Condition 5
28It is apparent from the evidence provided during the hearing that the DCP may not permit garages within the setback area however, it is not necessary for me to determine whether this is the case as the consent allows for the garage within that area. The applicant, Mr Middleton, argues that the restriction on non-trafficable roofs applies only to carports, as the DCP is silent on garages. He cited the council's former policy, Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings and argued that the controls, which were contained within that document, were not brought forward into the DCP and therefore did not apply. Those controls permitted garages within the building line provided at least two-thirds of the garage was below natural ground level, the garage did not extend more than 900mm above that ground level, it was setback 1m from the street alignment and did not have a trafficable roof.
29If this were the case, then a merit-based assessment of the impacts of the use of the rooftop would be required. Mr Middleton advises that the purpose of the deck is for use for recreational purposes in the morning when the deck will be in sunlight for activities such as breakfast or general relaxation and recreation. Mr Seton, for the council, argues that the approved development provides for the necessary open space provision and solar access specified in the council's controls and that without the extended deck, the property enjoys access to a further two balconies, an undercover terrace and a pool terrace.
30The evidence available to me is that the streetscape primarily comprises landscaped setback areas without rooftop terraces and that the introduction of such elements would result in a significant change to that streetscape and the future amenity of the area. Accordingly, I find that these structures would introduce a foreign element within the building alignment are contrary to the council's planning objectives and should not be allowed.
31The masonry walling along the front property boundaries on the western side of Holdsworth Avenue contributes to the streetscape. This walling varies in height however, it is not as high as the wall height proposed in the subject application. The proposed height reflects the desire of the applicant to utilise the terrace area for recreational purposes. I acknowledge that the adjoining property enjoys the use of its garage roof for recreational purposes however this structure was approved many years prior to the council's controls. I also acknowledge that the non-use of the rooftop will have negligible benefits to the streetscape however, it will allow achievement of the objectives of the council's planning controls, in particular, the zone objectives and the principal DCP objective.
32The evidence available to me is that the council has consistently applied its controls preventing use of garage/carport roofs and accordingly, I find that the condition of consent imposed by the council is appropriate in the circumstance of the case.