SCREEN.

CONCRETE FASCIA ;TEXTURED PAINT FINISH

SAND FINISH RENDER WITHTEXTURE PAINT FINISH.

SAND FINISH RENDER WITH TEXTURE PAINT FINISH.

SELECT SLIDING GARAGE DOOR.

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

17.100GROUND FLOOR

17.100GROUND FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

23.100ROOF LEVEL

23.100ROOF LEVEL

3,300

2,700

1,600

RL 20.293

RL 23.272RL 23.400

RL 22.800

RL 21.171

RL 19.700

RL 17.780

RL 18.566

PRIVACY SCREEN.

SELECT STONE CLADDING.

N.G.L.

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

W ELEVATION1:200

E ELEVATION1:200


DA.07ISSUED:



05-Apr-18

ELEVATIONS

-REV: C

14.100BASEMENT

14.100BASEMENT

17.100GROUND FLOOR

17.100GROUND FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

23.100ROOF LEVEL

23.100ROOF LEVEL

RL 20.293

RL 18.900

RL 16.800

RL 17.600

RL 18.600

RL 19.700

RL 20.520

1,800

1,600

1,600

RL 23.400RL 23.272

RL 14.920RL 14.800

RL 16.000

RL 21.500

RL 20.720

RL 23.272

SOLAR LOUVRES TO GLASS

SELECT STONE CLADDING

TEXTURED PAINT FINISH TO CONCRETE.

WHITE SOLAR LOUVRES TO GLASS.

SAND FINISH RENDER WITH TEXTURED PAINT FINISH.PRIVACY SCREEN.

CLEAR GLAZED BALUSTRADE TO BOUNDARY.

7.5M ABOVE N.G.L. AT BOUNDARYSHOWN DASHED.N.G.L. AT BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED.


PRIVACY SCREEN.


BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

14.100BASEMENT

14.100BASEMENT

17.100GROUND FLOOR

17.100GROUND FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

20.400FIRST FLOOR

23.100ROOF LEVEL

23.100ROOF LEVEL

3,000

3,300

2,700

RL 20.2931,600

RL 20.293 1,650

1,650

RL 20.143

NOM. RL 23.272

RL 22.200

RL 19.243RL 19.500

RL 16.843

RL 23.400

1,600

RL 14.872

RL 16.107

RL 17.050RL 17.650

RL 18.250RL 18.850 RL 19.879

RL 20.313

RL 21.500

PRIVACY SCREEN.

SAND FINISH RENDER WITH TEXTURE PAINT.

OBSCURE GLAZING TOSELECT WINDOWS.

7.5M ABOVE N.G.L. ATBOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED.


N.G.L. AT BOUNDARYSHOWN DASHED.

LINE OF NOMINAL 1800HSTEPPING BOUNDARY WALL.

RENDERED SCREEN WALL BEYOND.

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

N ELEVATION1:200

S ELEVATION1:200

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION 5.1.3 - Lot Boundary Setback In the first instance, we confirm that all undercroft walls comply with the seback requirements of the R-Codes. The garage does include a boundary wall, however it is locate behind the street setback line, abuts a proposed wall of similar dimension, and given the subject site’s R12.5 zoning, it is not subject to maximum length requirements. The boundary wall is therefore compliant with this section of the R-Codes. The ground and first floors do however have a number of variations. We would therefore elect to consider these variations against the R-Codes Design Principles for lot boundary setbacks, which require reduced impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties, adequate sun and ventilation to the buildings and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties, and the minimisation of overlooking onto adjoining properties. On the ground floor, the south-east wall which stretches from the laundry to the stairs has a setback of 2.4 metres in lieu of 2.5 metres, and therefore represents a negligible variation of 0.1 metres. Given the wall complies with visual privacy requirements, as it comprises no active habitable spaces and has few windows, we would consider this negligible variation acceptable. The outdoor Alfresco area is setback 1.5 metres in lieu of 4.4 metres, and therefore has a 2.9 metre variation. As the area is not fully enclosed, and is screened with obscured glass and a low masonry wall, it does not have a significant building bulk impact. Its location on the north-west side of the subject site means it does not generate significant overshadowing, and the extensive screening results in it complying with all visual privacy requirements. Given it meets all the Design Principles, we would consider this variation to be acceptable. The north-west side of the Terrace is set back 1.3 metres, in lieu of 4.4 metres, and so represents a 3.1 metre variation. Similarly to the Alfresco area, the Terrace is screened with glass, unenclosed, and complies with all visual privacy requirements. At only 2 metres wide it does not create significant building bulk and its location prevents it from creating considerable overshadowing on the adjoining property. Again, we would consider this variation acceptable given that it meets all the Design Principles with respect to lot boundary setbacks. Lastly, the first floor south-east wall covering the Study through to Bed 3 has a required setback of 4.6 metres, and a proposed setback of 3.5 metres, creating variation of 1.1 metres. As discussed in detail in the Visual Privacy section below, two of the rooms, the Guest Bed and Bed 3, do not comply with visual privacy requirements. We contend however that the location and size of the windows, the incidental use of the room, the stepping back of the wall from the lower floor, and the visual privacy variation’s minor nature, make it largely acceptable. The wall is set back up to 2 metres from the lower floor, and a break is provided between it and the adjacent south-east wall, which result in significantly reduced building bulk.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH Furthermore, the variation does not result in additional variations with respect to open space or overshadowing. Given that it largely meets the lot boundary setback Design Principles of the R-Codes, we contend that this variation will not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties or the subject site and should be supported. 5.1.6 - Building Height Maximum building height requirements are outlined in LPP 3.3. In the City Beach Precinct, a 7.5 metre maximum height for a flat roof applies. The proposal largely complies with this requirement, however due to site constraints, namely a highly varying topography, a variation is sought. The subject site slopes considerably upwards from front to back, with a difference in height of up to 5.6 metres. Furthermore, the site also slopes upwards from the north-west boundary to the southeast, with a height difference of up to 2 metres. As such, there are portions of the dwelling which are well under the height requirements, and others which present a variation. The proposed building height is fully compliant at the rear of the site, but begins to sit above the maximum height requirement towards the front of the site, and is also more compliant on the south-east side than the north-west. The maximum variation is approximately 2 metres, which occurs on the north-west side of the first floor Balcony, however the majority of the variation is far lesser than this. LPP 3.3 states that where a development does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the policy, the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes should be met. The Design Principles of Clause P6 of the R-Codes states: "Building Height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate, maintains: Adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; Adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and Access to views of significance. With respect to the impact of the proposal on the streetscape, we note that the advice of the project architect was that the desire to create a cohesive, functional design whilst also responding to the slope of the site would inevitably generate a building height variation. A number of design decisions have been made to mitigate the proposal’s impact on the streetscape, including lower the building height from the original plans, and significantly setting back the upper floor in order to reduce building bulk. Ultimately however, a completely compliant design would have resulted in a lower quality visual outcome. The design of the proposal ensures that adequate sunlight is achieved on the subject site, and that the shadows cast from the building fall onto the subject site as much as possible. We also confirm that the proposal is compliant with respect to solar access. Lastly, the proposed dwelling has no reasonable ability to impede the views of abutting properties to the side, given its orientation, or to the rear, given that the building height is compliant at the rear and does not increase towards the front of the dwelling.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH Given the above, we would contend that the proposal meets the Design Principles with respect to building heights. In addition, it is our view that the proposed design represents a compromise between achieving a mostly compliant outcome with respect to building height, and providing a high quality design which will make a positive contribution to the streetscape. Taking the above points into account, the following conclusions are evident: • The proposal is for a high quality single dwelling at the subject site; • The proposed dwelling has been designed as a custom home, taking into account

detailed • site considerations; • The proposal is largely consistent with the statutory planning controls relevant to the

subject • site, in turn meaning the proposal is appropriate to its setting; and • The proposal is afforded suitable justification in support of the minor variations to the • prevailing planning framework under the relevant Design Principles. NEIGHBOUR COMMENT Submission One (No. 79 Branksome Gardens) The proposal affects our whole community, not only myself as R Codes are allowed to be flaunted. Let it be noted that designers and builders are more than familiar with the R Codes, but don't care about community and streetscape as they don't end up living here. It is my understanding, design principles have been delineated in Residential Design Codes with listed objectives… Building design 5.4 a. b. c. to enable respective and harmonious communities, that addresses intention beyond physical features. The Shire allowing these to be flaunted, is instrumental in causing needless stress and bad feeling which undermines initial objectives. The issue of no compliance to streetscape and landscape has been going on since December 2005 when it first went to Council. Front setback - a contravention of 2m plus: • Exacerbates the mass and bulk oppressing my driveway, porch, entry and front living

space (lounge). • This allows a cone of vision required at 7.5m but submitted as a mere 1.5m, i.e.

exceeding by 6m from the ground floor. At first floor this is 3.2m where a 7.5m is required - here alfresco entertaining and living totally undermines my privacy. I would need my curtains drawn all day, restricting natural light. As well, as looking into the front of No. 77 unless they keep shutters closed.

• Inconsistent with established streetscape on both north and south sides, all of which

comply with the required 7.5m setback. • As the Fremantle Doctor is from the south-west the excessive protrusion restricts this

amenity. I don't have air conditioning and don't want to be stuck behind curtains with restricted breeze. Surrounded by trees, not concrete, I am doing my bit for the environment.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH Side setback / retaining wall • Setback at "undercroft" is nil, but appears to have elevation with site work (i.e. landfill

of 2.5m at NW boundary instead of 0.5m allowable. This adds to the overbearing bulky mass facing me which is exacerbated by the towering height here shown as 9.5 metres, i.e. 2 m higher than compliance. By adhering to deemed-to-comply requirements, the building better conforms to a consistent established streetscape from all directions and allows for compliancy to privacy and environment.

• Cabana: there is no detail of height. The bulk on the boundary impacts on my

backyard and restricts space. As it is, that backyard has been built up with many truckfulls of sand in 2005 already. Will No. 81 be happy for me to build right on the boundary?

• Screens have not been included in current plans for first floor or ground floor. I

request these be part of moving forward and, again due to the total exposure of my entry, portico, lounge, please submit plans to include privacy screens as cone of vision, ground floor exceeds R-Codes by 6m, first floor exceeds by 4.3m.

Submission Two (No. 83 Branksome Gardens)

