Annette Gigg - 23 February 2016
Annette Gigg made comments regarding DA planning and approval in the Public Access Session at the Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016.
Concerns raised in your submission are addressed below.
There is no Development Control Plan (DCP) applicable to the subject land that requires a 10 metre setback and there is no building envelope for the lot in accordance with the Department of Planning subdivision approval. Council has no record of a discussion between staff and yourself in relation to a minimum 10m setback.
This is further confirmed by the approval of your dwelling with a 6.6 metre setback and no record of a variation sought or the application being notified (which is Council's procedure in the event of a deviation from a DCP).
Two natural gullies occur on site which are evident on the survey provided by yourself, one of which is mapped as a category two riparian watercourse.
It is documented that Council staff advised the applicant working on behalf of yourself that the proposal in its current form would cause water from the gully to run directly into your dwelling and that an engineering design solution should be provided prior to determination of the consent. The applicant advised Council in writing to condition this request prior to the issue of a construction certificate. It should also be noted that the application was subsequently modified to relocated the dwelling away from the natural gully rather than submitting an engineering solution.
Modification of Consent/fees
You have claimed that Council staff advised you to modify the location of your house and that Council's previous Divisional Manager Development Services advised that he would waive the modification fees. This is not the case.
You attempted to lodge the modification without fees and this was returned along with correspondence advising that a waiver of fees is not applicable. A subsequent application was lodged with the fees being paid and this fee was never refunded to you. The refund you received was for the water service connection as you were initially charged the full price when the meter cost should have only applied.
It is important to note that the location of the dwelling raised as an issue during the original assessment and Council was advised to condition your approval to require an engineering solution. You or your consultant working on your behalf determined that it was easier to move the dwelling rather than devise an engineering solution.
There is a 16 metre separation between the existing and proposed dwelling. There are no windows of living rooms, patios, balconies or entertaining areas that overlook your property. The use of a boundary fence and screening with landscaping would provide sufficient privacy.
Overshadowing and impacts on solar panels
The adjoining building is 10 metres from the common boundary and as it is only single storey in nature would not cause any overshadowing of your dwelling. Even with the elevated position of the building on the lot, the separation distances and single storey nature of the development would not cause overshadowing of your dwelling.
Please be advised that I have had staff review their assessment and prepare shadow diagrams for the dwelling. These indicate that there is minor overshadowing of your lot and certainly no overshadowing of your dwelling.
Council does not have any reason to revoke the development consent pertaining to lot 8, 9 Annies Lane.