DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 OF 5 TO ITEM DV21.77 - AERIAL PLAN - Town of Cambridge
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021
ATTACHMENT 1 OF 5 TO
ITEM DV21.77
AERIAL PLAN
The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the
accuracy of information in this publication Wednesday, 21 July 2021
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
1:873 @ A4
information.
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021
ATTACHMENT 3 OF 5 TO
ITEM DV21.77
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
#37 P E A S H O L M S T R E E T, C I T Y B E A C H
+6,551
METAL ROOF @ 33.43° TO BOX GUTTER
BEHIND PARAPET
METAL ROOF @ 25°38' 3c O/HANG
600 WIDE BOXGUTTER BEHIND PARAPET
35c 35c CONTRASTING RENDER COLOUR +41,800
+41,457 CL 31c CL 31c +41,457
28c 28c
2657
2657
+38,800 FL 0c POOL HSE 0c FL 0c BED 1/ENS +38,800
t.o.w. new +38,543
t.o.w. new +38,285
t.o.w. new +38,001 t.o.w. new +38,001
.0
8
38
.8
6
.7
37
0
NGL BOUNDARY
8
6
37
.6
.5
.5
37
37
37
E A S T E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0
CEDAR CLADDING FINISH TO CEILING +45,351
WALLS AND VERANDAH FLOOR
METAL ROOF @ 25°38'
TUFFWALL LIGHTWEIGHT CLADDING SYSTEM
SA = Solar Absorptance. The classification of colours in the BCA is based on solar absorptance,
RENDER FINISH (TO THIS DETAIL ONLY)
which is the inverse of solar reflectance, CEILING RAKING @ 7.67°
expressed as a ratio between 0 and 1. A SA value of 0 indicates that a roof absorbs none and a
METAL ROOF @ 33.43° TO BOX GUTTER
value of 1 indicates that a roof absorbs 100% of the incoming solar radiation. Solar absorptance 600 WIDE BOXGUTTER BEHIND PARAPET
BEHIND PARAPET
value is not applicable for COLORBOND® Stainless steel. See the individual colour swatches for
the SA value for each product and colour. METAL ROOF @ 33°26' TO BOX GUTTER
CEILING RAKING @ 7° 40'
BEHIND PARAPET
BCA = The Building Code of Australia (BCA) has classified roof colour on the basis of their solar
absorptance, referred herein as 600 WIDE BOXGUTTER BEHIND PARAPET
Light (L < 0.40), Medium (M < 0.60), Dark (D > 0.60). See the individual colour swatches for the
ratings available for each product and colour. +41,800 35c
BCA classification is correct at the time of printing but may be subject to change. Check your
31c
local state building regulations at the time 32.25c CL 32c +41,628
of your project. +41,457 CL 31c
28c 28c
TUFFWALL LIGHTWEIGHT
CLADDING SYSTEM
2914
2657
RENDER FINISH
(TO THIS DETAIL ONLY)
3
.2
COLOUR SELECTIONS & FINISHES +38,800 FL 0c BED 1
39
+38,714
.0
FL -1c BED 1
39
ROOF - METAL COLOURBOND CUSTOM ORB COLOURBOND colour - Windspray
-1c
.5
FRAMES - WINDOW /DOOR COLOURBOND colour - silver lustre
38
CONTRASTING RENDER COLOUR
GARAGE DOORS COLOURBOND colour - Ironstone
.0
WALLS (GF ) UNITEX RENDER - colour "Ecru"
38
8
FEATURE WALLS (GF) UNITEX RENDER - colour Monument NGL BOUNDARY
.5
37
FENCE UNITEX RENDER-colour Ecru
N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0
CLIENT NOTE © COPYRIGHT
The "CITY BEACH" Residence © PLEASE NOTE ITEMS SHOWN ON DESIGN SKETCH ARE REPRESENTATION ONLY. THIS HOUSE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY
Lot 197, #37 Peasholm Street, City Beach COSTING SCHEDULE & ADDENDA DOCUMENTS ARE TO SUPERSEDE DETAILS OF OSWALD HOMES AND SHOULD NOT BE
DEPICTED ON DESIGN SKETCH PLAN. USED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
Consultant: Jay Walter Job N°: 39432 PEASHOLM STREET v3.2 PPA R-code: R20 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE BY THE
File : 39432 Peasholm Street v3.2 PPA PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY BUILDER TO NOMINATED PARTIES.
Drawn By: michalK Date: 14 May 2020
PAGE 2 OF 6
DUE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMENDED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES AND
THE BUILDING CODES OF AUSTRALIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROVISIONS, THIS DESIGN
MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECIEPT OF DETAILED SURVEY INFORMATION.
VELUX SKYLIGHTS TO SCULLERY
METAL ROOF @ 33.43° TO GUTTER ON WALL
(ZERO LOT)
EXISTING
BOUNDARY
RETAINING
+41,628 CL 32c
CL 31c +41,457
2914
2657
t.o.w. new +39,229
t.o.w. new +39,120
39
+38,800
.2
+38,714 FL 0c LDRY/CHILAX/BEDS
39
FL -1c GARAGE/STORE
3
.0
38
.7
38
38
NGL BOUNDARY
0
.5
.5
W E S T E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0
METAL ROOF @ 33.43°
SA = Solar Absorptance. The classification of colours in the BCA is based on solar absorptance, METAL ROOF @ 25°38' METAL ROOF @ 25°38'
which is the inverse of solar reflectance,
expressed as a ratio between 0 and 1. A SA value of 0 indicates that a roof absorbs none and a EXISTING
value of 1 indicates that a roof absorbs 100% of the incoming solar radiation. Solar absorptance BOUNDARY
FENCING
value is not applicable for COLORBOND® Stainless steel. See the individual colour swatches for
the SA value for each product and colour.
BCA = The Building Code of Australia (BCA) has classified roof colour on the basis of their solar EXISTING
absorptance, referred herein as BOUNDARY
FENCING
Light (L < 0.40), Medium (M < 0.60), Dark (D > 0.60). See the individual colour swatches for the
ratings available for each product and colour. 35c
BCA classification is correct at the time of printing but may be subject to change. Check your
31c
local state building regulations at the time
of your project. +41,457 CL 31c CL 31c +41,457
28c
2657
2657
10c
COLOUR SELECTIONS & FINISHES +38,800 FL 0c BED 3/POOL RM t.o.w. new +38,675 FL 0c GREAT RM/BED 1 ENS +38,800
ROOF - METAL COLOURBOND CUSTOM ORB COLOURBOND colour - Windspray
0
t.o.w. new +38,432
.7
38
.5
FRAMES - WINDOW /DOOR COLOURBOND colour - silver lustre
38
GARAGE DOORS COLOURBOND colour - Ironstone
NGL BOUNDARY
.0
WALLS (GF ) UNITEX RENDER - colour "Ecru"
38
FEATURE WALLS (GF) UNITEX RENDER - colour Monument
FENCE UNITEX RENDER-colour Ecru
S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0
CLIENT NOTE © COPYRIGHT
The "CITY BEACH" Residence © PLEASE NOTE ITEMS SHOWN ON DESIGN SKETCH ARE REPRESENTATION ONLY. THIS HOUSE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY
Lot 197, #37 Peasholm Street, City Beach COSTING SCHEDULE & ADDENDA DOCUMENTS ARE TO SUPERSEDE DETAILS OF OSWALD HOMES AND SHOULD NOT BE
DEPICTED ON DESIGN SKETCH PLAN. USED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
Consultant: Jay Walter Job N°: 39432 PEASHOLM STREET v3.2 PPA R-code: R20 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE BY THE
File : 39432 Peasholm Street v3.2 PPA PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY BUILDER TO NOMINATED PARTIES.
Drawn By: michalK Date: 14 May 2020
PAGE 3 OF 6
DUE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMENDED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES AND
THE BUILDING CODES OF AUSTRALIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROVISIONS, THIS DESIGN
MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECIEPT OF DETAILED SURVEY INFORMATION.
EXISTING
BOUNDARY
RETAINING
EXISTING
BOUNDARY
RETAINING
35c
+41,457 CL 31c CL 31c +41,457 +41,457 CL 31c
28c
2657
2657
2757
+38,700 FL 0c BED 1/ENS +38,800 +38,800 FL 0c CHILLAX RM
FL -1c ALFRESCO
0c
t.o.w. new +38,028 -9.25c
A L F R E S C O (S O U T H ) E L E V A T I O N P O O L H S E (N O R T H ) E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0 1 :1 0 0
SA = Solar Absorptance. The classification of colours in the BCA is based on solar absorptance,
which is the inverse of solar reflectance,
expressed as a ratio between 0 and 1. A SA value of 0 indicates that a roof absorbs none and a
value of 1 indicates that a roof absorbs 100% of the incoming solar radiation. Solar absorptance
value is not applicable for COLORBOND® Stainless steel. See the individual colour swatches for
the SA value for each product and colour.
BCA = The Building Code of Australia (BCA) has classified roof colour on the basis of their solar
absorptance, referred herein as
Light (L < 0.40), Medium (M < 0.60), Dark (D > 0.60). See the individual colour swatches for the
ratings available for each product and colour.
BCA classification is correct at the time of printing but may be subject to change. Check your
EXISTING EXISTING
local state building regulations at the time BOUNDARY BOUNDARY
of your project. FENCING FENCING
3
.2
39
.0
COLOUR SELECTIONS & FINISHES
39
ROOF - METAL COLOURBOND CUSTOM ORB COLOURBOND colour - Windspray
.5
38
FRAMES - WINDOW /DOOR COLOURBOND colour - silver lustre
GARAGE DOORS COLOURBOND colour - Ironstone
.0
38
WALLS (GF ) UNITEX RENDER - colour "Ecru"
8
NGL BOUNDARY
.5
FEATURE WALLS (GF) UNITEX RENDER - colour Monument
37
FENCE UNITEX RENDER-colour Ecru P E A S H O L M S T R E E T (N O R T H ) E L E V A T I O N
1 :1 0 0
CLIENT NOTE © COPYRIGHT
The "CITY BEACH" Residence © PLEASE NOTE ITEMS SHOWN ON DESIGN SKETCH ARE REPRESENTATION ONLY. THIS HOUSE DESIGN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY
Lot 197, #37 Peasholm Street, City Beach COSTING SCHEDULE & ADDENDA DOCUMENTS ARE TO SUPERSEDE DETAILS OF OSWALD HOMES AND SHOULD NOT BE
DEPICTED ON DESIGN SKETCH PLAN. USED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
Consultant: Jay Walter Job N°: 39432 PEASHOLM STREET v3.2 PPA R-code: R20 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE BY THE
File : 39432 Peasholm Street v3.2 PPA PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY BUILDER TO NOMINATED PARTIES.
Drawn By: michalK Date: 14 May 2020
PAGE 4 OF 6
DUE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMENDED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES AND
THE BUILDING CODES OF AUSTRALIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROVISIONS, THIS DESIGN
MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECIEPT OF DETAILED SURVEY INFORMATION.
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021
ATTACHMENT 3 TO ITEM
DV21.77
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photos from neighbouring lot (Rear neighbour – 4 Karla Place):
Photos from neighbouring lot (western neighbour - No. 35 Peasholm Street)
Photos of the subject site:
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021
ATTACHMENT 4 OF 5 TO ITEM DV21.77
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONSNo. Submission
1 I personally find the current roof colour very harsh on the eyes - and at certain times during a sunny
day, the glare is very strong. I would prefer that the builders comply with the existing laws of roof
reflectivity and not be given a retrospective roof colour application.
2 We are providing a submission in response to the letter sent to us dated 10 December 2020
regarding the neighbouring property (No. 37).
We note the request by the builder for retrospective approval for the Shale Grey colourbond roof.
We are aware Shale Grey does not meet the Town of Cambridge planning policy given the reflectivity
of >40%.