Historical Context We have lived next door to 81 Branksome Gardens since 1963. In 2011 the owner, (building company, Cambuild) arranged for truckloads of sand to be dumped on the front lawn of No 81. It was done on a long weekend when the Cambridge Council offices were closed. This was an unapproved “Landscape Plan” which effectively added an extra 3-4 metres height at the front. The owner (Cambuild) had previously added a metre or more in the back.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH The council was notified immediately after the long weekend and 2 council planning staff arrived. We were informed that the plan(?) would be put to the Planning Committee the following Thursday and that, “it was too late to object.” We were misled, and in other circumstances Cambuild would have had to remove the sand at their expense. At the Planning meeting the Council staff failed to raise our concerns and the plan was approved retrospectively. [Score 1 for the ‘Take the law in to your own hands party’, 0 for Cambridge Council]. The Council was ridiculed in the press for its planning processes and cartoons showing camels appeared in the Post. The front lawn had already been raised once by Cambuild when the property was first purchased. Eventually after much rate payer expense by the Cambridge Council and concerned residents the Council agreed to ensure that any new dwelling would not be advantaged by the elevated sand dump. New Plans for Lot199 (2018). The new plans submitted for the 3 Storey house on Lot 199 are almost identical to those submitted by Cambuild 4 years ago which were sent back for severe modification to ensure compliance. (Development Committee Tuesday 10th December 2013) Perhaps the new owners think that the Cambridge Council will have forgotten their objections to the original Cambuild plans. We are requesting that the Front setback be held at the required 7.5 Metres. The loss of North view from our house at 83 would be impacted by a 5.1 and 5.5 metre setback as per the plans. We are not too concerned about the Ground Floor setback on the right/south east as it is only 10 centimetres difference. We are not sure how that difference to the required setback could not have been incorporated in to the plan by the Architect involved. The First floor (Side Setback –Right/South East) We are very concerned that this setback makes the new dwelling very close and overlooking our house at 83. We want full compliance as to the required setback to the balcony/study wall. We want the 6.6 metres to 8 metres requirement to be incorporated in to the new plans. Overall Height We believe there is a great deal of ambit claiming going on in these plans. We trust that the Council will not allow 9.5 metres on a 7.5 metre requirement on the south East side or the Front south west elevation. We currently have a Solar Hot Water system on the North-facing roof. What consideration will be made to make sure that it is not in shade for large parts of the year? Does the height of the new dwelling include any roof mounted a/c units or solar panels? We assume that the height of the building will be taken from the original levels plus 500mm or on top of the illegally dumped “landscape sand.” What step will Council take to ensure compliance? There must be no room for ‘accidental’ error.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH Visual Privacy We are extremely concerned about the Visual Privacy Setback requirements being ignored on the south-eastern side. The required setback is 7.5 metres. We strongly feel that the 4.1 metre setback is non-compliant and should be rejected by the Planning Committee. Again, the Bedroom 3 window and the Guest bedroom window should be maintained with the 4.5 metre cone of vision. Not a metre closer to our boundary. All windows overlooking our house should have opaque glass to the required heights. The new plans are almost identical to the Cambuild Pty Ltd plans from 2013. We hope the Planning Committee and Council will make decisions that are fair to the present neighbours. We thank you for taking the time to read our submission. We hope that although the new owners were not responsible for the illegal dumping and raising of artificial levels they will not benefit from it at our expense or those of all the neighbours affected by the new proposed dwelling. Submission Three - 5 Penryn Avenue This proposed house appears to be identical to the one proposed by the same proponent in 2013. I am opposed to several aspects of the plan for the same reasons I and my (now deceased) partner were opposed to it at that time. The proposed building will reduce neighbours’ land values, solar aspect, privacy and quality of life. It also sets a dangerous precedent for the area if allowed to proceed. The height of the proposed dwelling and the length of the footprint will impact significantly on the property at 83 Branksome Gardens. The overshadowing will reduce the sunlight available to the current home and make it difficult to design an environmentally sound house on that block in the future. The development will also adversely affect my privacy and views. When we built our house we were not allowed to exceed the maximum permissible roof height, leading to a total change in design from three to two storeys. I find it unacceptable that a proponent in the building industry (Cam Wilkie is the Managing Director/owner of Cambuild and owner of the property at 81 Branksome Gardens) could be allowed to exceed these height limits. There will be views of the sea (which I will lose with the building) at the permissible roof height without the need to go higher. The proposed dwelling is particularly large (5 double bedrooms, 6 car garage, 34 metres long and challenges all setbacks. This will affect northern winter sun, privacy and block views from 83 Branksome Gardens. The residents at 83 Branksome Gardens will have no sunshine on the northern side of their house, meaning no solar heating for their hot water system. The house proposed means the resident will be able to look directly into my indoor and outdoor living spaces including my alfresco and pool area. The proposed house seems particularly environmentally unfriendly with no suggestion of solar panels or solar hot water and most of the block to be covered by the building. If solar panels were to be installed in the future this would add further to the height.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH If the proponent wants to build a three storey home the garage/basement level should be excavated to bring it within the codes. The excavation should be deep enough to allow for a final overall roof height of 7.5 metres including solar panels on the roof. As the proposed plan has a flat roof the panels will need to be on a raised angle which will add considerable height. The contours of the proposed rear lawn do not reflect original levels. When the current owner purchased 81 Branksome Gardens 8 years ago he made changes to the land levels that have had a serious negative impact on the value of 83 Branksome Gardens and surrounding houses. In December 2005 he dumped tonnes of sand to the rear of the property without submitting a landscaping plan to do so. The addition of two metres to the height of the rear lawn had no purpose then but the owner obviously hoped that it would one day allow: “… ocean views captured from the rear alfresco and pool area through the glazed main communal spaces” (https://www.cambuild.com.au/project/branksome). While the raised rear lawn will allow views through the house to the ocean from number 81, a person standing there will be able to see into the private back gardens or pool areas of about six nearby houses. As it is the level of the ground in the rear back corner of the property is almost at the top of the corner of my back fence. It would be most unusual for a house to have ocean views from the rear as well as the front. This breach is currently to the detriment of the quality of life of neighbours including myself. This sand must be removed and all boundary fences rebuilt to 1.8 metres at natural ground levels at the owner’s expense as part of the conditions for building. Shortly after purchase in 2005 the owner also dumped tonnes of sand without approval to raise the level of the front lawn by more than the permitted 500mm. In 2011 the owner again dumped even more tonnes of sand on the front lawn without prior approval. The council is well aware of the angst this caused and still causes neighbours. The ramifications went far beyond the immediate neighbours (indicated by multiple signatories to two petitions to Council, photographs, letters and cartoons in the Post). Although the owner misled the council staff into erroneously and retrospectively approving the ‘landscape plan’ for the front sand dump, no landscape plan was ever submitted to allow dumping of sand at the rear in 2005. The owner has treated number 81 as an industrial tip. He has shown no respect for the amenity of the surrounding community. For 12 months the front sand dump was clad in torn hessian and the damaged pavement was dangerous. The rubbish bins lived permanently on the street because they could not be rolled up the 17 temporary steps. The streetscape and amenity of neighbours has already been negatively impacted by the selfish actions of this proponent. Because of this issue the council surveyor should independently check the levels against the approved plans, prior to each stage of the concrete works. Should the levels not comply with the plans, the owner must be required to take immediate action to remedy the situation before any further building occurs. For the sake of the neighbouring properties in Branksome Gardens as well as mine this application should be rejected in its current form.

https://www.cambuild.com.au/project/branksome

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH Submission Four - No.s 7 and 9 Penryn Avenue We currently own 2 properties both of which would be adversely affected by the proposed plans. We own 7 and 9 Penryn Avenue, the first of which is directly west and shares a boundary fence, and the second which sits north west to the property. Our house at 7 Penryn Avenue is a single storey dwelling with an undercroft garage at the front, where my elderly mother resides. Currently we enjoy a view of the ocean from the back verandah, which would be completely abolished with another storey let alone 2 more storeys on the current house that is there. If we were to develop our site in the future by adding another storey ourselves the ocean view would still be minimised, even though our block is considerably higher. The deemed-to-comply provisions are there to stop adverse impact to adjoining neighbours. The 2 metre over height submission to the north-west and south-east sides MUST not be allowed. These 2 metres are what would inhibit any future view from a second storey at 7 Penryn. We reside at 9 Penryn Avenue, in a house completed by Giorgi Exclusive homes just over a year ago. Our views from our 2nd storey balcony are very significant and our home was designed and finished to great expense to capitalize on this view. And all our submissions regarding height complied with planning policies. I’ve attached a photo showing the existing house at 81 Branksome Gardens as currently seen from our western balcony. The proposed plans show another 2 storeys on the top of the current house height, not only would this completely block our view of the ocean to the south west, the lovely vista of others homes would also be destroyed. We would be looking straight into their home, pool and back yard. I’m sure a lot of the ‘over-height’ issues the proposed plans show could be eradicated if the garaging floor were to be lowered significantly into a true undercroft. At the moment that floor is above the road height. Another point of issue is the ‘hitting wall to boundary’ which we observed on the plans. The plans showed a sketch of a half court suggesting a wall at the back of the property to hit against. As you all should be aware the previous owner of the site did some ‘illegal’ dumping of soil on the block, the first being at the back which effectively raised that section considerably. The height to the top of our adjoining fence from their side is approx. 1.2 metres, from our side its 1.75 metres. For them to have an effective hitting wall they would want to raise the height to well over 2 metres, bringing our side to at least 3 metres from our ground level. This would not be acceptable. We have built 3 homes in City Beach and have ensured our designs were deemed-to-comply to Cambridges planning policies, and we believe that everyone else should abide by such rules.

ATTACHMENT 2 OF 2: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV18.48 - LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH

Submission Five - No. 80 Branksome Gardens Submission 1 We would strongly object to giving approval to the dwelling being built at 81 Branksome gardens. There is much debate as to the ’natural level ‘ of this property as it currently stands as it has apparently already been built up an enormous amount from the road level without council approval. If this house is an extra 2 metres above the council regulations it is going to look directly into our property and stand out like a beacon in the road. Submission 2 On reviewing the plans and seeing the house rendering, my husband and I are very concerned that this house does not meet the Town of Cambridge building guidelines. The requirements stipulated in the council meeting on December 17th 2013 to make the house compliant, were not taken into consideration in these re submitted plans, so we fail to see how the same plans can now will be approved. We believe that the current plans with a set back of 5.1 m ( 2.4 m over guidelines) and an overall height of 9.5 m ( 2 m over guidelines) will greatly impact our amenity over the road and will allow us no privacy. We also feel with a 5 car garage and the set back 2.4 metres further forward than it should be, will lead to diminished view of any parked cars up and down the street and over the road as drivers pull in and out of the driveway at no. 81 Branksome Gardens. We strongly believe that these plans should be reviewed and the new owners make the building compliant reducing the set back and the height.

development committee attachment 1 of 2 to item: dv18 · concrete balcony over l ' stone low l...

Documents