PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. We do not think this application should be approved for the following reasons.
   1. The development application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with 12.4.2 P3, regarding rear setback. The acceptable solution states a minimum rear setback requirement of 5 metres, whereas the proposed outbuilding shows a setback of one metre. Part (C) of the performance criteria states that the building must be sited, taking into consideration the setback of the surrounding buildings. The adjoining lot appears to have a rear setback for. The garage/shed of between 3 and 5 metres. It is argued that the setback of the proposed shed should be in line with the adjoining property to the northwest. With a vacant property below, council should not be setting a precedent of relaxing the rear setback, especially in a new subdivision. The site plan indicates there is room to provide on site to bring the setback into conformity with the adjoining property.
   2. The relaxed setback is not required, taking into account P3 (b). The 1500 sqm block has ample room to provide a dwelling and shed without having to relax the rear setback. The dwelling and she'd could be brought forward a few more metres, this would still comply with the required frontage setback of 4.5 metres and allow for greater rear setback for the shed.
   3. The outbuilding has a proposed apex height of 4.7 metres. It is requested that this height be reduced, through altering the style of the roof. It is asked that if the application is approved, a condition be included on the report stating that the outbuilding blend in with the natural environment and avoid the use of reflective materials. This will avoid glare and visual bulk when viewed from adjoining properties .
   We would be willing to withdraw our representation if the applicant is willing to alter the style, location or design of the shed and would be open to further discussions.

2. In response to your comment,

   As to your proposed condition that the shed blend in with the natural environment, I believe it would be unfair for the Council to agree to such a proposal as it was a condition of the sale of the land that any outbuildings are to blend in with the colour scheme of the dwelling.

   As you have stated 12.4.2 p3 part (c) I must take into consideration the setback of surrounding buildings.As your shed is directly behind where our proposed shed is,
   and as there is no fence between our boundary and your shed the setback and height was
   considered.
   After measuring your shed it has a setback of 500 mm from the boundary.The width is 6.1 metres and height from the top of unexcavated ground to the peak of the roof is 5.2 metres. An additional cladded structure attached to the side measures 1.8 metres wide and 2.4 metres high.
   The roofing of these structures is a colorbond green and I believe the reflective comparison
   between matt monument is very similar to the green.
   Even though your shed roof is taller at 5.2 m than our proposed shed being 4.7m, I
   am willing to repitch the roof to 17.5 degrees and not 22.5 as proposed. This will reduce the height thus obscuring your view of our proposed shed behind your existing outbuildings.

   I hope this proposal meets with your approval.

3. Although the existing shed on the adjoining property to the rear of the proposed development may be closer to the boundary than the set back required under current regulations, it must be remembered that the Regulations were changed to protect all adjoining properties. I am not affected by this current application but I am concerned that should this current application be approved in it's current format, it sets a dangerous precedent for future developments and anyone buying adjoining properties in the area would tend to use this precedent to support future developments in the area and it could be that all adjoining properties would be permitted to build outside the regulated building envelop thus voiding the effectiveness of the recent changes to building regulations. My reason for commenting on this is that my premises was affected by a "shed" built under the old regulations that is a monstrosity approximately 9 meters high that totally blocks my view of Launceston and cast shadow over most of another residential yard. If this development is permitted I suggest that it also have a restriction that no minor protrusions on the roof surface of any kind be permitted as minor protrusions can be in excess of 1 meter higher than the roof surface. I ask that council consider the height of the protrusions on the shed at 6 Waveney Street, South Launceston when deciding on this current application.

4. We believe as the applicants this should be approved for the reasons as stated.
   We are not using this as a precedent for the new subdivision as not every property has existing large structures on their north-eastern boundary.

   As outlined the adjoining property structures are 5.2 m high 6.1 m (plus) wide and have a setback of 500mm from our north-east boundary.
   The proposed shed's height has been incorrectly stated as it is only 4.1m high.
   (refer to drawing 9)
   This makes the existing structures 1.1m taller.
   As we are situated south west this causes considerable overshadowing of our property.
   refer to to drawing 3 for the orientation of the proposed and adjoining structures

   With this in mind, we have taken into consideration the surrounding buildings and
   properties.
   Our shed should not have to be moved as it does not overshadow any other properties.

   If our shed is to be moved from the the nominated setback this will cause a dark,damp large over shadowed area that will get little or no sunlight.

   I have major concerns for overshadowing of my property.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished almost 9 years ago. It lasted for 16 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Launceston City Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment