development assessment panel meeting agenda · pdf filedevelopment assessment panel meeting...

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 03 June 2014 at 6pm

Council Chambers, 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

Members: Bill Chandler (Presiding Member)

Grant Piggott (Deputy Presiding Member), Ross Bateup, Alison Brookman, Robert Hasenohr, Stephanie Johnston and Leni Palk

1 APOLOGIES

Nil

2 KAURNA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Presiding Member will take the opportunity to acknowledge the Kuarna people.

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 06 May 2014 be taken as read and confirmed.

4 APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

Nil

5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – PERSONS WISH TO BE HEARD (A) NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING)

Nil (B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING)

Nil (C) CATEGORY 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING) Recommendation: As the opportunity to make a verbal presentation for Category 2 applications is at the Panel’s discretion, that the Panel provide an opportunity to be heard. Report Number: 5684.1

Page: 1

Application Number: 180\1175\13 Applicant: JS Holzer Location: 7 Salop Street, Beulah Park Proposal: Single storey dwelling including garage Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted Representors: 9 Salop Street, Beulah Park

8 Osborn Avenue, Beulah Park

Applicant: PO Box 28, Cudlee Creek

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 03 June 2014

Report Number: 5684.2

Page: 15

Application Number: 180\0134\14 Applicant: Max Pritchard Architect Location: 89 Sunnyside Road, Glen Osmond Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including underfloor, balcony and

deck Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted Representors: 94 Sunnyside Road, Glen Osmond

92 Sunnyside Road, Glen Osmond

93 Sunnyside Road, Glen Osmond

Applicant: PO Box 808, Glenelg


Page: 29

Application Number: 180\0215\14 Applicant: Artec Building Designers Location: 54 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including garage, balcony, patio,

swimming pool and front fence (masonry) Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted Representors: 56 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park

Applicant: 90 Glynburn Road, Hectorville


Page: 41

Application Number: 180\0265\14 Applicant: Technical Officer Arboriculture – City of Burnside Location: 3 Philip Avenue, Leabrook Proposal: Retrospective significant tree removal (Section 54A), Eucalyptus

camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Recommendation: Development Approval be granted Representors: 33 Statenborough Street, Leabrook

3 Philip Avenue, Leabrook

25 Rochester Street, Leabrook

Applicant: 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore


Page: 49

Application Number: 180\0327\14 Applicant: Eastern Building Group Pty Ltd Location: 10 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park Proposal: Single storey detached dwelling including garage, alfresco and

portico Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted Representors: 1/6 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park (1)

1/6 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park (2)

Applicant: 142 Payneham Road, Stepney


6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – NO PERSONS TO BE HEARD (A) NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING) Report Number: 5684.6

Page: 61

Application Number: 180\0192\14 Applicant: Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd Location: 3 Birkdale Crescent, Mount Osmond Proposal: Non-complying – alterations and additions to existing dwelling

including deck Recommendation: Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment

Commission, that Development Plan Consent be granted (B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)

Nil (C) CATEGORY 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING) Report Number: 5684.7

Page: 73

Application Number: 180\0873\13 Applicant: Alexander Symonds Pty Ltd Location: 250 & 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook Proposal: Boundary re-alignment of 3 existing allotments Recommendation: Development Approval be granted


Page: 85

Application Number: 180\0709\13 Applicant: 252 Kensington Road Pty Ltd Location: 250 & 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook Proposal: Extension and reconfiguration of existing car park and

demolition of masonry toilet block building Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted


Page: 97

Application Number: 180\0106\14 Applicant: Inspire Design Location: 7A Chapman Crescent, Glen Osmond Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including rear balcony and

outbuilding (garage) Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

7 CATEGORY 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – NO PERSONS TO BE HEARD



Page: 101

Application Number: 180\0146\14 Applicant: Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd Location: 10 Birnie Avenue Kensington Park Proposal: Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including first floor

addition, garage, alfresco, swimming pool and 2.4m high fence Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

8 OTHER BUSINESS

Nil

9 ORDER FOR EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE MEETING TO DEBATE CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS That, pursuant to Section 56A(12) of the Development Act, 1993, the public be excluded from this part of the meeting of the City of Burnside Development Assessment Panel dated Tuesday 03 June 2014 (with the exception of members of Council staff who are hereby permitted to remain), to enable the Panel to receive, discuss or consider legal advice, or advice from a person who is providing specialist professional advice.

10 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil

Development Assessment Panel Agenda

NOTES FOR THE READER

Purpose

The purpose of each report prepared for the Development Assessment Panel is to assist the applicant, those assessing the application and members of the public alike, to understand all of the relevant factors and considerations involved in the assessment of each particular development application.

Development Plan Assessment

Development in South Australia is regulated under the Development Act, 1993 and the Development Regulations, 2008.

This legislation requires Council, which is a relevant planning authority under this legislation, to assess most applications for development against the provisions of Council’s “Development Plan”.

The Development Plan is a policy document. The policy is formulated by the Council. It uses some “planning language” but is intended to form a useful and practical guide for the public and those responsible for the assessment of development. It is a practical policy document which the planning authority must apply to development assessment in a practical way.

When assessing development, the relevant provisions within the Development Plan are identified. The planning authority will then usually be required to consider whether those provisions speak for or against a proposed development. Quite often the assessment task will require the planning authority to weigh the “pros and cons” of a proposed development by reference to the relevant policies within the Development Plan.

The process involved in the assessment of each development application is contained within the above legislation. Depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the development and the Zone within which it is proposed, applications may be classified as “complying”, “non-complying” or “merit” development. The classification of the application will determine the procedure to be followed under the legislation. Classification will also determine the public notification protocol, that is, whether the planning authority is able to provide public notification and if so, the extent of the public notification.

Representations

Representors will usually be provided with an opportunity to address the planning authority at its relevant meeting if they wish to be heard. In this case the relevant planning authority will hear and consider the representations prior to making its decision. It is the role of the planning authority to act as a mediator or arbitrator between representor(s) and applicant.

The reports prepared by the Council’s staff will not separately address the content of each representation, but rather will deal with relevant town planning issues raised in any representation, together with all other relevant considerations involved in the assessment of a proposed development.

this page is left intentionally blank

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 03 June 2014 Report Number: PR 5684.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Application Number: 180\1175\13

Applicant: JS Holzer

Location: 7 Salop Street, Beulah Park

Proposal: Single storey dwelling including garage

Zone/Policy Area: Residential Zone

Residential Policy Area 2

Development Plan consolidated 28 November 2013

Kind of Assessment: Merit

Public Notification: Category 2

Two (2) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights

Referrals – Non Statutory: Council Senior Engineer / Tree Management Officer

Delegations Policy: Unresolved representations

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report: - Appendix 1 – Aerial Locality Map - Appendix 2 – Detailed Planning Assessment - Appendix 3 – Development Data Table

Please note that due to Federal Copyright Law restrictions, attachments associated with the proposed development are not made available to the public.

Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Internal agency referral reports Representations received Applicant’s response to representations Photographs

1


1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Construction of a single storey dwelling including garage.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\1175\13 was lodged on 18 December 2013, by John Holzer, the owner of the subject land, seeking Development Plan Consent for the construction of a single storey dwelling, on an allotment which currently contains a single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is located behind the existing dwelling in a battleaxe arrangement although at this point in time, no application for land division has been lodged and the Applicant has mentioned that at this point in time there is no intention to sub-divide the land. Although they are unrelated to the proposal at hand, three previous applications are recorded against the property: Development Application 180\1158\07 for “Tree removal (one) Canary Island Date Palm

(Pheonix canariensis)” was refused development approval in January 2008. Development Application 180\0662\10 for “Tree removal (two) Lemon Scented Gum

(Corimbia citrodora)” was refused development approval in September 2010. Development Application 180\0023\11 for “swimming pool and tree damaging activity” was

refused development plan consent in June 2011. The current proposal was determined to be neither a complying nor non-complying form of development, prompting an assessment on merit pursuant to Section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993. The development was also determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 2 Principle of Development Control 7(d) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, due to the development resulting in more than one dwelling on the site of the development. During the public notification period two (2) written representations were received in relation to the proposal; both being opposed to the development. The representors have the following concerns with the proposal: Poor documentation / contradiction of plans; Impact to amenity; Finished floor level of the dwelling; Loss of privacy; Sub-division & lot size; Issues with the arborcultural assessment; Increased risk of flooding; Noise from sump and pump; Overshadowing; Issues with extent of fencing and colour; and Visual amenity. During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Traffic Management Engineer and Tree Management Officer to assess the suitability of access arrangements on the Council verge and impact to existing street trees. During the course of assessment of the application, further information was requested a number of times. A complete site works and drainage plan which adheres to the recommendations of the consulting arborist was received by Council 14 April 2014. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation policy, the application is now presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations.

2


3. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY ATTRIBUTES

3.1. Subject Land

The subject site is located on the western side of Salop Street approximately 100m south of Magill Road. The subject land is a regular shaped allotment with an area of 1045.1m² and frontage to Salop Street of 18.29m. The land currently contains a return Bungalow circa 1925. The subject land is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 2 – Northern, an area with low scale and low to medium density residential character.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Salop Street, from where it meets Magill Road to the north, and Beulah Road to the south. The locality has been defined on the basis of a visual connection with the subject land. The whole of the locality is located wholly within the Residential Zone. The surrounding locality is predominantly comprised of low density, single-storeyed dwellings mostly built during or after the interwar period. Some more recently built Contemporary style dwellings are also evident within the locality. Dwellings generally have generous front boundary set-backs of 6m-9m, and low and open front fencing which contributes to the character of the locality. Bitumen and paved Council verges include semi-mature and mature Jacaranda street trees which add to the amenity of the locality.

4. KIND OF ASSESSMENT

Kind: Merit Reason: Section 35(5) the Development Act (1993) Applicant Appeal Opportunity: Yes

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 2 Principle of Development Control 7(d) Cut / Fill: Although a degree of cut and fill is to be introduced to the site,

incidental to the construction of the dwelling, it is not considered excessive in light of the slope of the land. The building footprint requires both cut and fill and a stepped design to respond to topography.

The overall cut and fill is considered minor, does not require retaining walls and is not considered to unreasonably impact on the occupiers of adjoining land. \\

Representations Received: 8 Osborn Avenue, Beulah Park (wish to be heard) 9 Salop Street, Beulah Park (wish to be heard)

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

Representations received are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

Applicant’s response(s) to representations are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

3


6. AGENCY REFERRALS

Internal agency referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The development involves the construction of a dwelling on an existing residential

allotment within the Residential Zone; Although the proposal does not involve land division at this point, the proposal

comfortably meets the site area guideline for a battleaxe arrangement; The existing allotment is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate the

proposed dwelling in accordance with the Policy Area and Council Wide guidelines; The proposed development is not identified as a non-complying kind of development

in the Burnside (City) Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no

unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

7.2. Character

The proposed development involves the construction of a single-storey dwelling in a battleaxe arrangement on an allotment which currently contains a single storey dwelling. Council is satisfied that the proposal has been designed to contribute to and be consistent with the primary objectives of Residential Policy Area 2. This position is based on the following: The policy area specifically identifies battleaxe arrangements as being a suitable

pattern of development within this locality; Although not the dominant form of development some battle axe arrangements and

residential flat buildings are located within the locality and greater policy area; The proposed dwelling maintains appropriate set-backs to common boundaries in

accordance with Development Plan guidelines; As the proposed building is located behind the existing dwelling on-site, it will not

have a streetscape presence; and The contemporary style of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be in conflict

with the varied styles of dwellings throughout the locality.

7.3. Amenity

The proposal is not expected to have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties. This position is based on the following considerations: The use of appropriate building set-backs on all sides provides sufficient separation

between buildings. This softens the visual impact of the built form when viewed from adjoining properties;

The proposal has been centrally sited with side and rear set-backs within Council Wide guidelines;

The applicant has provided appropriate arborcultural recommendations which will protect the health of the Regulated trees on the adjoining property and thus the trees are expected to continue their contribution to the amenity of the locality into the future;

4


The noise generated from the sump and pump stormwater disposal system is not expected to be more obtrusive than other similar systems found throughout metropolitan Adelaide. Any nuisance that this may cause falls under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency;

The proposed 1.8m high Colorbond fence above a 200mm high plinth is not considered to be development and is standard for a property within the Residential Zone;

The proposal does not interfere with any Council street trees as the development does not propose to alter the existing crossover;

The proposal maintains a suitable finished floor level and is not raised to a degree which would affect either visual amenity or privacy; and

The submitted shadow diagrams show that access to sunlight for adjoining dwellings and private open space is maintained within Development Plan guidelines.

7.4. Site Functionality

The development fits upon the land as a workable site-planning outcome. This determination has been based on the following: The overall footprint of development sits within the guidelines of the Development

Plan for site coverage for the whole site and is not anticipated to generate negative stormwater impacts as a direct result;

The subject land is an existing residential allotment with sufficient site area to accommodate an additional dwelling in a battleaxe arrangement in accordance with the Policy Area guidelines;

The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is sited close to the natural ground level and as such large degrees of cut and/or fill are not required to accommodate the dwelling;

The proposed development has been assessed as being acceptable by both Council’s Tree Management Officer and Council’s Senior Engineer; and

The proposed residence features two (2) off-street parking spaces in accordance with Table/Bur 5 as well as ample on street parking available on Salop Street.

7.5. Public Notification

The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 type of development pursuant to Residential Policy Area Principle 2 of Development Control 7 (d) as the proposal dwelling is on a site which already accommodates a dwelling. During the notification period Council received two (2) written submissions from owners/occupiers of adjoining land. The primary issues raised during public notification are as follows: Impact to amenity; Finished floor level of the dwelling; Loss of privacy; Sub-division and lot size; Issues with the arborcultural assessment; Increased risk of flooding; Noise from sump and pump; Overshadowing; Issues with extent of fencing and colour; and Visual amenity. The Applicant replied to each query from the representors in a detailed response (see attached).

5


Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality as a whole. The proposal sufficiently meets allotment size guidelines and as the dwelling is single storey without a raised finished floor level, the dwelling is not expected to impact on the privacy of occupiers of adjoining land. Matters raised through the public notification process are considered to be satisfied through the overall design of the development, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.

7.6. Internal Referrals

Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that the proposal does not impact on any public trees. Council’s Senior Engineer has made comments regarding the proposed stormwater proposal system. These recommendations have been included as advisory notes.

7.7. Conclusion

Having regard to all of the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with, and is generally in accordance with, the policies of the Development Plan.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Panel resolve that:

1. The proposed development is not seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan; and

2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\1175\13, by JS Holzer, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Plan Consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 All works in the vicinity to the significant trees located on the adjoining property to the north shall be undertaken in accordance with the arborist report from Tree Assessment Services (Alan Cameron) dated 13 February 2014. Reason: To ensure that no adverse impacts result to the significant tree.

3 All paving within the Tree Protection Zones and Structural Root Zones of the two Significant trees located at 5 Salop street shall be permeable unit pavers or compacted gravel over a free draining no-fine rubble base in accordance with the arborist report from Tree Assessment Services (Alan Cameron) dated 13 February 2014.

6


Reason: To ensure that no adverse impacts result to the significant tree.

4 All paving within the Structural Root Zones of the two Significant trees located at 5 Salop street shall have construction levels elevated 100mm in accordance with the arborist report from Tree Assessment Services (Alan Cameron) dated 13 February 2014. Reason: To ensure that no adverse impacts result to the significant tree.

Engineering Requirements

The drainage plan provided is satisfactory so long as the designer take the responsibility of the accuracy of given invert levels of the system proposed.

Stormwater pipe across the road verge should terminate at an approved galvanised steel kerb adaptor.

If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, then steel pipe housing to be used per Council standard.

RECOMMENDING OFFICER

James Booker Development Officer – Planning

7


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

Representor’s Land

8


APPENDIX 2

DETAILED PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Summary of Policy Area Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Policy Area 2 Objectives:

Objective 2: Maintenance and enhancement of a residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) dwellings of low-scale and low to medium density, widely varied in age but predominantly of the interwar

and post-war periods; and (b) single-storeyed, detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings, moderately set-back from road

boundaries and similar in scale, that are the dominant built-form features in most streetscapes.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 Satisfied.

The Policy Area seeks a low-scale residential character and enhancement of single storey detached dwellings. The proposed dwelling is of low scale and meets all set-back guidelines contained within the Development Plan.

Local Compatibility PDC 1 Satisfied. The proposed single storey dwelling is compatible with the

bulk and scale of other dwellings within the locality. Site Areas PDC 3

Satisfied. Although the proposal does not include land division, the battlaxe arrangement comfortably meets site area guidelines for the policy area.

Private Open Space PDC 5

Satisfied. Both dwellings meet the policy area guidelines for the provision of private open space.

9


Summary of Residential Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone primarily for residential use with a range of dwelling types in appropriate policy areas to accommodate varied socio-economic needs.

Objective 2: Protection and enhancement of the amenity of residential areas, with particular reference to the objectives for the relevant policy area.

Objective 3: Residential densities varied having regard to topography, the objectives for the relevant policy area, and proximity to centres and major transport routes.

Objective 4: Provision of residential and community facilities and services for the aged community.

Objective 5: Enhancement of the attractive qualities of streetscapes and particularly areas of cohesive character or visual sensitivity, through good design.

Objective 6: A zone accommodating non-residential activities which are small in scale, benign in external impact, and serve the needs of the local community.

Objective 7: Reduction of the impact of established non-residential uses on the amenity of residential areas.

Objective 8: Use of design, management and other techniques to improve all aspects of the environmental performance of development.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1–8 PDC 1

Satisfied.

The residential use of the land is to continue. Building Appearance PDC 2–4

Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the primary objectives of Residential Policy Area 2 and Council Wide provisions, having due regard to siting, mass and proportion, built form features, materials and finished floor levels.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6 Satisfied.

Due to the relatively even fall of the land, excessive earthworks are not proposed.

10


Summary of Council Wide Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Development Objectives:

Objective 50: A compact metropolitan area.

Objective 51: A variety and choice of dwelling types to meet the needs and preferences of all sections of the community.

Objective 52: Containment of housing costs through the encouragement of a full range of design and development techniques.

Objective 53: Safe, pleasant, accessible and convenient residential areas.

Objective 54: Residential development which moderates adverse climatic conditions, takes advantage of solar energy, does not unreasonably overshadow adjacent development, and protects the natural environment.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 8–9, 50–54 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.

Building Set-backs PDC 161–163 Front Set-backs

Satisfied. Side Set-backs Satisfied. Rear Set-backs Satisfied.

Building Height PDC 164 Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165 The proposal meets site coverage guidelines when calculating the

building footprints of both dwellings on the subject land. If the land were divided however, the proposed head of the battleaxe would have site coverage 1% in excess of the guideline. This excess is considered to be minor and does not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

Private Open Space PDC 166, 167 Satisfied.

Amenity O20–22 PDC 52–63

Satisfied. As the proposed single storey dwelling meets all Council set-back guidelines and is of a suitable scale, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling will adversely impact upon amenity.

Access / Street Trees / On-site Car Parking PDC 177–182

Satisfied. Although car parking spaces for the existing dwelling have not been delineated on the submitted site plan, ample space is available in the front yard of this dwelling, an area which does not contribute to private open space calculations. Because the only area available for car parking is forward of the dwelling, an advisory note has been included informing the Applicant that any proposal for garaging or a carport forward of the dwelling is unlikely to be supported.

Privacy O20 PDC 53, 174–176

Satisfied. The proposed works include fencing to a total height of 2m which is sufficient to ensure the privacy of adjoining residents is protected.

Access to Sunlight PDC183–186 Satisfied. The submitted shadow diagrams illustrate that the proposed

dwelling will not unreasonably overshadow either adjoining dwellings or adjoining private open space.

11


Fences / Retaining Walls PDC 190–194 As the proposed fencing does not exceed 2.1m in height it is not

considered development. In any event this fencing is suitable to protect privacy whilst not being visually dominant or overbearing.

Environmental / Water Conservation O 11–14 PDC 14–21, 240–241

Environmental performance and water conservation are largely addressed at the Building Rules Consent stage of the assessment process.

The performance provisions in the Building Code of Australia require all new dwellings to achieve a six star energy rating, control the flow of stormwater run-off from the site of development and must incorporate an additional water supply other than the mains reticulated supply, plumbed to at least a water closet, or a water heater or all of the cold water laundry outlets.

Significant/Regulated Trees O 24–27 PDC 14–21, 77–92

Satisfied. The adjoining property to the north includes a Significant Tree and a Regulated Tree adjacent to the common boundary. The consulting arborist has indicated any impacts to these trees would not adversely affect the health, aesthetic appearance or structural integrity of the trees provided protection measures are adhered to. Council has imposed the condition that the recommendations of the report are implemented as part of the approval.

12


APPENDIX 3

DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE

Site Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Street Frontage N/A N/A

Site Area 448.1m2 (area of head of battleaxe) 1045.1 m2 (whole site)

375m2

Design Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Coverage - Buildings only 41% (head of battleaxe)

32% (whole site) 40%

Building Height - storeys 1 storeys 2 storeys - metres 5.2m 9m

Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 33m 6m - side boundary 1.5m(south), 3.898m(North) 1.5m - rear boundary 5m 4m

Private Open Space - percentage 65.6% of TFA (new dwelling)

56.2% of TFA (existing dwelling) 61.4% of TFA (whole site)

50% of TFA*

- dimensions 5m x18 m (new dwelling) 5 x 13.5m (existing dwelling)

4m x 6m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks Each dwelling has the capacity

to accommodate 2 parked cars. 2

- width of driveway N/A (no change) 4.5m *Total Floor Area (TFA) is measured from the external faces of the walls of the building or buildings, including balconies, carports and garages.

13


14




Applicant: Max Pritchard Architect

Location: 89 Sunnyside Road Glen Osmond

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including lower level deck and upper level balcony, retaining walls and earthworks.


Residential Policy Area 27- Southern Foothills

Development Plan consolidated 30 January 2014



Three (3) representations received


Referrals – Non Statutory: Senior Engineer



Recommending Officer: Theresa James

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Internal agency referral reports Representations received Photographs

15



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Construction of new two-storey detached dwelling; Earthworks comprising more than 9m³; and Retaining walls.

2. BACKGROUND

In March 2014 the subject development application was lodged with Council. This application was considered a merit type application pursuant to Section 35(5) the Development Act (1993). As the application involves the construction of a two-storey dwelling, the application was placed on Category 2 public notification pursuant to Residential Policy Area 27 Principle of Development Control 10(a). Whilst the proposal includes fill and retaining walls, these elements were considered by planning staff to be minor in nature as they would not unreasonably impact on the owners or occupiers of land in the locality. In early March 2014 Council requested additional information from the Applicant, which was received on 23 March 2014. The application was then placed on public notification for a period of 10 business days. The public notification commenced on 28 March 2014, and concluded at close of business on 11 April 2014. Throughout the public notification period all adjacent land owners/residents were notified of the development and provided with an opportunity to lodge a written representation to Council. The public notification period generated a response from three (3) adjacent land owners/ residents, with two (2) representations received from the same person who is the owner of two (2) separate adjoining allotments. In response to the comments received during the public notification period the Applicant amended the proposal, and submitted amended drawings on 13 May 2014. As all the representations received have indicated they wish to be heard by the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel), the application is now presented to the Panel for a decision.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises a large rectangular shaped allotment on the northern side of Sunnyside Road. The land is located in the Residential Zone, more specifically within Residential Zone, Policy Area 27 – Southern Foothills. The land is currently vacant with minimal vegetation and no fencing present. The land has an overall area of 2134.6m² and a frontage of 28.9m to Sunnyside Road. The subject land is located on the lower side of Sunnyside Road, with a steep fall towards the northern rear boundary.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Sunnyside Road, to where it meets Wheel Gawler Street to the north-east and Gill Terrace to the south. Dwellings on the northern side of Sunnyside Road are generally mostly below road level, and those on the southern side are wholly above road level.

16


There is no prominent architectural building style, and the scale of development varies among allotments. Although the subject land shares boundaries with allotments located on Fulton Crescent (to the rear), the subject land is not visible from Fulton Crescent due to the steep topography of the locality.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 27 Principle of Development Control

10(a) Cut / Fill: Although a degree of fill is to be introduced to the site, its

external appearance is not expected to unreasonably impact the owners/occupiers of land within the locality.

Representations Received: 92 Sunnyside Road (wish to be heard) 93 Sunnyside Road (wish to be heard) 94 Sunnyside Road (wish to be heard)



6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for residential development in the Residential Zone; The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the relevant Policy

Area provisions of the Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no

unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected.

The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan in terms of its land use.

7.2. Character

The Policy Area envisages a low density residential character derived from a variety of architectural styles, with dwellings of medium to large scale and of multi-stories. The resultant density of the site will remain low, and although it is a large two-storey dwelling, the overall built form will be of a very low scale, and barely visible from Sunnyside Road, due to its height only minimally above the adjacent road level.

17


The design of the dwelling is of a high architectural standard, and the proposed building envelope will ensure the amenity of the locality is not impaired by the presence of the new building. Sufficient space exists between dwellings on either side of the development, and the specified materials will ensure the development maintains the natural character of the locality. The site will only be partially visible form the Adelaide Plains, and from Bagot Avenue to the north (the closest street where the land will be visible from nearby roads), which is located on much lower land. Other existing dwellings within the locality are likely to obscure views of the proposed building.

7.3. Amenity

As the development involves the construction of a two-storey dwelling, it has the potential to impact on the amenity of adjoining residents, in terms of overshadowing and privacy. Given the development’s orientation and the location of the land, it is not expected to overshadow adjoining land to any significant degree. The proposed balcony and lower level deck include unscreened northern rear and eastern side elevations. Screening is included on the western elevation on both the lower and upper levels. Due to the distance of the deck and balcony north and east elevations from respective boundaries, together with the topography of the land, and the inherent potential for overlooking within the locality as a whole, the amenity of adjoining residents (in terms of privacy) is not significantly impacted and is what could be reasonably expected for residential development on this site, and within this locality.


Vehicle access is gained via a new driveway. The initial submission included a suspended driveway from Sunnyside Road, with access into the carport at street level. Amended drawings (following public notification) were submitted, which altered access into the site and the dwelling resulting in a longer driveway that better relates to the existing site contours. This new driveway includes a reversing bay, enabling forward gear movements from the site. Council’s engineers have reviewed the proposal, and are satisfied with the design of the new driveway, including its access and egress.


During the public notification period the Application generated a response from three (3) adjoining land owners/residents who raised concerns with the height of the building above street level, streetscape character, height of driveway and vehicle safety, views, overshadowing, privacy and set-back to western boundary. In response to the above concerns, the Applicant amended the design of the dwelling such that the overall height has been reduced so that only a small portion of roofing is visible above the street level. In addition, access to the site has been amended, with the height of the driveway at and below road level, and a reversing bay allowing safer egress from the property. The reduced height of the overall building and the driveway will ensure that the existing streetscape character is not significantly impacted by this development. Existing dwellings on either side of the subject land will be far more conspicuous within the streetscape and will obscure much of the proposed development when traversing Sunnyside Road. Due to the location of two (2) of the Representors’ dwellings located on the higher side of Sunnyside Road, views of the Adelaide Plains will not be significantly impacted from within those dwellings.

18


Although no overshadowing diagrams were submitted, the side elevation of the adjoining land to the west includes minimal and small windows located on their eastern elevation. As such the proposed dwelling is not expected to result in any significant overshadowing, in excess of Development Plan guidelines. Due to the 4m set-back displayed by the proposal, together with the orientation of the adjoining land as it relates to true north, the main private open space areas associated with 93 Sunnyside Road are not expected to be greatly impacted by the position of the dwelling on the subject land. In addition to this, the proposed dwelling satisfies side boundary set-back guidelines, as expressed within the Development Plan.

7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0134\14, by Max Pritchard Architect, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 Approved retaining walls shall be finished in a material or colour of dark or medium earthen tones. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the retaining walls blends with the natural character of the locality.


Theresa James Development Officer – Planning

19


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


20


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Enhancement of the low density, open residential and foothills character that is derived from: (a) the topographic and other natural features of the foothills location, and dwellings in a variety of architectural

styles (typically, detached dwellings, medium-to-large in scale, with split-level or multi-storeyed construction);

(b) many dwellings on elevated land and orientated to take advantage of views across the Adelaide Plains; (c) moderate to deep building set-backs from roads, well-vegetated and generally unfenced front gardens; (d) proximity to the natural character of the adjoining Hills Face Zone; (e) a pattern of development, including the division of land, that varies considerably with the topography (the

Policy Area contains some of the steepest land in the Council area), commonly imposing significant constraints on efficient development, access and servicing (to the extent that on some steep sites, a carport may need to be located between a dwelling and the road, subject to siting and design to minimise visual impact); and

(f) a transition in character and dwelling density between steep land near the Hills Face Zone, where allotments are large and irregularly-shaped, and lower slopes, where there are more regular, compact patterns of land division and generally consistent building set-backs and orientation towards roads.

Objective 2: Development designed and sited so that the appearance of the foothills visible from the Adelaide Plains is not impaired.

Principle 1: Development should: (a) conserve and enhance the character of the Policy Area, described in Objective 1, and the significant

vegetation therein; (b) complement the scale, form, siting and positive elements of existing dwellings where a distinctive and

attractive streetscape character exists

Principle 2: In the Hills Face Zone Buffer, development should: (a) if likely to be visible from the Adelaide Plains or significant public vantage points in the foothills:

(i) be carefully sited and designed to reduce visual bulk; and (ii) avoid reflective, light-coloured or bright surfaces; and

(b) ensure that buildings are: (i) located on stable sites, and (ii) sited and designed to minimise the visible extent of earthworks and in a manner which avoids or

minimises disturbance of indigenous vegetation.

Principle 7: Buildings should be set-back not less than eight metres from the boundary of a road, subject to the exceptions from the minimum set-back distance from a road listed in the relevant Council Wide principle of development control under the heading “Residential Development”, except on steep land (generally a site gradient of 1 in 3, or more), where parts of a building (including a carport or garage) may be set-back a lesser distance provided the top of the roof of that building is below the level of the carriageway of the adjacent road.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Due to the low overall height of the proposed dwelling, as it relates to Sunnyside Road, and as it is viewed from Sunnyside Road, the scale of residential character desired by Policy Area provisions is maintained by this application, as the Policy Area actually envisages medium scale development.

21


Whilst the subject land will be visible from the Adelaide Plains, its prominence is insignificant, as those dwellings to the north (at Bagot Street) obscure views of the site.

Local Compatibility PDC 1 Satisfied.

No distinctive architectural style forms a dominant residential theme within this locality. Rather, a variety of dwelling styles, forms and scales, with varying front set-backs to road boundaries can be found within the locality.

Site Areas and Frontages PDC 2–5

Satisfied (existing).

Building Set-backs PDC 6

The closest part of the proposed dwelling to the front boundary is set-back 7.3m and comprises timber or aluminium screens and a carport.

Whilst the proposed set-back falls short of Policy Area 27 guidelines, the front set-back provision does make exemptions for carports or garages which may be located closer to street boundaries on steep land.

Based on the levels provided, and the distance of the carport to the front boundary (7.3m), the subject land is considered to fall steeply (3.5m) from the front boundary to the front of the carport.

In order to achieve the 8m set-back referred to in the Policy Area provisions, the Applicant could include a suspended driveway (similarly to the adjoining dwelling to the east at 87 Sunnyside Road), however, the impact to the streetscape and adjoining neighbours’ views would be negative.

As the proposed carport floor level (and the general upper floor level) is below road level only a small portion of the development will be visible above the Sunnyside Road level. Given this, the proposed 7.3m set-back results in an acceptable built form streetscape character, and simultaneously achieves more desirable vehicle access.

22








Principle 3: Buildings of more than one storey or more than one dwelling should have interesting and varied facades, and avoid featureless walls or monotonous patterns. Buildings should incorporate articulation or other architectural features, as necessary, to reduce bulky appearance and add visual interest.

Principle 10: Development of land shown on Figure R/1 Parts A, B and C should be sympathetic to, and not detract from the natural character of the Hills Face Zone through inappropriate siting, scale, design, landscaping, or external finishes and colours.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 Siting

The position of the dwelling is ideally located, displaying a sufficient set-back to the front boundary, whilst ensuring the dwelling is not located on steeper land or land that is further north, which would be more difficult to access.

Mass and proportion The dwelling has a low overall vertical profile, which offers minimal intrusion into the existing built-form streetscape character. The simplicity in its form and narrow side profiles will ensure it is not visually obtrusive.

Building materials, patterns, textures, colours and decorative elements The external appearance of the dwelling will offer an acceptable impression, with the use of Colorbond sheeting to the walls and roof, and use of aluminium or timber battens to the selected screening.

Ground floor height above natural ground level Due to the very steep nature of the land, the proposed lower level is elevated above the existing ground level at the rear of the building footprint. However, the eastern side elevation wall does not include windows or openings to the part of the wall that is associated with the raised floor level. The location of the window associated with ‘Bed 02’ shares an identical floor level as the existing ground level beneath that window. As such, overlooking from this window is not considered unacceptable.

23


No windows are proposed on the western elevation associated with the lower level floor plan, and a 1.5m high privacy screen is proposed to the western side elevation of the deck. Whilst the 1.5m high screen will not obliterate all views towards the west, it will provide screening above that which can be typically found within the locality, to ensure overlooking is reduced.

Roof form and pitch The proposed development includes an architecturally designed roof pitch, which is low and inoffensive.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6 Satisfied.

The development has been designed to ensure minimal cut and fill is proposed. The areas where fill is proposed is isolated and incidental, and is to ensure safe and convenient vehicle access to the site.

Hills Face Zone Buffer PDC 10 The use of materials such as grey aluminium and timber will ensure the

natural character of the adjoining Hills Face Zone is not negatively impacted by this proposal.

24









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Set-backs PDC 123–125 Side Set-backs

Satisfied.

Rear Set-backs Satisfied.

Building Height PDC 164

Only a very small portion of the dwelling exceeds the Development Plan 9m maximum building height guideline. This area is associated with the rear balcony and external western wall. It is a small area measuring approximately 0.7m² on the western elevation. Due to its location at the rear of the dwelling, and small surface area, the 0.5m height excess is not considered to result in any significant external impacts.

Site Coverage PDC 165 RPA-27 PDC 6

Satisfied.

Private Open Space PDC 166-168

Due to the steep topography of the land, this application includes deck areas, and a balcony area to enable usable private open space to be used in association with the dwelling.


Satisfied.

Access / On-site Car Parking PDC 177–182 Satisfied.

Council’s Senior Engineer has reviewed the proposed access information and driveway details and is satisfied with the proposed arrangement. The proposed driveway will enable vehicles to enter the site via a new driveway that generally follows site contours, enabling a design that reduces garage dominance from Sunnyside Road and improved vehicle safety than previously designed for the site.


Satisfied. Whilst the development includes unobscured windows, as well as unscreened balconies and decks to the rear and eastern side elevations, some level of overlooking onto adjoining land is common

25


throughout the locality and can be witnessed from the public road.

Due to the unfenced nature of the site, and much of the locality, overlooking into adjoining land is already apparent. This application includes screening to some portions of the proposed decks and balcony to ensure overlooking is not direct, yet still enables views across the Adelaide Plains and towards the north.

Access to Sunlight PDC183–186 Satisfied.

Although no shadow diagrams were provided, the large site areas attributed to land within the locality, as well as the deep set-backs to boundaries displayed by the proposed building footprint, will ensure that sunlight access will not be inhibited by the presence of the new dwelling.

Retaining Walls PDC 194 Satisfied.

Retaining walls are proposed as part of this application, and will be located above natural ground level where fill is proposed to enable the construction of the proposed driveway. The tallest retaining walls will be located on the northern side of the driveway and not highly visible from Sunnyside Road. This application will include graded fill on the northern side of the retaining walls such that the retaining walls will be hidden when viewed from the adjoining land to the west.

Water Conservation O 15-16 PDC 33–44, 200–201



26


APPENDIX 3



Street Frontage 28.9m 25m

Site Area 2134.6m2 2000m2


Site Coverage - Buildings only 8% 33% - Buildings and driveways 13% 50%

Total Floor Area 15% 50%


Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 7.3m 8m - side boundary 4m (east), 4.2m (west) 2m-4m - rear boundary 51.5m 4m Upper Level - front boundary 7.3m 8m - side boundary 4m (east), 4m (west) 4m - rear boundary 50m 8m

Boundary Wall - length N/A 8m - height N/A 3m - location N/A N/A

Private Open Space - percentage 40% of TFA 50% of TFA* - dimensions 5m x 10m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 2 2 - width of driveway 4.4m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 16% of frontage 33% of frontage

*Total Floor Area (TFA) is measured from the external faces of the walls of the building or buildings, including balconies, carports and garages.

27


28




Applicant: Artec Building Designers

Location: 54 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including garage, balcony, patio, swimming pool and front fence (masonry)








Referrals – Statutory: N/A

Referrals – Non Statutory: Engineering Services



Recommending Officer: James Moss

REPORT CONTENTS




29



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of a modern two-storey dwelling and associated residential features on an existing residential allotment at 54 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park. The proposed dwelling will feature three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an upstairs living area, downstairs sitting room and open plan living areas. It will also include a double width garage constructed to the north (side) boundary, balcony, a front entry portico, tropical garden, masonry front fence, in-ground swimming pool and rear verandah. The dwelling will be clad in a selected render finish with sandstone feature facades, aluminium framed windows and shale grey roof sheeting.

2. BACKGROUND

There are no previous or current development applications recorded against the subject land that bear relevance to the current proposal (Development Application 180\0215\14). Development Application 180\0215\14 was lodged on 11 March 2014 by Artec Building Designers on behalf of the registered owner of the land, Mr Phillip Murray. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. During the notification period Council received two (2) written submissions from the owners of adjoining land to the north (52 Howard Terrace) and south (56 Howard Terrace), each expressing support for the proposal albeit with some concerns regarding overlooking, overshadowing and loss of visual amenity. The latter of the two parties expressed a desire to address the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) in person, and tendered planning evidence prepared by Peter Hignett to articulate their concerns. Copies of the representations were forwarded to the Applicant, together with a letter from Council which voiced strong concerns about the likely impacts associated with a 4m high wall located on the southern side boundary adjacent the residence at 56 Howard Terrace. The Applicant responded with an amended scheme, dropping the height of the wall from 4m down to 2m, and provided further details as to their intentions towards replacement fencing along the southern boundary. Supporting planning evidence was also provided by Phillip Brunning and Associates to address the concerns of the representors and the overall merits of the amended scheme. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was also referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure. Although no substantial issues or objections were raised through this process, City Development and Safety has been advised that the width of the driveway as proposed is not acceptable in its current form and should be restricted at the front property boundary in accordance with Council standards. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation Policy, the application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations. Should the Panel determine to grant consent to the development, the Applicant will be required to obtain Building Rules Consent prior to Council issuing Development Approval.

30



3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a rectangular allotment of generous proportions on the eastern side of Howard Terrace in the suburb of Hazelwood Park. The land has a single street frontage measuring 18.29m wide and an overall area of 1110m2. Site topography ascends gradually to the rear with a height difference of less than 2m across a distance of 60.96m (approx. 1:30 gradient). The land is currently occupied by a single storey detached bungalow dwelling constructed during the late 1940s and set-back approximately 16m from the front boundary. Vehicle access is gained via a single width driveway crossover at the northwest corner of the allotment, servicing a paved driveway running parallel to the northern side boundary towards a free-standing shed in the rear yard. The land is bound by brush fencing along the extent of the northern side boundary and a portion of the southern side boundary towards the street. The front boundary is occupied by a low cream brick wall with vehicle and pedestrian access. A moderate degree of vegetation can be observed across the site, however, no regulated trees have been identified.

3.2. Locality

The subject land is located within the Residential Zone of the City of Burnside, towards the southern end of Residential Policy Area 15 – First Creek (RPA 15). The surrounding locality comprises those allotments with a direct frontage to Howard Terrace between Greenhill Road and Sidney Place, and is heavily influenced by the presence of Hazelwood Park reserve directly opposite. Allotments are generally rectangular in shape with an area exceeding 1000m2 and a single frontage to the public road. The primary building form is that of single storey detached dwellings constructed in the inter-war and post-war styles and generously set-back from the boundary of the road in a manner that exceeds the current guidelines of the Development Plan. Examples of two-storey dwellings are also evident throughout the locality, albeit fewer in number. Notable architectural features include exposed face-brick facades, hip and gable roof forms clad with terra cotta or cement tiles and low and open front fencing.


Kind: Merit Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 35(5) Applicant Appeal Opportunity: Yes


Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 15 Principle of Development Control 8(a) Representations Received: 52 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park (do not wish to be heard)

56 Howard Terrace, Hazelwood Park (wish to be heard) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

31


Representations received are provided as an attachment to the Panel. Applicant’s response(s) to representations are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

The Development Plan seeks a rational distribution and arrangement of land uses throughout the City of Burnside to avoid incompatibility between activities, and permit efficient use of land within the metropolitan area. This desired pattern of distribution is contained within the Burnside (City) Structure Plan, Map Bur/1 (Overlay 1). The site of development is located within the Residential Zone of the City of Burnside, and has long been used for residential purposes associated with a single storey Bungalow dwelling constructed during the late 1940s. The development seeks to maintain and enhance this existing and lawful use by replacing the existing building with a new contemporary two-storey dwelling of a high design standard, together with common associated residential features. The proposal is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance with the policies of the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

7.2. Character and Amenity

The Development Plan seeks to maintain and enhance a residential character derived particularly from primarily single-storeyed detached dwellings, from the interwar and post-war periods, with a number of scattered two-storeyed dwellings, moderate to deep building set-backs, well-landscaped gardens, and indigenous eucalypt trees. The proposed development is generally compatible with these design considerations while incorporating a contemporary design of high quality. The dwelling respects the form and scale of existing single storey buildings within the streetscape through appropriate siting of the first floor component in a central location and in a manner that accords with front, side and rear set-back guidelines. The design does not reflect key architectural features of the interwar and post-war dwelling styles present throughout the locality, but instead offers a modern design of a high standard. The proposed dwelling will be set-back from the street well in excess of the prescribed guideline for residential development thereby contributing to the open character, does not impact on local indigenous eucalypt trees, nor does it interfere with the natural features of First Creek, its environs, and associated tree cover. Through generous front, side and rear set-backs the development also permits the establishment and long-term health, growth and stability of appropriate landscaping, having regard to the dimensions of the site and the scale of the proposed building.


The development is largely consistent with the relevant quantitative guidelines of the Development Plan. The land retains an excess of private open space far beyond the amount envisaged for properties within the Residential Zone, and comfortably sits within site coverage guidelines for both the building footprint and total floor area.

32


The design is not reliant on extensive earthworks or boundary retaining walls to achieve the proposed site levels, and achieves a similar finished floor level to that of the original 1940s dwelling. The development also provides generous space for on-site car parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors and to avoid on-street parking that would restrict the free flow of traffic (including pedestrian traffic) along Howard Terrace or cause significant nuisance to nearby residents or other users of land.


The development was determined to be Category 2 in accordance with Residential Policy Area 15 Principle of Development Control 11(a) and (b) of the Development Plan. The development was made available for public viewing for a period of ten (10) business days between 26 March 2014 and 08 April 2014. The two main issues to arise out of this process concerned the potential for overlooking from upper level windows towards the north and the extent of shadow cast over the adjoining property to the south. Council is satisfied that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to prevent direct overlooking from the north facing upper level windows through the configuration of the floorplan and by incorporating minimum window sill heights above the Development Plan guideline of 1.6m for those windows closest to sensitive areas. Views from the upper level balcony and living room are not anticipated to compromise the reasonable privacy of occupants of land to the north due to the generous set-back of the neighbouring dwelling and the orientation to take advantage of views over Hazelwood Park reserve. Nevertheless, should the Panel take the contrary view this matter could easily be resolved through appropriate application of a planning condition requiring obscured glazing to a height of 1.6m on all north facing upper level windows. Council is also satisfied that the applicant has responded to the concerns of the neighbour to the south with regard to the extent of shadow cast over the north facing windows of the dwelling at 56 Howard Terrace. The decision to reduce the height of the ‘tropical garden’ boundary wall from 4m to 2m will alleviate much of the overshadowing impact, as well as improve the visual outlook form primary living areas in the neighbouring dwelling. Despite the extent of shadow indicated by the diagrams provided it is important to remember that this is a worst-case scenario and not an indication of the degree of sunlight available year round. Council is therefore satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development and the changes detailed through the applicant’s response, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.

7.5. Agency Referrals

No external referrals were required under Section 37 of the Development Act 1993, however input was sought from Council’s Senior Engineer with regard to matters of traffic, manoeuvrability and stormwater management. Planning staff have since been advised that the driveway should be limited to a width of no more than 4.5m at the property boundary. Such advice will be incorporated as a condition of approval should the Panel see fit to approve the development.

33


7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0215\14, by Artec Building Designers, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 The driveway depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be tapered to a maximum width of 4.5m at the property boundary. Reason: To ensure minimal impacts to Council verge.


James Moss Development Officer – Planning

34


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


35


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of a low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) primarily single-storeyed detached dwellings, from the interwar and post-war periods, near First Creek and

surrounding the Hazelwood Park reserve, with concentrations of single-storeyed medium-density dwellings in Tusmore Avenue and a number of scattered two-storeyed dwellings; and

(b) grassed verges, moderate to deep building set-backs, well-landscaped gardens, and indigenous eucalypt trees.

Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) on land with frontage to Greenhill Road; and (b) adjacent to the Local Business Zone and the Local Centre Zone.

Objective 2: Protection and enhancement of the natural features of First Creek, its environs, and associated tree cover.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1, 2 The proposal is residential in nature.

The proposal replaces one dwelling with another and therefore maintains the existing density of the locality.

While not a single storey building, the scattered presence of two-storey dwellings is a recognised feature in the policy area description.

The proposed dwelling respects the form and scale of existing single storey buildings within the streetscape through appropriate siting of the first floor component in a central location and in a manner that accords with front, side and rear set-back guidelines.

The building design incorporates an appropriate degree of articulation to break up the visual massing of the two-storey form, as well as a diverse range of external building materials to provide visual interest across the façade.

The proposed design does not reflect key architectural features of the interwar and post-war dwelling styles present throughout the locality, but instead offers a modern design of a high standard.

The proposed dwelling will be set back from the street well in excess of the prescribed guideline for residential development, thereby contributing to the open character.

The development does not impact on local indigenous eucalypt trees, nor does it interfere with the natural features of First Creek, its environs, and associated tree cover.

Local Compatibility PDC 1

With the exception of the modern architectural style of the replacement dwelling, the development is considered to appropriately conserve and enhance the overall character promoted by Objectives 1 and 2.


The subject land is an existing residential allotment of sufficient width and area to accommodate a detached dwelling.

Building Set-backs PDC 6 Satisfied.

36










Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 As noted by the applicant’s Planning Consultant, the development

has been designed and sited to retain a mature non-regulated tree located within the front yard of the subject land.

The development easily achieves Development Plan guidelines with respect to the proportion of built form to occupy the land.

Through generous front, side and rear set-backs the development permits the establishment and long-term health, growth and stability of appropriate landscaping having regard to the dimensions of the site and the scale of the proposed building.

The development avoids highly reflective surfaces likely to cause unreasonable nuisance to residents in the locality.

The development is largely consistent with primary objectives of the policy area having regard to siting, mass and proportions, ground floor height, façade articulation and scope for landscaping, yet falls short in its relation to existing roof forms by virtue of the modern design appearance.

The building design incorporates an appropriate degree of articulation to break up the visual massing of the two-storey form.

37









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 50–54 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

Side Set-backs

The proposal exceeds the ground floor building set-back guideline on the northern side.

On the southern side, the proposal falls 200mm short of the ground floor building set-back guideline, however this is viewed as a relatively minor departure in quantitative terms, and is not anticipated to impact the adjoining property to any unreasonable degree.

The first floor conforms to the 4m guideline distance for both north and south side boundaries.

The proposal features a double garage constructed along the northern side boundary for a distance of 7.4m. The external wall of the garage will measure 4m in height and therefore exceeds the 3m guideline prescribed by PDC 162(d)(iv).

The garage wall coincides with the neighbour’s driveway and carport, which are viewed as less sensitive areas, while impacts to the streetscape are off-set by the substantial set-back of garage from the front boundary (approx. 20m).

Rear Set-backs

Satisfied. Building Height PDC 164 Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165 Satisfied.

Private Open Space / Landscaping PDC 166-169

Satisfied.

38



The dwelling has been designed to a high standard in respect of its overall appearance and functionality.

Although two-storey in nature, the maximum height of the proposed building will sit comfortably within the Council Wide guideline of 9m.

The upper level has been set in from each side boundary at a distance that meets the guideline distance and is expected to assist in minimising overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties.

The appropriate use of building set-backs on all sides of the proposed building also enables an opportunity for future landscaping.


The development features sufficient space for the parking of as many as 8 vehicles on the land, well in excess of the minimum off-street parking guideline.

The proposed access location has been deemed suitable in this case, however Council’s Engineering Services Department has requested that the driveway width be restricted to no more than 4.5m at the front boundary to minimise impacts to street infrastructure.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176 All upper level windows on the southern side of the building will have

sill heights above the minimum 1.6m height guideline. There will be no overlooking to the east due to the absence of east

facing upper level windows. All north facing windows will either contain sill heights above the

minimum 1.6m height guideline or will overlook the front yard of the adjoining land and not an area of private open space.

Access to Sunlight PDC183–186 While some degree of overshadowing may be expected with the

orientation of allotments fronting Howard Terrace, the design and siting of the dwelling reflects an apparent effort to avoid excessive overshadowing through a 4m upper level set-back and low profile roof structure.

The applicant has also attempted to address the neighbour’s concerns by reducing the height of a 4m external boundary wall down to 2m, which is lower than standard fencing heights for residential areas.

Fences / Retaining Walls PDC 190–194 The design is not reliant on extensive earthworks or large-scale

boundary retaining walls to achieve the proposed site levels. The applicant intends to replace existing fencing along the southern

side boundary forward of the proposed building line with Colorbond fencing of a height ranging from 1m to 1.2m.

The southern wall of the ‘tropical garden’ has been reduced to 2m. Safety / Security PDC 195–198 Satisfied.

Environmental / Water Conservation O 11–14 PDC 14–21, 160–161



39


APPENDIX 3




Site Area 1110m2 625m2


Site Coverage - Buildings only 22.9% 40% - Buildings and driveways 32.9% 50%

Total Floor Area 32.8% 50%


Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 10m 6m - side boundary 2.9m (north), 1.8m (south) 2m - rear boundary 25m 4m Upper Level - front boundary 11m 6m - side boundary 6.1m north), 4m (south) 4m - rear boundary 31.2m 8m

Boundary Wall - length 7.4m 8m - height 4m 3m - location Northern side boundary N/A

Private Open Space - percentage 125% of TFA 50% of TFA* - dimensions 18.29m x 25m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 8 2 - width of driveway 5.5m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door % of frontage 33% of frontage


40




Applicant: Technical Officer Arboriculture - City Of Burnside

Location: Council Road Reserve – adjacent 3 Philip Avenue, Leabrook

Proposal: Retrospective tree damaging activity (Section 54a) and removal of the remaining significant tree

Eucalyptus Camaldulensis (River Red Gum)

Zone/Policy Area: Watercourse Zone




Four (4) representations received



Referrals – Non Statutory: Tree Management Officer / Arborist Consultant

Delegations Policy: Unresolved representations / Delegations

Recommendation: Development Approval be granted

Recommending Officer: Troy Fountain

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report: - Appendix 1 – Aerial Locality Map - Appendix 2 – Detailed Planning Assessment


Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Internal agency referral reports Representations received Council minutes 11 March 2014 – Item No. 14.5 (relevant pages only) Photographs

41



The Applicant seeks Development Approval for the following: Retrospective tree damaging activity (Section 54a) and removal of one significant tree

located in the Council road reserve on Philip Avenue, Leabrook.

2. BACKGROUND

The application for retrospective tree damaging activity and tree removal was lodged with Council on 19 March 2014. On 04 February 2014 major storm activity, primarily strong easterly winds (maximum gusts c. 100-100 km/h) in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, caused extensive damage to trees including structural failure and whole tree failure. On 13 February 2014 Dean Nicolle was engaged on behalf of the owner of 3 Philip Avenue to inspect the tree following the weather event of 04 February 2014. Dean Nicolle visually assessed the tree and confirmed that there had been recent movement of the tree at ground level, which would suggest a major structural issue in the root plate. Throughout the 15th and 16th of February 2014, emergency reduction of the tree was undertaken by Council contractors to stabilise the tree in the short-term. Approximately 70% of the total tree crown was removed. This pruning was undertaken under Section 54a of the Development Act 1993. Council has engaged both Colin Thornton and Sam Cassar to provide comment on the proposed significant tree removal. This assessment is based on the reports of Dean Nicolle (engaged by the owners of 3 Philip Avenue), Colin Thornton (engaged by Council’s arboricultural expert David Sheldrick) and Sam Cassar (engaged by Councils planning staff).


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a Council road reserve located on the western side of Philip Avenue, in the suburb of Leabrook. The site is a continuous strip of land, extending as far north as Statenborough Street and Rochester Street south, which serves as a buffer between the local road and privately-owned residential properties with frontage to Philip Avenue.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises both sides of Philip Avenue between Statenborough Street and Rochester Street, within the Watercourse Zone. The locality is characterised by its generously landscaped verge with large native trees and varied housing stock. The area exhibits a high standard of amenity.




Category: Category 2

42


Reason: Part 2, Schedule 9 – clause 25, Development Regulations (2008)

Cut / Fill: N/A Representations Received: 33 Statenborough Street, Leabrook (wish to be heard)

3 Philip Avenue, Leabrook (wish to be heard) 6 Philip Avenue, Leabrook (do not wish to be heard) 25 Rochester Street, Leabrook (wish to be heard)



6. AGENCY REFERRALS

Independent referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.


7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for tree removal in the Watercourse Zone; Regulated tree removal is not listed as non-complying development in the Zone

provisions of the Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development satisfies Council Wide

Principle of Development Control 90, then consent could reasonably be expected.

The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

7.2. Trees and other vegetation

The subject tree has been identified as a Eucalyptus Camaldulensis (River Red Gum). Given its location on the Council road reserve, and proximity to the public road, the tree is previously considered to have a prominent position within the immediate locality. The current amenity of the tree has been reduced due to the pruning of 70% to the total canopy. Whilst the tree is located in a conspicuous location, with an approximate height of 24m, the significance of its contribution is somewhat reduced due to a large portion of its canopy no longer being present. This is due to the heavy pruning schedule which was undertaken by Council as a result of severe storm activity on 04 February 2014. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 90 outlines circumstances where removal of significant trees is acceptable. Council’s independent arborist has assessed the removal of the subject tree against these provisions and notes that the tree achieves the criteria for removal. Council’s independent arborist considers that the tree represents a low risk to the members of the public, as the entire canopy has been removed with only the main branching framework remaining. Prior to the pruning, which was undertaken by Council, the tree had suffered a major destabilisation of its root plate and was considered to be in a state of collapse, with a high potential for whole tree failure. As a result of this assessment the tree was considered to have a short life expectancy prior to pruning.

43


In addition to the above, the tree is currently considered to be a low risk to the public or private safety. However, when the crown of the tree is re-established through epicormic regrowth, the risk will again increase to be high and unacceptable. The tree has a natural lean to the north-west (towards the nearest residential dwelling), which will always represent a threat to cause substantial damage to substantial structures of value. In this instance there are considered to be no alterative long-term risk reduction methods other than tree removal. The pruning undertaken is considered to have reduced the tree to a framework of branches. The tree is considered to have a highly compromised root plate which is deemed to be prone to sudden failure. No other treatment is available to the tree, with removal the only option. The proposed significant tree removal satisfies Council Wide Principle of Development Control 90 referred to above, and as such development approval is warranted. Section 42(4) the Development Act (1993) requires Council to impose a replanting condition to replace regulated trees that have been approved for removal. Accordingly a condition has been included requiring the replanting of three (3) trees. The remaining portion of the tree is to be removed if the application is granted Development Approval. The Development Regulations (2008) specify that the replacement trees cannot be an exempt species (specified under regulation 6A (5)(b)) and cannot be located within 10m of an existing dwelling or an existing in-ground swimming pool. Thus the replacement trees specific to this application would have to be planted throughout the remainder of the Council area, as existing dwellings are located within 10m of the Council Road Reserve. This, however, does not preclude Council planting trees within the verge area as per the current Tree Management Strategy. Council’s internal arboricultural consultant will replace the significant tree in accordance with Council policy, in particular the Tree Management Strategy. There is an opportunity for replacement plantings along Philip Avenue, being Jacaranda species as per David Sheldrick’s reports to Council at its meeting in November 2013..

7.3. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0265\14, by Technical Officer Arboriculture - City of Burnside, is granted Development Approval subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Approval shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below.

44


Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 Three (3) replacement trees must be planted on-site within three (3) months of removal of the significant tree, and thereafter maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. The replacement trees must not be a species listed in Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the Development Regulations 2008 and must not be planted within 10m of any existing dwelling or existing in-ground swimming pool (regardless of whether the dwelling or pool is within the site or on adjacent properties).

Advisory Notes

1 If you do not wish to plant one or more replacement trees, you may instead, within 28 days from the date of Development Approval pay a contribution of $240 at $80 per tree to the Council’s Urban Trees Fund. If payment is received within 28 days from the date of Development Approval, then replacement trees need not be planted. If payment is not received within this timeframe, this will be taken as confirmation that you accept that you are legally obligated to plant and maintain replacement trees as specified above. Reason: To satisfy Section 42(4) of the Development Act 1993.


Troy Fountain Development Officer – Planning

45


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject tree location


46


APPENDIX 2


Summary of Objectives and Principles

Primary Objectives:

Objective 24:

The retention and protection of remnant indigenous vegetation.

Objective 27: The conservation of significant trees (including significant trees identified in Table Bur/4 and as shown on Figures Bur(ST)/1 to 8 inclusive) in Metropolitan Adelaide which provide important aesthetic and environmental benefits.

Objective 28: Development sited and undertaken to retain and protect a significant tree or group of significant trees.

Primary Principles:

Principle of Development Control 84: Where a significant tree: (a) makes an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area; or (b) is indigenous to the local area and its species is listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a rare or

endangered native species; or (c) represents an important habitat for native fauna; or (d) is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation; or (e) is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment; or (f) forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area; development should preserve these

attributes.

Principle of Development Control 85: In addition to those significant trees defined by the Development Regulations 2008, those indigenous and exotic trees individually identified in Table Bur/4 and as shown on the Significant Trees Figures Bur(ST)/1 to 8 inclusive are also declared to be significant trees. This designation extends to all parts of the root system, trunk, canopy and other parts of each tree, including those parts which have grown since the initial designation of the trees as significant.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Preservation of Significant Trees O 24-28 PDC 85

The tree prior to urgent pruning made a significant contribution to the character of the immediate locality. Since pruning, 70% of the canopy has been removed, with only branches remaining.

Criteria for Removal PDC 84 Three independent qualified arborists have assessed the health and

structural integrity of the tree and have concluded that is represents a material risk to public safety. Council’s Arborist has also assessed the health and structural integrity of the tree and has determined that it represents a material risk to public safety.

Due to the condition of the tree, its life expectancy is short, and it is considered to be a material risk to members of the public who use the adjacent footpath, road and neighbouring dwelling. Prior to the pruning which was undertaken by Council, the tree had suffered a major destabilisation of its root plate and was considered to be in a state of collapse, with a high potential for whole tree failure. Complete tree removal is considered the only viable option to mitigate any threat to safety in the future.

47


48




Applicant: Eastern Building Group Pty Ltd

Location: 10 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Single storey detached dwelling including garage, alfresco and portico









Referrals – Non Statutory: Engineering Services / Tree Management Officer



Recommending Officer: James Moss

REPORT CONTENTS




49



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of a single storey detached dwelling on an existing residential allotment at 10 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park. The proposed residence will feature three bedrooms, two bathrooms, lounge, study and open plan living areas. It will also include a double width garage constructed along the northwest side boundary, a front entry portico and rear verandah. The dwelling will be clad in a selected render finish with aluminium framed windows, a hip roof comprised of Colorbond sheeting pitched at 25 degrees and a panel lift garage door.

2. BACKGROUND

No previous development applications have been recorded against the subject land. Development Application 180\0327\14 was lodged on 04 April 2014 by Eastern Building Group Pty Ltd on behalf of the land owner, Mr Sam Calabrese. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. During the notification period Council received two (2) written submissions, both from residents of the adjoining property to the northwest (1/6 Linden Avenue) expressing opposition to the development and a desire to address the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) in person. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was also referred to the Senior Engineer and Tree Management Officer to assess the impact of development on Council infrastructure. The application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations that have indicated a desire to address the Panel. Should the Panel determine to grant consent to the development, the Applicant will still need to acquire Building Rules Consent prior to Development Approval being granted.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a moderate sized rectangular allotment on the southwest side of Linden Avenue, in the suburb of Hazelwood Park. The land has an approximate area of 673 square metres, a frontage width of 15.2m and a depth of 44.2m. The topography is relatively flat with a modest rise from northwest to southeast of approximately 0.4m. The land is currently occupied by a single storey 1950s detached dwelling constructed in the Conventional style, with a hip roof clad in terra cotta tiles, wooden window frames and exposed brick façade. An open-sided flat roof carport has been added along the northwest side of the building, and a brick garage sits within the rear corner of the backyard.

3.2. Locality

The subject land is located within the Residential Zone of the City of Burnside, more specifically towards the northwest corner of Policy Area 22 – Beaumont Common. The locality is comprised of residential properties fronting both sides of Linden Avenue between Devereux Road and Kirkdale Avenue.

50


The locality is characterised by a predominance of residential development, constructed in the interwar and post-war styles and moderately set back from the street. Fencing is generally low and open and the streetscape is enhanced by well vegetated front gardens, grassed verges and mature street trees.


Kind: Merit Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 35(5) Applicant Appeal Opportunity: Yes


Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(b) Representations Received: 1/6 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park (wish to be heard)

1/6 Linden Avenue, Hazelwood Park (wish to be heard) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No


Applicant’s response(s) to representations are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

The proposed development takes place on an existing residential allotment within the Residential Zone. The development will maintain the existing lawful use of the land and will maintain the current density of the locality. If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

7.2. Character and Amenity

The proposed development is consistent with the desired low scale, low density residential character prescribed by RPA 22 Objective 1. The dwelling is single storey and modest in form and appearance. The overall style is highly compatible with existing dwellings of the post-war period and the relationship to the front boundary contributes to the desired open character of the streetscape. With the exception of the garage, the building will be sited away from all side and rear boundaries in a manner that achieves the desired set-back outcomes envisaged for the Residential Zone. The garage component accords with Development Plan guidelines for boundary development associated with dwellings and will align with the neighbour’s driveway and carport, thus maintaining an appropriate separation between the habitable rooms of either residence.

51


In addition to providing adequate space for landscaping along each side of the building, the development offers generous private open space to the rear that meets the expectations of the Development Plan. Council is also satisfied that the proposed 8m rear set-back is unlikely to adversely affect the health of a large tree located on the adjoining property.


The development constitutes a minor departure from site coverage guidelines but still manages to achieve appropriate set-backs and private open space areas to the side and rear. No additional stormwater management measures have been identified as critical by Council’s Engineering Services Department, however an additional 1000 litre tank would be desirable. Such advice will be conveyed through an advisory note should the Panel see fit to grant consent. The development also satisfies off-street parking guidelines.


The development was determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(b) of the Development Plan, on account of the siting of the garage along the northwest side boundary of the land. During the notification period Council received two (2) written submissions from the owners of the adjoining property to the northwest (1/6 Linden Avenue), indicating opposition to the proposal. Both submissions objected to the location of the garage on the common boundary, cited previous damage to fencing structures and plumbing caused by existing vegetation, and objected to the removal of other vegetation from the land. Council is satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993. The garage satisfies the relevant guidelines for boundary development and will be sited so as to abut the neighbour’s carport which is also constructed along the common boundary. Impacts associated with this aspect of the development are reasonable and anticipated by the Development Plan. The remaining matters fall within a civil jurisdiction and should be addressed outside of the development assessment process. The removal of existing non-regulated vegetation from the site does not require development authorisation.


The existing access has been deemed as sufficient to facilitate safe and convenient vehicular access to the site, however, any modifications that seek to widen the existing crossover on the verge will not be supported on account of a large adjacent street tree on the Council verge. Should the Panel see fit to grant Development Plan Consent, this will in no way authorise any modification to the existing crossover. A condition has been imposed to ensure the driveway is restricted to a standard width of 4.5m at the front property boundary as per the directives of Council’s Engineering Services Department.

52


7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0327\14, by Eastern Building Group Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 The driveway depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be tapered to a maximum width of 4.5m at the property boundary. Reason: To ensure minimal impacts to Council verge.


James Moss Development Officer – Planning

53


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


54


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) one-storeyed, detached dwellings, predominantly from the post-war period, in a variety of styles, with more

recently built dwellings, of one or two storeys, on rising ground towards the south-eastern corner; (b) streetscapes enhanced by open, well-established, front gardens, grassed verges, and views of public open

space; (c) the existence of Beaumont Common and stands of indigenous trees throughout much of the eastern part of

the Policy Area.

Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are to be found: (a) on Beaumont Common, a large open space significant as a landscape feature and for its remnant

indigenous vegetation; (b) on the site of Beaumont House, State heritage place; and (c) on land with frontage to Greenhill Road.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 The development is residential in nature.

The development replaces one existing dwelling with another and therefore maintains the existing density of the locality.

The dwelling is single storey in form and exhibits key architectural features of nearby dwellings constructed during the post-war period.

The moderate front set-back provides sufficient scope for the establishment of an open, well vegetated front yard.



The subject land is an existing residential allotment of sufficient width and area to accommodate a detached dwelling.

Building Set-backs PDC 7

Not applicable.

55









Objective 6: A zone accommodating non-residential activities which are small in scale, benign in external impact, and serve the needs of the local community.

Objective 7: Reduction of the impact of established non-residential uses on the amenity of residential areas.


Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 Satisfied.

56









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 50–54 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.


The subject land has no frontage to Beaumont Common and does not require an 8m set-back.

The entry portico will protrude forward of the 6m set-back distance envisaged for dwellings within the Residential Zone.

This is considered to be a minor and acceptable departure from the guideline given that the main building line will have a minimum set-back of 6.4m and the garage will be sited further still at a distance of 7m.

Side Set-backs The dwelling exceeds the prescribed set-back guideline in relation to

the northwest side boundary. The set-back to the southeast is largely compatible with the guideline

and is considered acceptable due to the modest external form of the building and the absence of anticipated impacts external to the site.



Site Coverage PDC 165 The building footprint slightly exceeds the 40% guideline (45.9%).

The extent of the departure is modest and acceptable given the achievement of adequate building set-backs from all property boundaries and ample private open space provisions to the side and rear.

Private Open Space / Landscaping PDC 166, 167

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

57



Satisfied.

Privacy PDC 23, 134–136 Satisfied.

Access to Sunlight PDC183–186 Satisfied.

Fences / Retaining Walls PDC 190–194 Satisfied.

Safety / Security PDC 195–198 Satisfied.

Environmental / Water Conservation O 15–18 PDC 200–201



58


APPENDIX 3




Site Area 673.5m2 550m2


Site Coverage - Buildings only 45.9% 40% - Buildings and driveways 48% 50%

Building Height - storeys 1 storey 2 storeys - metres 5.6m 9m

Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 5m 6m - side boundary 3m (northwest), 1.5m

(southeast) 2m

- rear boundary 8m 4m Boundary Wall

- length 7.6m 8m - height 2.7m 3m - location Northwest side boundary N/A

Private Open Space - percentage 68% of TFA 50% of TFA* - dimensions 8m x 15.2m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 3 2 - width of driveway 4.8m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 34.2% of frontage 33% of frontage


59


60




Applicant: Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd

Location: 3 Birkdale Crescent, Mount Osmond

Proposal: Non-complying – alterations and additions to existing dwelling including deck

Zone/Policy Area: Hills Face Zone


Kind of Assessment: Non-complying


Appeal Opportunity None

Referrals – Statutory: Country Fire Service

Referrals – Non Statutory: Senior Council Engineer

Delegations Policy: Non-complying development

Recommendation: Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Plan Consent be granted

Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents External agency referral reports Internal agency referral reports Photographs Delegated report to proceed to full assessment

61



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Conversion of existing portico into lobby; Replacement of existing timber deck into tiled deck including new timber access stairs; New roof over replacement deck; Addition of bedroom and en-suite towards rear of dwelling; Tiled deck above proposed extension; and New roof over proposed deck.

2. BACKGROUND

The subject development application was lodged with Council on 04 March 2014. As the application includes a floor level directly above another floor level, where the upper floor level is not located at or below finished ground level, the application is considered non-complying development pursuant Hills Face Zone provisions. Because of the scale of the proposed alteration and additions, it has been determined that the proposal is of a minor nature only. As the application is in accordance with Schedule 9, Part 1, 3(a) of the Development Regulations 2008, the application has been determined to be a Category 1 type of Development. The Council delegate made the decision to proceed to assessment of the application. In accordance with Regulation 17(6) of the Development Regulations 2008 it was also decided that a Statement of Effect was not required for the application as the application was considered minor in nature. As the application is for a non-complying development, it is presented to the Development Assessment Panel for a decision.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a large irregularly shaped allotment located on the south-eastern side of Birkdale Crescent, Mount Osmond and is located within the Hills Face Zone. The land has an overall area of approximately 2280m2 and a frontage to Birkdale Crescent measuring 20.14m. The topography of the allotment has a significant slope downwards from northwest to southeast. The southern corner of the subject land is subject to an easement to the Minister for Infrastructure. This proposal is not within the vicinity of this easement. The existing dwelling on the site is a two-storey detached dwelling of contemporary style, built in 1971.

3.2. Locality

The locality is characterised by large allotments with low density residential development. Dwellings in the locality are generally built in a sympathetic manner and adhere to the sloping landscape of the area. Dense native vegetation also forms part of the character of this locality within the Hills Face Zone. Many dwellings within the locality include large unobscured balconies in order to take advantage of views of both the Adelaide Plains and the Adelaide Hills.

62



Kind: Non-complying Reason: Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 27 Applicant Appeal Opportunity: No


Category: Category 1 Reason: Clause 3(b) Part 1 Schedule 9 the Development Regulations

(2008) Cut / Fill: N/A Representations Received: N/A

6. AGENCY REFERRALS

External agency referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposed development will be used in association with the existing and

established residential use of the subject land; The development involves relatively minor additions to an existing detached

dwelling; The development will have no tangible impact on the natural character of the zone; The proposed works will not have a significant impact upon the streetscape

character of Birkdale Crescent; The development will not affect existing native vegetation and fauna habitats; and The design of the proposed additions will not alter the appearance of the land when

viewed from the Adelaide Plains.


7.2. Character

The proposed decking is consistent with recent dwelling additions within the locality to take advantage of the natural views of the locality. The replacement of the existing deck may be visible from outside of the subject land, however, as this area is some 30m from Birkdale Crescent its visual presence is considered benign. The proposed additions maintain the natural and open low density character of the locality. All works meet the set-back guidelines for residential development contained within the Development Plan. The proposed additions will result in the subject dwelling maintaining a central location on the allotment thus achieving suitable separation between built form on adjoining properties. The proposed roof forms, above both the decked area towards the rear of the dwelling and the replacement deck, have a form and pitch suited to the style of the dwelling.

63


Additionally the submitted plans have indicated that the external walls of the proposed additions are to be rendered to match the existing dwelling. The proposed additions do not add a significant degree of bulk to the built form of the dwelling. Although the addition to the rear of the dwelling does include one floor level above another, the proposed deck is an open structure which maintains a lighter visual presence than the adjoining two-storey section of the dwelling. The proposed development will not be built in a manner considered to be visually obtrusive or detrimental to the existing character of the immediate locality.

7.3. Amenity

The proposed addition to the rear of the dwelling is located greater than 5.7m from the southern boundary of the site. This is a greater set-back than the two-storey section of the existing dwelling. As such, patterns of space between dwellings within this locality are maintained. As the adjoining dwelling to the south is set at a much lower bench level, the remaining sight lines are tight. It is therefore not expected to impact on the amenity of adjoining residents in terms of visual dominance or overshadowing. The proposed decking area towards the rear of the dwelling will create a suitable area of private open space on a site where much of the land has a significant slope. Although this area is open, it is not expected that the proposed development will exacerbate any privacy issues. The proposed decking area is in excess of 30m from the property to the north and situated at a lower level, whilst the allotment towards the rear of the subject land is heavily vegetated and does not currently accommodate a dwelling. As mentioned previously, number 4 Birkdale Crescent is set at a lower bench level, and as such any views of this property are limited to roof tops. Additionally the applicant has proposed a privacy screen to 1600mm in height along the south western elevation of the proposed deck, in order to ensure no overlooking occurs.


Little to no excavation or filling of the land is required to facilitate the development. Therefore, there will be no significant change in the natural form of the land. The proposed development has no impact on the design and location of existing access arrangements, street trees or on-site car parking provisions. The proposed development will have no impact on the easement on site, underground or surface water resources or unnecessary loss or damage to native vegetation. Furthermore, no subsequent impacts associated with erosion, dust, noise nuisance, introduction of pest plants or vermin will be generated by the development.

7.5. Agency/Internal Referrals

As the proposed development is located within a high bushfire risk area, the application was referred to the South Australian Country Fire Service (CFS). The CFS has no objections to the development, provided a number of bushfire protection and prevention measures are incorporated as conditions of consent. The applicant has already indicated the location of three existing rainwater tanks along the south western boundary of the site. Additionally Council’s Senior Engineer has reviewed the proposal. Their recommendation is that any additional stormwater attributed to the proposed alterations and additions are managed within the development site.

64


7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\0192\14, by Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Plan Consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 The Ministers [Bushfire] Code Part 2.3.3.1 describes the mandatory provision for ‘Private’ roads and driveways to buildings, where the furthest point to the building from the nearest public road is more than 30 metres, shall provide safe and convenient access/egress for large bushfire fighting vehicles. The Ministers [Bushfire] Code Part 2.3.4.1 requires a dedicated and accessible water supply to be made available at all times for fire-fighting. Ministers Specification SA 78 describes the mandatory provision for access to the dedicated water for fire-fighting vehicles where the path of travel from the entrance to the property to the water storage facility is more than 30m in length, by an all-weather roadway: The driveway shall be constructed to be capable of supporting fire-fighting vehicles

with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) of 21 tonnes, AND Provision shall be made adjacent to the water supply for a hardstand area (capable

of supporting fire-fighting vehicles) that is a distance equal to or less than 6m from the water supply outlet.

CFS notes the dedicated fire-fighting water supply is located more than 30m from the public road - hence CFS access to the water supply does not comply with the above.

Reason: To ensure requirements of the CFS are upheld.

65


3 Landscaping shall include bushfire protection features that will prevent or inhibit the spread of bushfire and minimise the risk of life and/or damage to buildings and property as follows: The existing garden shall be maintained to be free of accumulated dead vegetation

during the fire danger season. Grasses within 20m of the dwelling or to the property boundaries, whichever comes

first, shall be reduced to a height of 10cms during the Fire Danger Season. Reason: To ensure requirements of the CFS are upheld.

4 The Ministers [Bushfire] Code Part 2.3.4.1 requires a dedicated and accessible water supply to be made available at all times for fire-fighting. Ministers Specification SA78 prescribes the dedicated water supply for bushfire fighting for the bushfire zone. The dedicated bushfire fighting water supply shall also incorporate the installation of a pumping system, pipe-work and fire-fighting hose(s) in accordance with Minister’s Specification SA78: A minimum supply of 22000 litres of water shall be available at all times for bushfire

fighting purposes. The dedicated fire-fighting water supply shall be clearly identified and shall be

accessible to fire-fighting vehicles at all times. The water storage facility (and any support structure) shall be constructed of non-

combustible material. The dedicated fire-fighting water supply shall be pressurised by a pump that has -

o A minimum inlet diameter of 38mm, AND o Is powered by a petrol or diesel engine with a power rating of at least 3.7kW

(5hp), OR o A pumping system that operates independently of mains electricity and is

capable of pressurising the water for fire-fighting purposes. The dedicated fire-fighting water supply pump shall be located at or adjacent to the

dwelling to ensure occupants safety when operating the pump during a bushfire. An ‘Operations Instruction Procedure’ shall be located with the pump control panel.

The fire-fighting pump and any flexible connections to the water supply shall be protected by a non-combustible cover that allows adequate air ventilation for efficient pump operation.

All bushfire fighting water pipes and connections between the water storage facility and a pump shall be no smaller in diameter than the diameter of the pump inlet.

All non-metal water supply pipes for bushfire fighting purposes (other than flexible connections and hoses for fire-fighting) shall be buried below ground to a minimum depth of 300mm with no non-metal parts above ground level.

A fire-fighting hose (or hoses) shall be located so that all parts of the building are within reach of the nozzle end of the hose and if more than one hose is required they should be positioned to provide maximum coverage of the building and surrounds (ie. at opposite ends of the dwelling).

All fire-fighting hoses shall be capable of withstanding the pressures of the supplied water.

All fire-fighting hoses shall be of reinforced construction manufactured in accordance with AS 2620 or AS 1221.

All fire-fighting hoses shall have a minimum nominal internal diameter of 18mm and a maximum length of 36m.

All fire-fighting hoses shall have an adjustable metal nozzle, or an adjustable PVC nozzle manufactured in accordance with AS 1221.

66


All fire-fighting hoses shall be readily available at all times. CFS acknowledges the notation regarding the dedicated fire-fighting water supply

and petrol driven fire-fighting pump as shown on the development plan - noted as “Domain Building Group; Client Mr Shimmield; Project No 140113; Site Plan - DBG140113-P1; dated 27/02/14”

Reason: To ensure requirements of the CFS are upheld.

5 Refer to the Building Code of Australia Part 3.7 “FIRE SAFETY” for construction requirements and performance provisions. Compliance with the fire protection requirements is not a guarantee the dwelling will not burn, but its intent is to provide a ‘measure of protection’ from the approach, impact and passing of a bushfire. Should there be any need for further information please contact Trevor Finney at the SA CFS Development Assessment Service on (08) 8391 6077. Reason: To ensure requirements of the CFS are upheld.

Engineering Requirements

Any additional stormwater generation due to proposed additions/alterations is to be managed within the development.


James Booker Development Officer – Planning

67


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

68


APPENDIX 2


Summary of Hills Face Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Hills Face Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone in which the natural character is preserved and enhanced or in which a natural character is re-established in order to: (a) provide a natural backdrop to the Adelaide Plains and a contrast to the urban area; (b) preserve and develop native vegetation and fauna habitats close to metropolitan Adelaide; (c) provide for passive recreation in an area of natural character close to the metropolitan area; (d) provide a part of the buffer area between metropolitan districts and prevent the urban area extending into

the western slopes of the ranges; and (e) ensure that the community is not required to bear the cost of providing services to land within the zone.

Objective 2: A zone accommodating low-intensity agricultural activities and public/private open space and one where structures are located and designed in such a way as to: (a) preserve and enhance the natural character or assist in the re-establishment of a natural character in the

zone; (b) limit the visual intrusion of development in the zone, particularly when viewed from roads within the zone or

from the Adelaide Plains; (c) not create, either in themselves, or in association with other developments, a potential demand for the

provision of services at a cost to the community; and (d) prevent the loss of life and property resulting from bushfires.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the

above principles, as it facilitates the continued private residential use of the subject land. In addition, the proposal does not require any additional services at a cost to the community.

The subject land can comfortably accommodate the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on site. As the subject land is located on the southern side of Birkdale Crescent it will not be visible from the Adelaide plains.

The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be in accordance with the above principles relating to appropriate types of development within the Hills Face Zone.

Design for Topography PDC 2 Little to no excavation or filling of the land is required to facilitate the

development. Therefore there will be no change in the natural form of the land.

Operation and Management PDC 3

The proposed development is not expected to impact on underground or surface water resources or unnecessary loss or damage to native vegetation.

Furthermore, no subsequent impacts associated with erosion, dust, noise nuisance, introduction of pest plants or vermin will be generated by the development.

Bushfire protection and prevention measures to be incorporated as conditions of consent will assist in reducing the bushfire hazard to the locality, and ensure the appropriate management of bushfire hazards on the subject land over time.

69


Building Design and Location PDC 7–9

The proposed development will not be built in a manner considered to be visually obtrusive or detrimental to the existing character of the locality.

The proposed development is also considered to be in accordance with Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 8 with regard to appropriate building scale and preservation of the desired natural character.

Although the proposal does include one floor level above another, the proposed works are not to a scale which would be considered to be out of character with existing development within the zone or diminish the natural features of the landscape. The proposed works will add visual interest to the dwelling and continue to improve the liveability of this 1970s built dwelling.

70









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied. See Hills Face Zone comments.


Satisfied. Existing set-back is maintained.

Side Set-backs Satisfied. Existing set-back is maintained.



Site Coverage PDC 165 Satisfied.

Private Open Space PDC 166 - 169 The proposed works will improve the useability of the private open

space available to the occupiers of the subject land. Amenity O20–22 PDC 52–55

The amenity of the locality will not be impaired by the appearance of the development, given the minor nature of external changes and sympathetic design that integrates successfully with the existing built form.


The proposed development has no impact on the design and location of existing access arrangements, street trees or on-site car parking provisions.


Although the locality inherently has a degree of overlooking, the proposal will not increase the ability of occupiers of the site to overlook adjoining properties.

Access to Sunlight PDC143–146 The proposed development will not cast excessive shadow over any

other dwelling within proximity to the subject land.

71


72




Applicant: Alexander Symonds Pty Ltd

Location: 250 & 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook

Proposal: Boundary re-alignment of 3 existing allotments

Zone/Policy Area: Neighbourhood Centre Zone

Neighbourhood Centre – Policy Area 1

Development Plan consolidated 28 February 2013




Referrals – Statutory: DAC, SA Water, DPTI

Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer / Local Heritage Consultant

Delegations Policy: Recommendation of the Minister for Planning

Recommendation: Development Approval be granted

Recommending Officer: Jason Cattonar

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Minister for Planning response External agency referral reports Internal agency referral reports Photographs

73



The Applicant seeks Development Approval for the re-alignment of the common property boundaries shared by three contiguous allotments known as 250 Kensington Road (Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens) and 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook. The land known as Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens (CHMG) comprises two allotments as follows: Allotment 101 Deposited Plan 24896 in the area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide,

Certificate of Title: Volume 5827 Folio 77; and Allotment 2 Filed Plan 7775 in the area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate

of Title: Volume 5823 Folio 797. The land known as 252 Kensington Road comprises one allotment as follows: Allotment 100 Deposited Plan 24896 in the area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide,

Certificate of Title: Volume 5859 Folio 990. The existing layout of the allotment boundaries requires Allotment 101 to have a free and unrestricted right of way across Allotments 101 and 2, in order for motor vehicles to access the car parking area located at the rear of the property. The boundary re-alignment has been designed so as to provide Allotment 100 (proposed Lot 52) with frontage to Perry Lane so that independent vehicular access can be achieved. The submitted plan also shows a 1.6m wide strip of land that continues along the eastern side boundary of proposed Lot 53. The Applicant has advised that this strip of land will be handed over to Council for road widening or other such purposes as the Council deems fit. Stormwater is to be managed by a stormwater easement that is shown to run through proposed Lots 52 and 53. Stormwater infrastructure will direct stormwater to Tusmore Avenue via underground infrastructure.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0873\13 was lodged with Council on 02 October 2013, by Alexander Symonds Pty Ltd on behalf of the registered proprietor of the land 252 Kensington Road Pty Ltd and the Minister for Education and Children’s Services. The application was lodged in conjunction with a separate, yet related, proposal for the extension and reconfiguration of the existing car parking area located at the rear of the Health on Kensington and The Spice Kitchen building at 252 Kensington Road (DA 180\0709\13). In October 2013, the Elected Members of Council moved a motion that authorised Council’s administration to commence negotiations with Renewal SA with respect to the purchase of a substantial portion of Allotment 2. Council also moved that the Chief Executive Officer seek an urgent meeting with representatives of the Premier and the Minister for Education and Child Development (DECD) to request that any, and all properties, within the City of Burnside that are exclusively used by the DECD, be considered for potential acquisition by the DECD to offset the purchase of approximately 2,226 square metres of the Constable Hyde Memorial Garden. Given that it could be perceived that Council has a conflict of interest in this application due to the pecuniary interest, Council wrote to the Minister for Planning in December 2013 requesting that He appoint the Development Assessment Commission as the relevant authority pursuant to Section 34(1)(b)(iii) of the Development Act 1993.

74


In January 2014, the Minister’s Delegate, Ms Sally Smith, Acting Executive Director, Planning Reform and Projects, at the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) wrote to Council to advise that there was no compelling need or basis for the Commission to assume the role of the planning authority for this application. It was recommended that the Council’s Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) make the decision in relation to the merits of this application. During February 2014, the application was referred to Council’s Engineering Services Department for comments with respect to the proposed road widening of Perry Lane and the location of the stormwater easement running through proposed Lots 52 and 53. Engineering Services advised that the Applicant had not previously discussed the proposed road widening with Council, but they would be happy to accept the strip of land and look to retain it as road reserve thereby maintaining the existing trees and vegetation. With respect to the stormwater easement, Engineering Services advised that they were satisfied with the location of the stormwater easement. The application was placed on public notification between 01 May 2014 and 16 May 2014. No third party representations were received by Council during this period. The application is now presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) as a Category 2 development for consideration in accordance with the recommendation of the Minister for Planning.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises three contiguous allotments known as 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook, and the Constable Hyde Memorial Garden. The subject land is best described as: 252 Kensington Road – Allotment 100 Deposited Plan 24896 in the area named

Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5859 Folio 990; Constable Hyde Memorial Garden – Allotment 101 Deposited Plan 24896 in the

area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5827 Folio 77; and

Constable Hyde Memorial Garden – Allotment 2 Filed Plan 7775 in the area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5823 Folio 797.

The subject land is shaped like a ‘hammer-head’ allotment with frontage to Kensington Road measuring 73.46m, frontage to Tusmore Avenue measuring 115.06m, frontage to Godfrey Terrace measuring 69.25m, and frontage to Perry Lane measuring 60.96m on its north/south axis and 21.44m on its east/west axis. The land has an area measuring approximately 7,560m2 and is subject to a free and unrestricted right of way over Allotments 2 and 101, to the benefit of Allotment 100. The portion of the subject land known as Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens (CHMG) contains the Constable Hyde Memorial, formalised garden and paved areas with mature trees to the north and a large lawned area with children’s play equipment at its southern end. Bituminised car parking spaces sit along the eastern boundary of the land contained within the free and unrestricted right of way serving Allotment 100. There are a number of regulated eucalyptus trees located within the CHMG that contribute to the high level of amenity that is observed from the streetscape.

75


252 Kensington Road contains the former Marryatville Primary School building, a Local Heritage Place as identified in Table Bur/2 of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, which currently houses the Health on Kensington consulting rooms and The Spice Kitchen Indian restaurant. There is an existing bituminised car parking area located to the south of the building with a number of regulated eucalyptus trees running along the eastern boundary.

3.2. Locality

The northern part of the locality is defined by those properties fronting Kensington Road extending east of the subject land as far as 285-287 and 286 Kensington Road and to the west as far as 241 and 242-246 Kensington Road (Marryatville Shopping Centre). The locality comprises properties in both the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and Residential Policy Area 10 – Leabrook (North). The southern portion of the locality is comprised of those properties from 2 Godfrey Terrace extending eastward to 12 Godfrey Terrace (including both the northern and southern sides of Godfrey Terrace) and 17 Tusmore Avenue. The locality mostly comprises a mixture of retail (shops, restaurants and cafes), offices and consulting rooms including the iconic Regal Theatre, a State Heritage Item. Residential dwellings also contribute to that character and are sited on low density allotments primarily to the south and to the east of the subject land. The locality is also characterised by a large number of regulated trees, many of which are eucalyptus varieties, located on both public and private land.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Neighbourhood Centre Zone

Principle of Development Control 10(a) Representations Received: Nil (0)

6. AGENCY REFERRALS

External agency referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The subject land contains an existing commercial use and community garden within

the Neighbourhood Centre Zone; The proposed boundary realignment does not change the existing uses that occur

on the land;

76


The boundary realignment will provide 252 Kensington Road with direct access to a public road at the rear of the land without requiring a free and unrestricted right of way registered against the Certificate of Title of adjoining land;

The proposed development is not identified as a non-complying kind of development in the Burnside (City) Development Plan; and

If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected.


7.2. Character

The deletion of the right of way registered against Allotment 2 will allow for the reinstatement of landscaping and improve the visual amenity and character of the CHMG and streetscapes of Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace. The reconfigured boundaries of Allotment 101 (proposed Lot 52) will facilitate the upgrading of the car parking area that is proposed in Development Application 180\0709\13. Much of this area is already dedicated to car parking, and has a sealed, bituminised surface.

7.3. Amenity

As previously stated, the boundary realignment will improve the streetscape character and visual amenity of the subject land, due to the deletion of the right of way, and allow for the future reinstatement of landscaping within the CHMG. The realignment of the allotment boundaries will have no impact upon existing regulated trees which are scattered around the perimeter of the CHMG and along the eastern boundary of 252 Kensington Road. The strip of land identified for road widening purposes is to be handed over to Council. Engineering Services have advised that this strip of land will be maintained as road reserve with existing trees and vegetation to be retained.


The boundary realignment maintains the street frontages of Allotments 2 and 100 to Godfrey Terrace, Tusmore Avenue and Kensington Road. Allotment 101 will benefit by having a new and direct access on Perry Lane that will enable vehicular access to the car parking area that is proposed in Development Application 180\0709\13. Access and egress to the property at 252 Kensington Road from Perry Lane will undoubtedly increase the number of vehicular movements that occur at the western end of Perry Lane. In total, there are 21 residential properties that have vehicular access to the section of Perry Lane between Bretwalder Avenue and Tusmore Avenue. Of these 21 properties, a total of 16 use Perry Lane as their primary, and only, vehicular access. Council’s Engineering Services department has reviewed the proposal and advised that Perry Lane is of sufficient width to accommodate the additional vehicular movements. They have also advised that because traffic movements to and from 252 Kensington Road will predominantly occur at the western end of Perry Lane, the impact to nearby residents that use the lane will be minimal. The proposed plan shows a Stormwater Easement running from east to west at the northern end of proposed Allotment 53, and southern end of proposed Allotment 52. This easement will allow for the underground installation of Council stormwater infrastructure.

77


Council’s Engineering Services department were consulted on this matter and have confirmed that they are satisfied with its location.


The development was determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Neighbourhood Centre Zone Principle of Development Control 12(a) of the Development Plan, and therefore subject to public notification. No third party representations were received by Council during the public notification period.


In accordance with Council protocol the development was referred to Engineering Services for consideration. In terms of parking and access, the proposed arrangements were deemed sufficient to facilitate safe and convenient vehicle access to the site in accordance with the location and orientation of proposed parking arrangements. Engineering Services are also supportive of the location of the stormwater easement and road widening as shown on the proposed plan. The former Marryatville Primary School building, a Local Heritage Place, occupies the land at 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook. Comments were sought from Council’s Local Heritage Advisor to determine whether the proposed boundary realignment would have any material effect on the contextual setting of the Local Heritage Place. The Local Heritage Advisor does not object to the proposal. Referral responses were also received from the Development Assessment Commission, SA Water and the Transport Division of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). None of these state agencies are opposed to the proposal although DPTI has indicated that they would not support any future access arrangement for proposed Allotment 51 on Kensington Road.

7.7. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0873\13, by Alexander Symonds Pty Ltd, be granted Development Approval subject to the following conditions:

Development Plan Consent Conditions

1 The development granted Development Approval shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.

78


Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

Land Division Consent Conditions

1 A final plan complying with the requirements for plans as set out in the Manual of Survey Practice Volume 1 (Plan Presentation and Guidelines) issued by the Registrar General to be lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for Land Division Certificate purposes. Reason: To satisfy the requirements of the Development Assessment Commission.

2 Pursuant to Section 33 of the Development act 1993, it is necessary for the developer to satisfy the following requirements of the SA Water Corporation: The financial requirements of SA Water shall be met for the provision of water

supply and sewerage services; The alteration of internal drains to the satisfaction of SA Water is required; and On approval of the application, all internal water piping that crosses the allotment

boundaries must be severed or redirected at the developers/owners cost to ensure that the pipework relating to each allotment is contained within the boundaries.

Reason: To satisfy the requirements of the SA Water Corporation.


Jason Cattonar Team Leader – Planning

79


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

80


APPENDIX 2



Primary Neighbourhood Centre – Policy Area 1 Objectives & Principles of Development Control:

Objective 1: An area accommodating small-scale development which: (a) does not compete with the retail function of the main body of the zone; and (b) has minimal impact on adjoining development and on traffic movements in the locality.

Principle of Development Control 1: Development within Policy Area 1 should comprise small-scale development such as offices, consulting rooms, restaurants, retail showrooms, community facilities and service industries which: (a) do not compete with the retail function of the main body of the zone; (b) have minimal impact on the free flow of traffic on Kensington Road; (c) do not generate significant levels of traffic in nearby residential streets; and (d) have minimal impact on the amenity of residential premises within the locality.

Principle of Development Control 2: Development on the southern side of Kensington Road should: (a) be primarily for office, educational or community facilities; (b) preserve and enhance buildings of heritage significance on the land; and (c) retain local public open space abutting Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


The proposed boundary realignment allows for vehicular access from Perry Lane to the rear of proposed Allotment 53, thereby removing any need for free and unrestricted rights of way over the adjoining allotments.

The existing use of the land remains unchanged and will not be affected by the realignment of the boundaries.


The proposal maintains access to the rear of the land thereby having no impact upon the free flow of traffic along Kensington Road.

The nature and intensity of the existing land use remains unchanged. Except for the more frequent use of Perry Lane, the traffic volumes on local roads will also remain unchanged.

Southern Side of Kensington Road PDC 2

Satisfied.

The proposal will have no impact upon heritage listed buildings and will restore the public open space abutting Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace.

81


Summary of Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone accommodating a range of shops, restaurants, offices, consulting rooms and commercial and community facilities serving the needs of a wider area than that of a Local Centre Zone but of a lesser area than the District Centre Zone.

Principle of Development Control 4: Development should limit direct vehicular access onto arterial roads.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1 PDC 1

Satisfied.

No change. Vehicular Access PDC 4 Satisfied.

82



Primary Council Wide Development Objectives:

Objective 2: Provision of facilities required for the accommodation, transport, recreation, health and welfare of the community, including the aged or disabled.

Objective 8: A rational distribution and arrangement of land uses to avoid incompatibility between activities, and permit efficient use of land within the metropolitan area.

Objective 15: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects, or by noise, light, emissions, traffic, overlooking, overshadowing, or any other quality, condition or factor.

Objective 30: Adequate parking for vehicles.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 2 & 8 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

The proposed development will allow for the redesign of the car parking area, as proposed in application 180\0709\13, that services Health on Kensington and The Spice Kitchen, by increasing the number of on-site car parking spaces from 39 to 45; an increase of 6 spaces.

There are a number of existing regulated trees located within the grounds of CHMG. The proposed boundary realignment does not affect the regulated status of these trees or require their removal.

83


84




Applicant: 252 Kensington Road Pty Ltd

Location: 250 & 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook

Proposal: Extension and reconfiguration of existing car park and demolition of masonry toilet block building

Zone/Policy Area: Neighbourhood Centre Zone

Neighbourhood Centre – Policy Area 1

Development Plan consolidated 28 February 2013





Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer / Local Heritage Consultant

Delegations Policy: Recommendation of the Minister for Planning


Recommending Officer: Jason Cattonar

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Minister for Planning response Internal agency referral reports Photographs

85



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the demolition of the existing disused and dilapidated masonry ‘toilet block’ building located on the southern portion of the subject land, and to reconfigure the on-site car parking area. The reconfiguration of the car parking area will establish 45 vehicle spaces, which increases the existing number by 6 spaces (39 existing spaces). Access and egress is to be achieved via Perry Lane, a Council owned public road. The development proposed in this application relies on Development Approval being granted for Development Application 180\0873\13, which seeks to realign the allotment boundaries of 250 and 252 Kensington Road in a manner that reflects the car parking layout proposed in this application.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\08709\13 was lodged by 252 Kensington Road Pty Ltd (the Applicant) on 22 August 2013. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development under the Burnside (City) Development Plan and processed ‘on merit’. During September 2013, Council staff spoke with the Applicants planning consultant, Justin Hazel from Connor Holmes, to advise that it would not continue to process the application until such time as an application was lodged seeking the realignment of the boundaries shared by Allotments 2, 100 and 101 (forming both the Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens and 252 Kensington Road). Without such an application, the proposed development represented a hypothetical situation as it relied heavily on works proposed on adjoining land that was not owned by the Applicant. During October 2013, Development Application 180\0873\13 was lodged seeking Development Approval for the realignment of the boundaries shared by three (3) contiguous allotments; Allotment 2 and 100 (Constable Hyde Memorial Garden) and Allotment 101 (252 Kensington Road). Council then confirmed to the Applicant that both applications would be processed concurrently. Aware of Council’s current involvement in the negotiation and potential purchase of the Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens, on 05 December 2013, Council staff wrote to the Minister for Planning pursuant to Section 34(1)(b)(iii) of the Development Act 1993, requesting that He appoint the Development Assessment Commission as the Relevant Authority. In January 2014, the Minister’s Delegate, Ms Sally Smith, Acting Executive Director, Planning Reform and Projects, at the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) wrote to Council to advise that there was no compelling need or basis for the Commission to assume the role of the planning authority for this application. It was recommended that the Council’s Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) make the decision in relation to the merits of this application. During February 2014, the application was referred to Council’s Engineering Services Department who liaised with the Applicant about the proposed location of a stormwater easement and stormwater pits and road widening that were shown in the plan of division in Application 180\0873\14.

86


Once Engineering Services were satisfied with the location of the stormwater easement and road widening arrangements, amended plans were received and the application was placed on public notification between 01 May 2014 and 16 May 2014. No third party representations were received by Council during this period. The application is now presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) as a Category 2 development for consideration in accordance with the recommendation of the Minister for Planning.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises three contiguous allotments known as 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook, and the Constable Hyde Memorial Garden. The subject land is best described as: 252 Kensington Road – Allotment 100 Deposited Plan 24896 in the area named

Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5859 Folio 990; Constable Hyde Memorial Garden – Allotment 101 Deposited Plan 24896 in the

area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5827 Folio 77; and

Constable Hyde Memorial Garden – Allotment 2 Filed Plan 7775 in the area named Leabrook Hundred of Adelaide, Certificate of Title: Volume 5823 Folio 797.

The subject land is shaped like a ‘hammer-head’ allotment with frontage to Kensington Road measuring 73.46m, frontage to Tusmore Avenue measuring 115.06m, frontage to Godfrey Terrace measuring 69.25m, and frontage to Perry Lane measuring 60.96m on its north/south axis and 21.44m on its east/west axis. The land has an area measuring approximately 7,560m2 and is subject to a free and unrestricted right of way over Allotments 2 and 101 to the benefit of Allotment 100. The portion of the subject land known as Constable Hyde Memorial Gardens (CHMG) contains the Constable Hyde Memorial, formalised garden and paved areas with mature trees to the north and a large lawned area with children’s play equipment at its southern end. Bituminised car parking spaces sit along the eastern boundary of the land contained within the free and unrestricted right of way serving Allotment 100. There are a number of regulated eucalyptus trees located within the CHMG that contribute to the high level of amenity that is observed from the streetscape. 252 Kensington Road contains the former Marryatville Primary School building, a Local Heritage Place as identified in Table Bur/2 of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, which currently houses the Health on Kensington consulting rooms and The Spice Kitchen Indian restaurant. There is an existing bituminised car parking area located to the south of the building with a number of regulated eucalyptus trees running along the eastern boundary. The subject site comprises the whole area of Allotment 100, the south-eastern portion of Allotment 101 and a small portion of the northern end of Allotment 2 (proposed Allotment 52 in application 180\0873\13) as shown in Figure 1 below:

87


Figure 1

3.2. Locality

The northern part of the locality is defined by those properties fronting Kensington Road extending east of the subject land as far as 285-287 and 286 Kensington Road and to the west as far as 241 and 242-246 Kensington Road (Marryatville Shopping Centre). The locality comprises properties in both the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and Residential Policy Area 10 – Leabrook (North). The southern portion of the locality is comprised of those properties from 2 Godfrey Terrace extending eastward to 12 Godfrey Terrace (including both the northern and southern sides of Godfrey Terrace) and 17 Tusmore Avenue. The locality mostly comprises a mixture of retail (shops, restaurants and cafes), offices and consulting rooms including the iconic Regal Theatre, a State Heritage Item. Residential dwellings also contribute to that character and are sited on low density allotments primarily to the south and to the east of the subject land. The locality is also characterised by a large number of regulated trees, many of which are eucalyptus varieties, located on both public and private land.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Neighbourhood Centre Zone

Principle of Development Control 10(a) Representations Received: Nil (0) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

Subject Land Subject site

88


6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: Council staff have recommend that Development Approval be granted for the

boundary re-alignment proposed in Development Application 180\0873\13; The subject site contains an existing commercial use within the Neighbourhood

Centre Zone; A significant portion of the subject land is currently dedicated to vehicle parking; The proposal will reinstate the southern portion of CHMG as a lawned area; The proposed development is not identified as a non-complying kind of development

in the Burnside (City) Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no

unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected.


7.2. Character

The proposed development has been designed in a manner consistent with and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and Policy Area 1. The development conforms to the desire for commercial and community facilities as expressed by the Zone, and has been designed so that vehicle access is gained via Perry Lane and not Kensington Road.

The reconfiguration of the car parking area will create an additional 6 spaces, while also returning the south-eastern portion of Allotment 2 to a landscaped area. The reestablishment of landscaping in this area will improve the amenity that is enjoyed within CHMG and the surrounding streetscapes.

7.3. Amenity

From a streetscape perspective the development will improve the amenity of the CHMG when viewed from Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace due to the removal of the existing bituminised surfaces and likely restoration of that area with new landscaping treatments. The proposed development does not seek to alter or intensify the existing uses that occur on the subject land and as such, adjoining residential properties should expect the same level of amenity to what is currently enjoyed.


The proposed development will improve the configuration of the on-site car parking areas located at the rear of the Health on Kensington and The Spice Kitchen building. On-site parking spaces will be closer to the building entry, which is particularly important for the mobility impaired and the improvement of pedestrian safety.

89


Although Council is not aware of any existing issues with respect to on-site parking demand, the proposal will increase the number of on-site parking spaces from 39 to 45 for use by staff and clients/customers. Access and egress to the subject land is currently achieved from Godfrey Terrace. This proposal seeks to delete that arrangement and relocate it to Perry Lane. Whilst this will increase the number of vehicular movements that occur at the western end of Perry Lane, the number and nature of movements is expected to be within acceptable limits. Of the eight (8) dwellings that have rear access to Perry Lane, five (5) have their primary vehicular access on Godfrey Terrace. This gives reason to expect that disruption to vehicle movements from adjoining residential properties will be negligible. The application was referred to Council’s Engineering Services department during the course of assessment and that department has indicated that they do not object to the proposed access arrangements on Perry Lane.


The development was determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Neighbourhood Centre Zone Principle of Development Control 12(a) of the Development Plan, and therefore subject to public notification. No third party representations were received by Council during the public notification period.


In accordance with Council protocol the development was referred to Engineering Services for consideration. In terms of parking and access, the proposed arrangements were deemed sufficient to facilitate safe and convenient vehicle access to the site in accordance with the location and orientation of proposed parking arrangements. Engineering Services are also supportive of the location of the stormwater easement and road widening as shown on the proposed plan of division (boundary realignment) in application 180\0873\13. The former Marryatville Primary School building, a Local Heritage Place, occupies the land at 252 Kensington Road, Leabrook. Comments were sought from Council’s Local Heritage Advisor to determine whether the construction and reconfiguration of the car parking area would have any material effect on the contextual setting of the Local Heritage Place. The Local Heritage Advisor does not object to the proposal.

7.7. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



90


2. Development Application 180\0709\13, by 252 Kensington Road Pty Ltd, be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Plan Consent / Development Approval shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 All car parks, driveways and vehicle manoeuvring areas shall be graded to ensure that no surface water or rubble from within the property is transported across the footpath or on to adjoining land. Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for the connection of stormwater.

3 All line marking, traffic signs and traffic control devices must conform to relevant Australian Standards and be consistent with those used for the street network. Reason: To ensure the proposed development meets the requirements of the relevant Australian Standards.


Jason Cattonar Team Leader – Planning

91


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

Subject Site

92


APPENDIX 2



Primary Neighbourhood Centre – Policy Area 1 Objectives & Principles of Development Control:

Objective 1: An area accommodating small-scale development which: (a) does not compete with the retail function of the main body of the zone; and (b) has minimal impact on adjoining development and on traffic movements in the locality.

Principle of Development Control 1: Development within Policy Area 1 should comprise small-scale development such as offices, consulting rooms, restaurants, retail showrooms, community facilities and service industries which: (a) do not compete with the retail function of the main body of the zone; (b) have minimal impact on the free flow of traffic on Kensington Road; (c) do not generate significant levels of traffic in nearby residential streets; and (d) have minimal impact on the amenity of residential premises within the locality.

Principle of Development Control 2: Development on the southern side of Kensington Road should: (a) be primarily for office, educational or community facilities; (b) preserve and enhance buildings of heritage significance on the land; and (c) retain local public open space abutting Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Perry Lane is sufficiently wide and surface treated to manage the additional traffic movements caused by the relocation of the site access and egress point from Godfrey Terrace. The number and nature of vehicular movements will likely have a negligible impact upon adjoining residential land.


The proposal maintains access to the rear of the land thereby having no impact upon the free flow of traffic along Kensington Road.

The nature and intensity of the existing land use remains unchanged meaning traffic levels on local roads and impacts to adjoining residences should also remain unchanged.

Southern Side of Kensington Road PDC 2

Satisfied.

The proposal will have no impact upon heritage listed buildings and will restore the public open space abutting Tusmore Avenue and Godfrey Terrace.

93


Summary of Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone accommodating a range of shops, restaurants, offices, consulting rooms and commercial and community facilities serving the needs of a wider area than that of a Local Centre Zone but of a lesser area than the District Centre Zone.

Principle of Development Control 4: Development should limit direct vehicular access onto arterial roads.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1 PDC 1

Satisfied.

No change. Vehicular Access PDC 4 Satisfied.

94



Primary Council Wide Development Objectives:

Objective 2: Provision of facilities required for the accommodation, transport, recreation, health and welfare of the community, including the aged or disabled.

Objective 8: A rational distribution and arrangement of land uses to avoid incompatibility between activities, and permit efficient use of land within the metropolitan area.

Objective 15: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects, or by noise, light, emissions, traffic, overlooking, overshadowing, or any other quality, condition or factor.

Objective 30: Adequate parking for vehicles.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 2 & 8 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

The proposed development will increase the number of on-site car parking spaces from 39 to 45; increase of 6 spaces.

95


96




Applicant: Inspire Design

Location: 7A Chapman Crescent, Glen Osmond

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including rear balcony, outbuilding (garage) and landscaping


Residential Policy Area 27 – Southern Foothills




Four (4) representations received


Referrals – Non Statutory: Senior Engineer




REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents May 2014 DAP minutes, report and attachments

97



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: New two-storey detached dwelling including a balcony; Outbuilding comprising a garage; and Landscaping.

2. BACKGROUND

In May 2014 the subject development application was presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as there were outstanding representations relating to the proposal. At the May 2014 Development Assessment Panel meeting, the Panel deferred the application to allow the Applicant an opportunity to consider the following: 1. Amendments to the proposal that would achieve reasonable privacy and amenity

outcomes for adjoining neighbours without compromising views for the occupants of the proposed dwelling.

2. The provision of sightline diagrams that show the visual relationship between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties, and the distances between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties.

3. The provision of a landscaping plan. The Applicant has since provided Council with amended drawings which include an amended privacy screen and a landscaping schedule, which seeks to achieve views over the Adelaide Plains and maintain privacy of adjoining residents. Council’s Team Leader – Planning also spoke to the Applicant to relay the flavour of the discussions from the last Panel meeting. The Applicant was advised that if the proposed landscaping affords adequate privacy to adjoining residents, high privacy screening to the balcony edge might not be required. Notwithstanding these discussions, the Applicant has maintained a privacy screen with a height of 1.6m at the edge of the balcony, comprising moveable louvers. The application is now re-presented to the Panel for consideration.


3.1. Land Use



unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed building additions and swimming pool will be used for residential purposes and continues the existing and intended use of the subject land. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

98


3.2. Assessment of Proposed Variations

The proposed changes include both privacy screening to the edge of the balcony, as well as landscaping, to address issues raised by the Panel at its last meeting. The proposed privacy screen to the balcony edge will include a 1.6m high louvered screen with openable blades. Whilst this type of screening will enable views towards the city for future residents, such views will be interrupted by the horizontal position of the individual blades. The proposed amended landscaping comprises evergreen trees adjacent the rear boundary of the land. The two main species of trees to stand adjacent the common fencing will be comprised of Ficus macrocarpa hillii (‘Flash’) and Acmena smithii (‘Creek Lilly Pilly’). These species are anticipated to grow to a height of 10m and 6m respectively. Whilst the Creek Lilly Pilly is a shorter species, it is located on higher ground, and will therefore provide sufficient screening towards adjoining land, together with the Flash trees. The Applicant has provided section diagrams and sight-line diagrams to illustrate that views from the balcony towards adjoining land will be obscured by the proposed evergreen trees. Provided the selected trees are planted with adequate minimal planting heights, privacy of adjoining residents is expected as the Flash trees can grow quickly. The proposed louvered screens to the balcony edge, together with the proposed evergreen tree plantings, will ensure privacy of adjoining residents is achieved, whilst views across the Adelaide Plains can be achieved from the proposed dwelling balcony. As such, the proposed variations are considered to address the reasons for the deferral by the Panel.

3.3. Conclusion


4. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0106\14, by Inspire Design, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


99


2 All side and rear upper level windows, except for those already screened by the proposed1.6m high louvered screen, as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with fixed and obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level. The fixed and obscured glazing and the balcony screen shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

3 Excess stormwater shall be managed within the development or discharged to Chapman Crescent (to the eastern side of the road verge area in accordance with Council’s Engineer’s requirements). Reason: To ensure the drainage of stormwater or run-off from the land will not cause nuisance, or detract from the amenity of the locality.

4 The 1.6m high louvered screen to the balcony edge shall be finished in an earthen tone, and shall not be openable beyond a horizontal position. Reason: To ensure the colour of the screen device does not detract from the natural character of the locality and reasonable privacy of adjoining residents is achieved.

5 The proposed evergreen landscaping shall have a minimum planting height of 3m from the ground level. This landscaping shall be planted within 3 months of completion of substantial building works, or occupation of the dwelling (whichever is sooner) and shall be maintained at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. Reason: To ensure the proposed landscaping restricts views from the balcony into the private open space areas and habitable rooms of adjoining dwellings.



100




Applicant: Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd

Location: 10 Birnie Avenue, Kensington Park

Proposal: Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including first floor addition, garage, alfresco, swimming pool and 2.4m high fence


Residential Policy Area 2 - Northern



Public Notification: Category 1 (originally Category 2)

Three (3) representations received


Delegations Policy: Managers’ discretion



REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents May 2014 DAP minutes, report and attachments

101



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Construction of ground level and upper level additions to existing dwelling; New swimming pool; and Fencing.

2. BACKGROUND

In May 2014 the subject development application was presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration. The application was presented to the Panel at the Manager’s discretion, as the original application underwent Category 2 public notification and had representations. Amended plans were lodged after the notification period resulting in a change to the public notification classification to Category 1. At the May 2014 Development Assessment Panel meeting, the Panel deferred the application to allow the Applicant the opportunity to reconsider the design the development in light of the following:

1. Improved consistency with the character and amenity of the streetscape. 2. Improved consistency with the scale, bulk, siting and positive elements of existing

dwellings in the street. 3. Improved consistency with the attractive qualities of the street through good design. The Applicant has since amended the application to address the concerns raised by the Panel. Namely, the following changes have been made: Roof pitch modified to fall from back to front, reducing its perceived mass from street level; South-west corner of upper level decreased by 300mm to further conceal the addition

behind existing chimneys; New corner window to front corner of main bedroom to upper level, which is set-back 21m

from the front boundary; and Pitched roof to proposed garage, for consistency with existing roofing design. The Application is now re-presented to the Panel for a decision.


3.1. Land Use



unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed building additions and swimming pool will be used for residential purposes and continues the existing and intended use of the subject land. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

102


3.2. Assessment of Proposed Variations

The proposed variations will have minimal impact on adjoining residents, as the previous set-backs to side boundaries have not altered to any great degree (only the set-back to the southern side boundary has been increased to 4.3m for the front portion of the upper level). The main effect of the variations will be from a streetscape character perspective, in an attempt to satisfy the issues raised by the Development Assessment Panel. The front portion of the proposed upper level is set-back 15.5m from the front boundary of the land, and behind the existing roof ridgeline. Only a small portion of the upper level front elevation will be visible from the street beyond existing roofing. The portion of the upper level façade that is visible above existing roofing comprises the guttering associated with the new roof, as well as two small sections of wall either side of the existing Dutch-gables, approximately 0.92m² attributed to each of these sections. The front elevation of the upper level also includes a recessed corner window associated with ‘Bed 1’. Whilst this portion of the upper level extends south beyond the existing southern chimney, it is set-back an additional 5.4m from the proposed upper level façade, and comprises mostly glazing associated with the window which reduces the visual presence associated with this portion of the upper level. The amended details also include a pitched roof to the proposed garage. The pitch of the garage roof is identical to the existing dwelling roof pitch, and is set-back 20.8m from the front boundary, and behind an existing carport. The proposed garage roof will only be visible from Birnie Avenue when viewing the structure directly in front of the subject land, and possibly partially visible from in front of the adjoining land to the south, when travelling north. The majority of the upper level façade now sits between the existing chimneys associated with the existing roof, such that the streetscape character will be less influenced by this application than previous designs. Only a small portion of the upper level façade extends beyond the chimneys, the majority of which comprises a window with an increased front set-back. The proposed changes maintain the floor plan desired by the Applicant (on behalf of the owner) and is considered to address the reasons for the deferral by the Panel.

3.3. Conclusion


4. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0146\14, by Kreca Renovations Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

103


Conditions


2 All side and rear upper level windows as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with fixed and obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level. The fixed and obscured glazing shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.



104

development assessment panel meeting agenda · pdf filedevelopment assessment panel meeting...

Documents