In considering the impact of the non-adherence by the builder we have attached a photograph taken
today. This photograph is taken from our outdoor living area. The reflective roof however extends
past our outdoor living area the full length of the block. That is, our entire outdoor entertaining area
adjacent to our pool is impacted. The other rooms of our house which face No 37 are the kitchen,
family living, main bedroom and one of the minor bedrooms. Each of these also receives reflective
glare from the adjacent roof, depending on the position of the sun.
We are unclear why the request has been made for retrospective approval. The house plans were
summited with a different complying colour. The builder would have known, or ought to have, when
the roof construction commenced that the wrong colour was being used. This could, and should,
have been rectified at that point.
The builder should be required to correct the roof to one which complies with the local planning
policy. In the event this is not required, we query what precedent this puts in place for others to
follow suit. The eventual new owners of No 37 will not be impacted by the non-complying choice of
roof colour. The neighbours however will not be able to avoid this, further there is no clear remedy
to prevent excessive glare in our living and outdoor areas.3 We object, in the strongest possible terms to this retrospective roof application for the following
reasons:
1. That the colour Shale Grey that has been used on the roof IS NOT the colour approved in the
original plan, that colour being Windspray;
2. That the substitute colour of Shale Grey is NON COMPLIANT with Local Law 43 and has a
reflectivity greater than 40 percent.
This reflectivity is very evident to us, particularly on the back portion of the roof that is close to the
boundary fence and directly in line with our outdoor living area. This reflection depends on the time
of the day and the yearly movement of the sun. It was especially bad during October and November
to the extent that it interfered with a lunchtime gathering of people in our outdoor area and some
people actually asked to be reseated, with their backs to the roof.
We anticipate the same bad reflective effects in February and March. Even discounting the
reflectiveness, the roof displays glare and brightness at all times, to the extent that one occupant of
the house who is legally blind with macular generation, and it disturbing, including from inside the
house.
Even at night under a full moon this roof is bright! Over time, the roof will fade and there is a strong
possibility that it will become more reflective. Neither white nor offwhite is allowed in the coastal
ward. Surely this pale grey is another form of offwhite. Also pertinent is the aspect of elevation
whereby the low elevation of the block (and hence the house and root) compared to the high
elevation of our house means that the whole roof... expanse is in direct line with us, from all
positions of our block and from all of the north facing rooms in our house.
The gutter of the back portion of the house is on the same level as the top of the back fence. This
means that this entire roof, that is full of glare, is always "in our face". Given the entire scope and
span of the roof, most of which faces south, the angle and proximity of the back portion of the roof
that causes reflection and constant glare, and the low elevation of the house and roof, this is a most
unsatisfactory situation for us, as well as being disappointing and somewhat disrespectful. Whilst we
respect the right of owners to build according to their wishes and within council guidelines, it is
disappointing when owners, building a new house, consider their rights above the rights of long-
term owners in adjoining properties.
It is most unfortunate that there has been no act of goodwill or communication on the part of the
builder. We express some curiosity as to why a reputable builder, building a display home (with no
client pressure) would not only ignore the original approval, but then choose an option that
breaches the planning code and is non compliant. We wonder about a level of confidence that this
approval will be given.
We wonder whether a precedent has been set by the council in previous, similar situations. We ask
that the council refuse the retrospective planning application for the colour Shale Grey due to the
level of reflection and the overall brightness and glare of this huge roof and that the applicant be
made to: re-install the colour Windspray or paint the roof in the colour Windspray, as a permanent
colour so that the outcome is satisfactory to us, and no doubt to other adjoining properties.4 We have considered the details in the letter dated 10 December 2020 and have undertaken some
due diligence before submitting this reply. I myself have looked at other roofs of similar material on
Peasholm Street to compare against number 37 and this clearly showed why the council has
guidelines under the Local Law 43 on reflectivity.
All other similar roofs are not reflective however the roof at number 37 Peasholm Street is
noticeable reflective, and I imagine that this would be particularly noticeable for the surrounding
higher homes, looking down on the roof. With this, we do not support the application.
It would be appreciated to receive a letter regarding the outcome of this application.
Trusting good council guidelines and Local Law.DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 AUGUST 2021
ATTACHMENT 5 OF 5 TO ITEM DV21.77
APPLICANT’S COMMENTSYou can also read
