(ii) DCP 11, Dual Occupancy Housing
The evidence
5 Following the notification of this development application to extend the use of the dual occupancy dwelling a number of objections were received.
6 These objections include Ms Cifranic, who owns the neighbouring dwelling to the west. She expressed concerns about the exceedance of the limited time consent and also concerns about noise and overlooking into her rear yard and living room and bathroom area.
7 Mrs Moore, the neighbour from No. 8 Ogilvy Street, said that while she was aware of the original application in 1990 and did not object, this was on the basis that it was for the temporary five year period, which has now elapsed and on this basis the dual occupancy dwelling should now be removed.
8 Having considered the evidence presented, it is apparent that the conditions of consent did not require the removal of the building at any time. Therefore, the retention of the dual occupancy dwelling is permitted, although its use may be limited and that is the principal contested issue in this case. Accordingly, in considering this development application I note the applicant's intention to retain the dwelling in the absence of any conditions requiring its demolition. Therefore its physical presence in this neighbourhood can remain, as originally approved by council.
9 Whilst there are possible uses for this structure other than permanent residential use, it is obvious such uses would likely have some impact on the neighbours, such as noise if the structures were used as a rumpus room and there could be occasional overlooking from the windows along the western side.
10 Taking into account then the constraints imposed by the retention of the structure, I have considered the potential amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties likely to arise from the applicant's proposed continuing residential use.
11 One of the principle objections from Ms Cifranic concerned overlooking and loss of privacy from the dual occupancy kitchen windows. In this regard, I have considered the applicant's response to provide an additional level of privacy screen atop the existing colorbond fence to restrict the overlooking, with the effective screening height of approximately 2.2 m above ground level.
12 From my observations on the view, I note the associated evidence that the separation distance from the critical kitchen window to the living room area of No. 10 is in the order of 9 - 12 m. In my assessment the additional level of screening at the fence line, so as to provide the effective 2.2 m high fence screen, effectively blocks overlooking from the kitchen and also from the living room window.
13 Considering also that the applicant intends to supplement the perimeter screening vegetation along the western elevation, I am satisfied that the overlooking issue can be reasonably addressed as proposed by the applicant.
14 In reaching this conclusion I note that the rear yard of No. 10 is devoid of any screening vegetation, possibly indicating that the occupiers have reduced concerns about privacy. But the applicant's proposal to supplement the intervening perimeter landscaping is of a standard consistent with this general neighbourhood, apart from No. 10.
15 With respect to the concerns about noise, the Court was not informed of any undue noise impacts over its previous use that has required intervention and/or action. Apart from locking up the building, it is likely that occasional noise could be heard from this building, considering its approved location adjacent to the common boundary with No. 10.
16 However, considering the limited size of the dwelling and the corresponding limited occupancy space, I do not accept the objections that the continuing occupation will result in unacceptable noise disamenity, providing the occupants endeavour to be good neighbours. If this does not occur then the existing disamenity controls such as disturbance can be enacted by the relevant authorities.
17 Notwithstanding this, I understand that a further concern of the neighbours is that the continued unauthorised deck/pergola area on the northern elevation causes concern. I note the applicants evidence that this forms part of the entry arrangement to the dual occupancy and provides a limited screened attached outdoor area.
18 Taking into account the unauthorised status of the deck/pergola, its condition has been assessed by Mr S Maddigan, council's environment health and building surveyor, who considers it unsatisfactory because: