development assessment panel of city of prospect the north-east, 150m to the south and 250m west of...

City of Prospect

Development Assessment Panel of City of Prospect

(Presiding Member: Mr David Blaikie)

The meeting of the Development Assessment Panel will be held in the Civic Centre, 128 Prospect Road, Prospect at 5.30pm Monday 9 September 2013. Debbie Richardson Director Community & Planning

Members: Mr David Blaikie, Mr David Cooke, Mr Ashley Dixon, Ms Cherie Gill, Mr Mark Groote, Mr Scott Roberts, Mr Simon Weidenhofer

A G E N D A 1. On Leave

2. Apologies

3. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel held on Monday 8 July 2013.

4. Protocol

4.1 The Panel has adopted the protocol that only those agenda items on the Panel reports reserved by Members on a callover by the Presiding Member will be debated and the recommendations of all other items will be adopted without further discussion.

City of Prospect

5. Development Applications

5.1 73 and 75 North East Road, and 43 Rosetta Street Collinswood – Construction of

a Six Storey Mixed Use Building Comprising 38 Apartments, 250m² Retail (Shop) and 421m² Commercial (Office) Tenancies, and an additional Two Basement Levels of Car Parking, with Associated Landscaping and Alterations to Street Infrastructure (DA 050/99/2013) Representors: Matthew and Karen Gryst 64 Harvey St, Collinswood

Anne Barker and Peter Vaughan 5 Brunswick St, Walkerville Elizabeth Crisp 8 Cassie St, Collinswood Ben Wilson and Georgia Norman 5 Belt St, Walkerville Elizabeth and Rex Doepke 3 Belt St, Walkerville

Applicant: Michael Richardson of MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd to respond on behalf of the applicant

(Pages 1 - 160, Recommendation pages 13 - 17)

5.2 16A McInnes Avenue Broadview – Two Storey Detached Dwelling with Associated Masonry Fence (DA 050/238/2013) (Pages 161 - 185, Recommendation page 169)

6. Other Reports from the Director Community & Planning

6.1 Summary of Court Appeals and Enforcement Matters

(Pages 186 - 187, Recommendation page 187)

6.2 Feedback to Council on the Development Plan and the DAP (Pages 188 - 198, Recommendation page 189)

6.3 Feedback to Council on the Planning Reform (Pages 199 - 206, Recommendation page 205)

7. Any other business

8. Time, date and place of next meeting

5.30pm Monday 23 September 2013 – Civic Centre, 128 Prospect Road, Prospect

9. Closure

Item 5.1 has been deferred until 23/09/2013

City of Prospect

AGENDA ITEM: 5.1 To: Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 9 September 2013 From: Scott McLuskey, Development Officer, Planning Proposal: Construction of a Six Storey Mixed Use Building Comprising 38

Apartments, 250m² Retail (Shop) and 421m² Commercial (Office) Tenancies, and an additional Two Basement Levels of Car Parking, with Associated Landscaping and Alterations to Street Infrastructure (DA 050/99/2013)

Address: 73 and 75 North East Road, and 43 Rosetta Street Collinswood (CT:

5528/961, 5480/919 & 5725/365)

SUMMARY: Planning Authority: Council Referrals (Schedule 8): Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) Public Notification: Category 3 Representations: 12 Representations Received

(To be heard) Matthew and Karen Gryst 64 Harvey St Collinswood Anne Barker and Peter Vaughan 5 Brunswick St Walkerville Elizabeth Crisp 8 Cassie St Collinswood Ben Wilson and Georgia Norman 5 Belt St Walkerville Elizabeth and Rex Doepke 3 Belt St Walkerville (Do not wish to be heard) (Name withheld by request) Mr and Mrs Shillingford 35 Rosetta St Collinswood Albert and Scarlett Rea 32 Rosetta St Collinswood Sue Pinnock 26 Rosetta St Collinswood Greg Blight 55 North East Rd Collinswood

Barrie and Beverley Butler 23 Collins St Collinswood Trevor Moore 25 Rosetta St Collinswood

Respondent: Michael Richardson - MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd Development Plan Version: Consolidated 22 November 2012 Zone and Policy Area: Commercial Issues: Car parking, traffic movement, bulk and scale, height Recommendation: Approval, Subject to conditions Attachments: Locality Map (1) Locality Photos (2-3) Subject Land Aerial Image (4) Subject Land Photographs (5) Proposal Plans (6-18) Supporting Documentation (19-49) Traffic Engineer’s Reports (50-58) Additional Information from Applicant (59-101) Representations (102-130) Response to Representations (131-141)

1

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

1. LOCALITY AND SUBJECT LAND 1.1 Locality

1.1.1 The locality of a development is generally recognised as the area that defines the

context of a proposed development, and the area that would in turn be influenced by the proposal. As such, the locality will vary according to the nature of the proposed use and/or form of the proposed building works.

1.1.2 While potentially difficult to define, for the purpose of assessment of the proposal currently before the Panel the locality is considered to extend approximately 100m to the north-east, 150m to the south and 250m west of the subject land. The locality is defined to this extent due to the scale of the proposal, nature of likely vehicle movements and homogeneity of use, in combination with the extent of visibility of the proposed development within the streetscape.

1.1.3 The broader locality, indicating the location of the subject land within the relevant

Zone and Policy Area as described in Council’s Development Plan, as well as the location of owners/occupiers who lodged representations, is described in Attachment 1. Photographs of the locality are included at Attachments 2-3.

1.2 Subject Land

1.2.1 The subject land is located on North East Road, 200m north of Nottage Terrace

and 730m south of Hampstead Road. The land comprises three allotments with a total area of 1630m², with a frontage of 48.5m to North East Road and 45.5m to Rosetta Street, and a varying depth between 18m and 42m. The land is irregular in shape and essentially flat in topography.

1.2.2 The land is currently formed of three discrete sites and uses. Existing development

includes a single storey detached dwelling, a single storey office and a paving display yard. Existing vegetation is minimal, with no significant trees on the subject land or within close proximity on adjoining allotments. The subject land is illustrated on Attachment 4. Photographs of the subject land are also included for the DAP’s reference (refer Attachments 5).

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal comprises the construction of a six storey building on the site, with an

additional two basement levels below street level. The basement levels are proposed to accommodate some 80 parking spaces and storage for residents of the building. The ground floor is proposed to comprise one 250m² retail tenancy and one 421m² commercial tenancy. The remaining floors of the building are proposed to comprise 38 multiple dwellings of two and three bedroom layout. The proposal incorporates an internal courtyard at first floor level.

2.2 Alterations to Rosetta Street are proposed which extend the road verge to provide landscaping and three protected, indented parking spaces adjacent the subject site. Two access/egress points are proposed to Rosetta Street, delineated from each other by concrete median. Landscaping is also proposed within the verge of North East Road.

2.3 The office and retail tenancies are proposed to operate within the following hours:

2.3.1 Office: 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday

2.3.2 Shop: 7:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Saturday 8:00am to 9:00pm Sunday

2

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

2.4 No other works are proposed. The proposal plans are attached (refer Attachments 6-18). Supporting documentation including a detailed description of the proposal from the applicant (refer Attachments 19-49), traffic engineer’s reports (refer Attachments 50-58), and a response to a request for additional detail by the applicant (including an acoustic report, structural engineer’s drawings and energy efficiency report) are attached (refer Attachments 59-101).

3. REFERRALS 3.1 Internal (Advisory) Referrals

3.1.1 The proposal was referred to Council’s Infrastructure, Assets and Environment

department. Briefly, their comments confirmed satisfaction with the proposed alterations to the Council road (pursuant Section 221 of the Local Government Act) subject to the following conditions: 3.1.1.1 All works to be conducted to Council specification 3.1.1.2 All works are bunted off safely and pedestrian safety is maintained

throughout the construction period 3.1.1.3 Plantings to be undertaken to Council specification with respect to sight

distance interference and safety to the community (no plants with thorns, poisonous plantings or similar)

3.1.1.4 Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Officer is to be notified of the completion of works and will inspect the site to determine that works meet all relevant requirements

3.1.1.5 All works including line marking and the reinstatement of any damaged infrastructure or services related to these works will be the responsibility of the applicant.

3.2 External (Legislated) Referrals

3.2.1 The proposal was referred to DPTI. Briefly, the comments identified the following

(refer Attachments 141-142):

3.2.1.1 The existing cut-off at the corner of Rosetta Street where it meets North East Road is sufficient to preserve vehicle sight lines. No objection is therefore raised to building footprint.

3.2.1.2 Proposed vehicular accesses are located in a desirable location, on Rosetta Street and as far as possible from the junction with North East Road. No objection is therefore raised to the access arrangements.

3.2.1.3 DPTI advised the relevant authority to attach three conditions to any approval it may grant, which correspond to conditions 15, 16 and 17 of the staff recommendation.

4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 4.1 The application is a Category 3 form of development pursuant to Section 38 of the

Development Act 1993, Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008 and the relevant provisions of Council’s Development Plan, as it is neither a Category 1 nor Category 2 form of development.

4.2 The public notification period ended on 30 July 2013 with 10 representations received. 4.3 The representors raised the following concerns (refer Attachments 102-130):

4.3.1 Insufficient car parking provision on site; a number of submissions indicated concern that the possible number of occupants and visitors to the site may exceed the provision of parking on site. This is linked to concerns that significant on-street

3

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

parking occurs within the locality already, with further visitor parking then being pushed back into the adjacent residential area and affecting the amenity of its occupants.

4.3.2 Unsightliness of waste collection; several submissions raised concern that the presence of 2 or 3 bins associated with each dwelling would impact the amenity of the locality when place on the verge area for pick up.

4.3.3 Overlooking; many submissions raised concerns that the height of the proposed building resulted in increased visual privacy impact to existing residential properties within a reasonably substantial radius of the proposed building.

4.3.4 Wind tunnel effect; a concern was raised that the proposed building, as a result of its height, would create increased wind around the ABC building.

4.3.5 Increased traffic volumes; a primary concern noted in many of the submissions was the increase in traffic volumes through local residential streets. Many submissions raised concern about the general amenity impact of this, with several commenting on the potential specific consequences to Rosetta and Harvey Streets in particular.

4.3.6 Bulk and scale; a primary concern noted in many of the submissions was the height and intensity of the proposed development. Concerns were raised about varying impacts to the amenity of nearby residents as a result of the visual appearance and sense of enclosure or overbearing presence linked to the potential existence of two significant buildings adjacent each other.

4.3.7 Character and amenity of locality; many submissions highlighted concern with the contrast between the character of the nearby residential locality and the proposed building. Many submissions indicated opinion that the existing ABC building detracted from the character and amenity of the locality and that new development should not promote or exaggerate this effect.

4.3.8 Overshadowing; several submissions raised concerns that overshadowing from the building would impact nearby residents, particularly those west of the subject land.

4.4 The representations were forwarded to the applicant for consideration. In response, the

applicant submitted the following (refer Attachments 131-141):

4.4.1 Insufficient car parking provision on site; the respondent refers to the correspondence provided by Murray F Young and Associates identifying a peak demand of some 58-88 parking spaces and confirming their opinion that the provision of parking on site is satisfactory.

4.4.2 Unsightliness of waste collection; kerbside collection will not be provided for subject site. Waste collection will be managed via a common service at ground level which will be collected by waste removal contractor as required via automated monitoring.

4.4.3 Overlooking; the proposed building is set back greater than 55m to the nearest residential property, greatly ameliorating direct overlooking to these properties. Additionally, courtyards of dwellings fronting these closest residential properties feature slatted screening to further mitigate these concerns.

4.4.4 Wind tunnel effect; width of Rosetta Street and curtilage of ABC building expected to mitigate this effect.

4.4.5 Increased traffic volumes; respondent refers to further report from MFY and notes its conclusion that the proposed development will have minimal impact on the adjacent street network and that post-development traffic volumes on Rosetta Street will be within those typically associated with a residential street.

4.4.6 Bulk and scale; the context of locality, which includes adjacent 11 storey building and commercial development that provides significant setback to residential properties. Further, adjacent streetscape impacts are minimised by street tree canopy along Rosetta Street that softens visual impact along this vista. Respondent concludes that building is compatible with locality in offering a transition in bulk down from the ABC building to adjacent 2 and 3 storey developments.

4.4.7 Character and amenity of locality; (respondent addresses this concern within the above comments)

4

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

4.4.8 Overshadowing; Principles 77 and 78 of the Development Plan are achieved and that this is demonstrated by provided sun shadow diagrams.

5. PLANNING COMMENTARY 5.1 The application involves building work and therefore an application to Council is required.

The proposal is neither a complying nor a non-complying development with reference to Principle of Development Control 14 of the Commercial Zone and is therefore to be considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of Council’s Development Plan.

5.2 The proposal is not a form of development that is assigned to a Category of development by the Development Plan or the Development Regulations. The application cannot be taken to be a “minor” form of development with reference to Schedule 9 Part 1 Clause 2 (g). Thus pursuant to Section 31(2)(c) the application is taken to be a Category 3 development.

5.3 Pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993, a development that is assessed

by the Council as being seriously at variance with the Development Plan must not be granted consent. To this end, the Panel must determine whether the proposal is seriously at variance with the Development Plan prior to making a decision on the application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 Land Use

6.1.1 The land is located in the Commercial Zone, where it is anticipated that

development will comprise a range of commercial activities which may include some small-scale retail or showroom activities, with a particular focus on progressive redevelopment of sites adjacent Residential Zones that are currently occupied by uses that impair the character and amenity of the adjoining zone, or that are under-developed or underutilised. (Commercial Zone Obj. 1, 2 and 3)

6.1.2 The site’s location is directly abutting a Residential Zone, and is certainly the type of underutilised site envisioned by Objective 3 of the Commercial Zone. The proposal seeks to provide a small retail tenancy and larger office tenancy at ground floor level, providing street activation of the forms of uses desired by the plan.

6.1.3 Council Wide Objective 4 seeks the creation of higher density residential uses

along main roads and around centres. The location of the site, at 100m separation from a nearby neighbourhood centre, well reflects this desired outcome.

6.1.4 Whilst not directly relevant to the subject site, the desired policy outcome of the

Inner Metropolitan Growth Development Plan Amendment by the Minister for medium density, mixed use development on amalgamated allotments fronting arterial roads is relevant in a broader contextual sense.

6.1.5 The result of this DPA will be the construction of buildings at a similar scale and of

a similar usage pattern to that of the proposal. Thus, in a broader fabric, mixed use forms of development are expected to form the streetscape character of a number of Metropolitan Adelaide’s arterial roads.

6.1.6 The proposed development is considered to be broadly consistent with the types of

land uses anticipated in the Commercial Zone, although it is acknowledged that residential development is not suitable in all areas.

6.2 Site access

5

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.2.1 The Development Plan seeks increased density development adjacent arterial roads, whilst providing safe and convenient vehicle access and egress to local roads where possible (Metropolitan Adelaide Obj. 14 and 15, Council Wide PDCs 112, 170, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187).

6.2.2 Presently, two access points service the three existing allotments. One of these access points is to North East Road directly, with the other to Rosetta Street.

6.2.3 The proposal involves the re-instatement of kerb to North East Road with all access provision to then be from Rosetta Street. On-site parking at ground level is proposed to be associated with its own access point, separated with landscaping from the access to underground parking.

6.2.4 The proposal further undertakes to extend the existing Council verge through new

kerbing and landscaping, to provide three indented, parallel parking spaces on Rosetta St adjacent the subject site.

6.2.5 The comments from DPTI confirm their policy that access for sites on arterial roads

be amalgamated and gained from side streets where possible. DPTI concludes that the proposed access location is desirable.

6.3 Site preparation

6.3.1 Existing advertising display structures, single storey commercial building and single storey dwelling are to be demolished prior to the commencement of site works.

6.3.2 The removal of existing boundary fences will be required, with both adjacent commercial uses retaining sufficient area for provision of temporary fencing during building work.

6.3.3 Cut in the order of 5.5 metres will be required on the subject site, to establish the two proposed basement levels. The applicant would be required to consult with neighbours prior to the commencement of building works and to take all reasonable precautionary measures to ensure that the stability of adjoining land is maintained.

6.4 Proposed Building Works

6.4.1 The proposed building extends to each of the site’s boundaries and consists of

components that vary in height up to six storeys, being a total maximum height of 22.3 metres above natural ground level to its North East Road frontage. To its Rosetta Street frontage, the building would be of some five storey construction (17.2 metres in height), and to the majority of its western boundaries would be of single storey construction (4 metres in height).

6.4.2 A single retail tenancy of 250m² is proposed, in addition to an office tenancy of

436m². The proposed dwellings are a mix of two and three bedrooms in internal layout, featuring one bathroom with additional separate toilet and open plan kitchen/living areas with direct access to private balconies.

6.5 Design, Appearance and Character

6.5.1 The Development Plan seeks to balance the progressive redevelopment of

underutilised land with the desire to maintain the existing character of its residential areas in particular. It seeks to do this by promoting development that is both compatible with and complements the existing site and its locality. These features are desired with respect to the height, appearance and intensity of development (Council Wide Obj. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 25, PDCs 6, 7, 46, 47, 51, 55, 75, 199, 241, 242 and 243, Commercial Zone PDC 12).

6

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.5.2 The building is adjacent the ABC building, which is approximately 42 metres in total wall height. The Development Plan distinguishes sites adjacent the ABC building as being capable of higher density development, subject to the appropriate management of impacts to adjoining residential properties. Of those sites within the immediate vicinity of the ABC building, only the subject site is not adjoining or adjacent to a residential property.

6.5.3 The proposed elevations include considerable provision of glass windows and

balustrades to the North East Road frontage in combination with articulated balcony structures of contrasting paint and render colours to building walls. Vertical design elements including the balcony designs to both street frontages and aluminium screen elements to the Rosetta Street frontage complement the form of the ABC building’s facade while using materials and finishes that reflect modern design techniques such as those seen on the Walker’s Arms redevelopment.

6.5.4 The commercial and retail tenancies at ground floor are proposed to have almost

entirely glazed street frontages, which in combination with the proposed landscaping activate the development at a pedestrian level.

6.5.5 While the building is of greater scale than the quantitative provision of the plan; its

location adjacent a building of significantly higher scale, the uniqueness of the site with respect to its setback to residential development and the considered use of articulated and visually interesting design techniques to its frontages result in a building that is compatible with its locality, contributes positively to streetscape character and does not unreasonably impact upon residential properties as a result of its size.

6.6 Energy Conservation Measures

6.6.1 The Development Plan desires increased energy conservation and efficiency through passive design features such as orientation of windows, living areas and private open space, cross-ventilation opportunities and any other design measure as relevant. (Council Wide Obj. 16, PDCs 10 and 79)

6.6.2 Correspondence provided by the applicant from Lucid Consulting (refer Attachment 88) details a number of opportunities for increasing the proposed building’s energy efficiency, including the use of high efficiency LED downlights, solar panel provision, use of 5-star WELS rated hydraulic fixtures, use of centralised gas fired hot water system, use of natural ventilation and high efficiency glazing to achieve 6-7 star NatHERS rating and the use of high efficiency, inverter driven air conditioning systems. In the event that the application is supported, the provision of energy efficiency measures could be ensured by way of a condition attached to the consent.

6.6.3 Each of the dwellings provides at least a courtyard and window facing in a northerly

direction. The communal open space area predominantly faces north. West facing windows have been minimised where possible. Cross-ventilation is achievable through each of the proposed dwellings.

6.6.4 With the use of a condition as discussed above, the proposal is considered to

adequately address energy conservation measures.

6.7 Noise Attenuation 6.7.1 While the Development Plan seeks increased density along arterial roads, it

recognises the necessity to protect the acoustic amenity of its future residents through appropriate design and achievement of relevant acoustic standards (Council Wide Obj. 16, PDCs 92-95, 111 and 230).

7

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.7.2 A report prepared by Deb James of Resonate Acoustics (refer Attachments 66-87) considers requirements of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy and Development Plan, with respect to construction techniques and proximity to North East Road.

6.7.3 A range of techniques and construction methods to be utilised are identified in Mr

James’ report, including the use of double-glazing and acoustic insulation.

6.7.4 Mr James concludes that the proposed development is capable of satisfying all relevant criteria with respect to acoustic privacy. In the event that the proposal is supported, the methods used to achieve compliance with the relevant acoustic standards can be reinforced by condition.

6.8 Private open space provision

6.8.1 The Development Plan seeks the provision of adequate private open space for higher density residential development through the use of balconies or courtyards of appropriate dimensions. These spaces are intended to offer opportunities for common domestic activities that might otherwise be more easily achieved in the rear yards of lower density housing (Council Wide PDCs 81, 82, 85 and 232).

6.8.2 As per Council Wide PDC 232, the minimum desired area for balconies is 7.5m², with a minimum dimension of 2m. The proposal includes private open space provision which varies by layout of each dwelling as follows:

6.8.2.1 Dwelling 1 on each level is a three bedroom dwelling featuring a 17m²

balcony facing south east towards North East Road and a 7m² court facing north west. Both of these areas have a minimum dimension greater than 2m.

6.8.2.2 Dwellings 2-5 on each level are two bedroom dwellings featuring 14m² balconies facing south east towards North East Road and 7m² courts facing north west. In each case, both of these areas have a minimum dimension greater than 2m.

6.8.2.3 Dwelling 6 on each level is a three bedroom dwelling featuring an 18m²

balcony facing east towards North East Road and a 10m² court facing north towards Rosetta Street. Both of these areas have a minimum dimension greater than 2m.

6.8.2.4 Dwellings 7 and 8 on each level are two bedroom dwellings featuring

14m² balconies facing north towards Rosetta Street and a 7m² court facing south. In each case, both of these areas have a minimum dimension greater than 2m.

6.8.3 In addition to the above areas of private open space, the proposal includes a

communal area of open space of approximately 255m² that will provide landscaping, passive and active recreational opportunities. It is therefore considered that the proposal would provide generous private open space areas for dwellings of this type, complemented by ample communal open space.

6.9 Car Parking

6.9.1 The Development Plan prescribes minimum parking provisions for discrete uses of land, in addition to offering design criteria for undercroft parking. The plan also acknowledges the opportunities for shared use of parking in appropriate circumstances and the relevant consideration of public transport opportunity for housing along arterial roads (Metropolitan Adelaide Obj. 15, Council Wide Obj. 15, PDCs 56, 63, 146, 167, 175, 181, 182, 185, 187 and 189).

8

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.9.2 Council Wide PDCs 56, 146 and 167 prescribed parking rates for each component use of the proposal. For each dwelling, 2 parking spaces should be provided, for every 100m² of gross leasable retail area, 6 parking spaces should be provided and for every 100m² of commercial floor area, 4 parking spaces should be provided. The current proposal, which comprises 38 dwellings, 250m² gross leasable retail area and 421m² of commercial floor area should be provided with 108 parking spaces.

6.9.3 The applicant has provided a report prepared by Jayne Lovell of Murray F. Young

(refer Attachments 50-54) analysing the potential demand for parking on the subject land, with a further submission provided by Melissa Mellen (refer Attachments 99-101).

6.9.4 The conclusion of these submissions is that a proper assessment in consideration

of opportunities for shared use of parking, peak periods of demand and the discrete demands of each individual site, provides peak parking demands between 58 and 88 parking spaces varying on occupancy, which is appropriately achieved by the provision of 86 parking spaces within the current proposal.

6.9.5 The proposal provides two undercroft levels of carparking, both of which sit entirely

below the natural level of the ground such that they will not impact streetscape amenity. These two levels provide a total of 80 parking spaces in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. These basement levels of the building would also be provided with active air circulation to ensure that air quality is maintained.

6.9.6 A further 6 parking spaces are provided at ground level which include two spaces

for the use of the disabled, also in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. In addition to the 86 spaces provided on site, the applicant proposes to undertake changes to Rosetta Street that would create three indented, line-marked parking spaces on street in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard.

6.9.7 The proposal does not meet the quantitative provisions of the Development Plan

that relate to each discrete use, resulting in a calculated shortfall of 22 parking spaces on site. The quantitative provisions must be assessed in balance with those other provisions of the Plan relating to shared parking across mixed uses and higher density residential development. There is scope for the applicant to contribute to the Parking Fund on the basis of this quantitative shortfall. It is not appropriate in this particular case as the proposal provides a sufficient number of parking spaces for the intended use of the site when considering a holistic assessment of Development Plan guidelines.

6.10 Traffic and Vehicular Movements

6.10.1 While the Development Plan seeks increased density development adjacent arterial roads, it recognises the need to ensure minimal impact on adjacent residential areas from increased flow and distribution of traffic (Metropolitan Adelaide Obj. 14 and 15, PDCs 8 and 14, Council Wide PDCs 63, 169, 170, 184, 187, 201 and 212).

6.10.2 The applicant has provided a brief report prepared by Jayne Lovell of Murray F. Young and Associates which comments on existing and forecast vehicle movement and traffic flows within the locality (refer Attachments 55-58).

6.10.3 The report focuses particularly on vehicles travelling west along Rosetta Street into the residential area, while providing quantitative data that also describes movements associated with North East Road. Presently, vehicle movements per day have been measured at 1,100 to 1,350 with 50-60% of these movements travelling in a westerly direction.

9

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.10.4 The report concludes that an increase in vehicle movements of approximately 15%

(to a total of 1,320 to 1,570 movements per day) is forecast, with typical residential street volumes in similar locations of 2,000 movements per day. It is further noted that the distribution of vehicles exiting Rosetta Street in easterly and westerly directions will further minimise impact to residential amenity.

6.10.5 In considering existing and anticipated traffic movements around the site, it is

apparent that the proposal would cause an increase in traffic volume. The total effect of this however, would be within the reasonable capacity of the local street network.

6.11 Landscaping

6.11.1 As a result of the proposed alterations to Rosetta Street, several Development Provisions are relevant in this assessment. The Development Plan seeks the screening and softening elements of landscaping in relation to buildings of higher scale, in addition to desiring the delineation of access points and site boundaries through appropriate plantings (Council Wide PDCs 36, 81, 86, 87, 100, 113, 172, 218 and 243, 272, 273, 275).

6.11.2 On site, the application proposes landscaping adjacent the western site boundary at first floor level in association with the communal open space area. Landscaping is also proposed in the altered road verge at both the intersection of Rosetta Street and North East Road and adjacent the proposed access and egress point. The applicant further proposes to provide landscaping adjacent the site’s North East Road frontage.

6.11.3 The proposal satisfies the key relevant provision, Council Wide PDC 243, through

its hierarchy of landscaping proposed. Ground level landscaping to Rosetta Street softens this facade and delineates vehicle movements, with landscaping to North East Road providing further articulation to the design treatments of this facade. The western facing boundary of the site softens its visual appearance to its nearest lower scale residential development through setbacks and mature tree planting.

6.11.4 Council’s Infrastructure, Assets and Environment department have confirmed their

support for the proposed alterations subject to the species planted being to Council specification, which is proposed to form a condition of consent. It is recommended that a condition requiring the species of remaining landscaping to be appropriate in providing mature, shade trees also be placed on the consent.

6.12 Rainwater retention & Re-use

6.12.1 The Development Plan seeks the active capture and re-use of rainwater on site, both to reduce discharge of stormwater into the public system and to improve efficiency of use (Council Wide Obj. 32, PDCs 98, 209).

6.12.2 The proposal currently provides storage capacity for 10,000 litres of retained stormwater for irrigation of landscaping, with further consideration to be given during preparation of working drawings to capacity for reticulation purposes.

6.12.3 While not ideal, the retention of stormwater in the proposed amount for the purpose

of landscape maintenance is sufficiently in accordance with Development Plan guidelines. While provision to each dwelling is desirable, it may prove to be an untenable proposition in a development of this nature.

10

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.13 Stormwater Management

6.13.1 The Development Plan seeks to minimise the impact to public infrastructure in respect to quantity and quality of stormwater discharge from sites. Retention and detention to mitigate flooding risks and promote energy conservation are desired (Council Wide Obj. 33 and 35, PDCs 60, 97. 98, 207, 208, 209).

6.13.2 The applicant has provided stormwater discharge calculations by Dean Iuliano and Company Consulting Engineers (refer Attachment 96). The proposal provides 25,000 litres detention storage on site in conjunction with the above discussed 10,000 litres of retention storage.

6.13.3 It is apparent that stormwater discharge from the site would increase from current

levels, however the proposal ensures these flows are to be managed in accordance with industry standards so as to not affect the surrounding or downstream network.

6.14 Waste Management

6.14.1 The Development Plan asks that applicants consider opportunities for minimisation of waste, and waste management options that provide adequate storage while screening these areas from public view. (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 11 and 131)

6.14.2 The applicant has provided advice from Brown Falconer (refer Attachments 65 and 94-95) confirming the provision of a shared waste management system. This system includes a storage capacity of 4,400 litres of general and recyclable waste, with an automated system warning the building manager when bins are full. Rubbish chute rooms on each level of the building allow for internal, efficient disposal of waste.

6.14.3 It is noted that provision has not been made for the collection of putrescible

(organic) waste. Discussion with the applicant suggests that the proposed waste management system is not suited to the collection of this waste, as bags can break during travel through the chute. The remainder of the waste management system is considered to be appropriate with collection to be managed by the building manager as described above.

6.15 Overshadowing

6.15.1 Development should ensure that opportunities for adjoining residents to gain appropriate solar access to windows and areas of Private Open Space are maintained in respect of new buildings (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 69, 71, 76, 201 and 212).

6.15.2 The applicant has provided overshadowing diagrams (refer Attachments 16 - 17), detailing potential shadows created at varying times throughout the day and in comparison to those shadows cast by the adjacent ABC building. The applicant also notes the substantial setback to the nearest residential property.

6.15.3 Unreasonable overshadowing of residential properties within the locality is not

expected as a result of the proposed development. 6.16 Visual Privacy

6.16.1 The Development Plan seeks to ensure that the privacy of adjoining neighbours is appropriately protected from direct overlooking by occupiers of new development. Design techniques are recommended to prevent the direct overlooking of adjacent private open spaces and adjoining windows. (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 89, 90 and 91)

11

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

6.16.2 In their response to the representations (refer Attachments 133-134), the

applicants note that the Development Plan seeks to protect ‘direct’ overlooking to immediately adjacent properties through its principles. It is noted that the nearest residential property is separated by approximately 55 metres from the subject site, and that no overlooking of this nature is capable of occurring.

6.16.3 This notwithstanding, the proposal provides screening to the rear-facing court of

each dwelling to further assist in ameliorating this concern and to provide privacy to this space for the occupants of each dwelling.

6.16.4 The Good Residential Design SA guidelines provide a quantitative measure in

defining the nature of a “direct view”. Such direct views are those within a 15m distance and within a 45° angle of view from the relevant opening. The guidelines discuss the need to judge ameliorating factors, such as ease of overlooking, other distractions of view and the intimacy and frequency of the space overlooked.

6.16.5 In this respect, the presence of desirable and visually distracting views in multiple

directions from the subject site are noted. Where dwellings at lower levels of the building achieve some natural screening from nearest residential properties due to development within the separation distance, dwellings at higher levels have access to a greater range of visually distracting environmental features. As such, while a perception of overlooking may remain, the separation distance combined with characteristics of the locality mean that any direct impact would be minimal.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The subject land sits within a unique locality, comprising primarily commercial uses with

residential land nearby. The proposed use of the land provides a form of development desired by the Development Plan at a Council Wide level. Within the Commercial Zone, the proposal is a consent form of development that is not prescribed to a category for the purposes of notification. Given this, Category 3 notification has occurred and the proposal must be considered on its merits.

7.2 The proposed building is substantial in size and intensity, exceeding the anticipated height

of this locality by two storeys. It is however some 52% of the total height of the adjacent ABC building, and retains significant setbacks to residential development. Commercial development of similar design language and siting, of a lower scale, exists within the locality. The facades of the proposed building feature design elements that soften and articulate the building whilst providing visual interest, while landscaping and activated frontages offer a pedestrian level presence to the building.

7.3 Adequate on site car parking would be provided for the intended use, which is

predominantly located below ground level. Opportunities for further improving the energy efficiency and rainwater re-use beyond that already proposed have been identified and can be appropriately managed by reserving those matters for further assessment if considered necessary.

7.4 The 55m setback from the site to nearby residential properties ensures inherent

management of overlooking and overshadowing issues. Screening to the rear of the dwellings provides privacy for occupants of the dwellings and prevents indirect overlooking from these areas. Whilst the proposal will certainly increase traffic movements within its locality, modelling by an experienced traffic engineer has confirmed the increased flows are within both the capacity of the street and common tolerances for streets of this type.

12

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

7.5 The application is therefore considered to be appropriately consistent with the relevant provisions of the Prospect (City) Development Plan and warrants the granting of development plan consent, subject to appropriate conditions reinforcing certain aspects of the proposal and reserved matters to allow some further consideration of particular elements through the final design stages.

8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended: That with reference to the relevant provisions of the Prospect (City) Development Plan, the zoning of the land within which the proposed development is situated and the locality within which the land is situated, the Panel resolves that development application 050/99/2013 is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan and as such a decision shall be made on the merits of the application; and That pursuant to the Development Act 1993, as amended, Development Plan Consent be approved to DA 050/99/2013 from Lucy Homes Pty Ltd c/- Masterplan Pty Ltd for the Construction of a Six Storey Mixed Use Building Comprising 38 Apartments, 250m² Retail (Shop) and 421m² Commercial (Office) Tenancies, and an additional Two Basement Levels of Car Parking, with Associated Landscaping and Alterations to Street Infrastructure at 73 and 75 North East Road, and 43 Rosetta Street Collinswood (CT 5528/961, 5480/919 and 5725/365), subject to the following conditions, reserved matters and notes: Conditions: 1. The development shall take place in accordance with plans and details stamped by

Council relating to Development Application Number 050/99/2013, except as modified by any conditions detailed herein. All works detailed in the approved plans and required by conditions are to be completed prior to the occupation or the commencement of use of the approved development.

2. The hours of operation of the commercial tenancy shall not exceed the following periods: 8:00am-6:00pm Monday to Friday inclusively.

The hours of operation of the retail tenancy shall not exceed the following periods: 7:00am-9:00pm Saturday; and 8:00am-9:00pm Sunday.

3. Wherever reasonably possible, the herein approved building must incorporate the energy efficiency design solutions as recommended by Tim Randall of Lucid Consulting Australia in his correspondence dated 23rd of May 2013. A schedule of the design features to be utilised to maximise energy efficiency must be provided to Council prior to full Development Approval being granted.

4. The herein approved building shall be designed and constructed with appropriate noise reduction measures such that maximum noise levels for habitable rooms do not exceed 40dba L10 (20 minutes) for any 20 minute period during peak traffic flow at all times. Further, the building must ensure must ensure compliance with all relevant provisions of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (2007).

5. All works conducted that alter Council assets/property are to be conducted to Council specification. All areas of work are to be bunted off safely and pedestrian safety must be maintained at all times during the construction period. Plantings are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specification. All works, including the reinstatement of any damaged infrastructure or services, related to the proposed alterations will be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant must notify Council’s Assets and

13

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

Infrastructure Officer of the completion of works and the site must be made available for inspection.

6. All car parking spaces must be line-marked in accordance with the approved plans and to comply with the Australian/New Zealand Standard for Parking Facilities (Part 1: Off-street Car Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004) prior to occupation.

7. All disabled parking spaces shall be provided with line marking and signage that accords with Australian/New Zealand Standard for Parking Facilities (Part 1: Off-street Car Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004) and the car parking area shall be signposted as an area subject to the Private Parking Areas Act 1975.

8. The landscaping shall be planted in accordance with the approved plans prior to occupancy of the development. Mature trees shall be no less than 2.0m in height at time of planting. Appropriate species for understorey plantings shall be used to ensure sufficient coverage of the landscaping area. All planting must be of species which will not grow to cause damage to paved or sealed areas, building foundations or underground services.

9. All landscaping areas shall be maintained at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. The applicant or the persons for the time being making use of the subject land shall cultivate, tend and nurture the landscaping, and shall replace any landscaping that becomes diseased or dies.

10. Footpaths adjacent to the site are to be kept in a safe condition for pedestrians at all times during construction works. All driveways and footpaths traversed by vehicles using the site are to be maintained in a reasonable condition for the duration of the works, and are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council on completion of the works.

No obstruction of the footpath or roadway may occur without the prior permission of Council. For further advice, please contact Council’s Infrastructure and Environment Department on 8269 5355.

11. The drainage system shall be designed, installed and maintained at all times thereafter to ensure that water from the site does not:

a) Flow or discharge onto adjoining properties; b) Flow across the surface of footpaths or public ways; c) Affect the stability of any building; or d) Create unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the site or within any building.

12. To ensure compliance with applicable standards as described in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy established under the Environment Protection Act, construction activities shall only take place between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive, and not on Sundays or public holidays.

13. Air-conditioning units and solar hot water heaters shall be provided with screening devices designed to complement the colours, materials and finishes of the building approved herein, and shall be sited to adequately screen the units from view to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

14. To maximise the efficiency of waste recycling:

a) Provision shall be made for the separation of recyclable materials for collection and recycling, including paper, cardboard, glass and plastic containers, tins, and any other plastic that 'holds its shape';

14

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

b) Separate provision shall be made for the collection of food waste (food organics) and food-contaminated cardboard, paper or paper products if feasible, which are to be collected for composting; and

c) Paper attached to plastic, wax paper or chemically-treated/gloss cardboard will not be included with the materials collected for composting.

DPTI Conditions: 15. No vehicular access points shall be opened direct to/from North East Road to serve the

site.

16. Any existing driveway crossovers not providing vehicle access shall be reinstated as kerb and gutter to the satisfaction of Council. Any new or modified crossing places shall be constructed to Council’s requirements and shall not be located nearer than 1.0m to Side Entry Pits.

17. No stormwater from the development shall be permitted to discharge on-surface to North East Road and/or Rosetta Street. In addition, any existing drainage of the road shall be accommodated by the development and any alterations to road drainage infrastructure as a result of this development are to be at the expense of the applicant.

Advisory Notes: (1) This decision was based on an assessment of the proposal against relevant legislation

and conditions imposed were designed to ensure satisfactory compliance with it.

(2) You may have a right of appeal if this Notification is:-

a refusal or a consent/approval with conditions

Such an appeal must be lodged within two months of the day on which you receive this notice or such longer time as the Environment, Resources & Development Court may allow. Please contact the Environment, Resources & Development Court (Telephone 8204 0300) if you wish to appeal.

(3) If this is a consent/approval with or without conditions, and building rules consent is required, then the building rules application must be made within 12 months of the date of this Notification unless this period has been extended by the Council or by the Development Assessment Commission.

You will require a new Development Plan Consent/approval if you are unable to satisfy this requirement.

(4) This decision does not obviate the need for you to obtain approvals and clearances under other relevant legislation before commencing the development.

(5) New crossovers must be located in a position which ensures the retention of street trees. In the event that it is not possible to do so, then the applicant is required to obtain the prior approval from Council for the subsequent trimming or removal of any such tree. Application forms are available from Council. The cost of removal and replacement, (replacement with preferred and similarly advanced species will be required) will be the responsibility of the applicant/owner. Otherwise, the removal of street trees is not permitted!

15

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

(6) Please note that any building activity or operation that pollutes or might pollute the environment must include all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise any resulting environmental harm (Section 25, Environment Protection Act).

(7) It is your responsibility to ensure that the proposed building work is correctly sited with respect to the property boundaries of the subject land and it is strongly recommended that a boundary survey be undertaken before any work commences.

You should also note that you will need to obtain prior permission from your neighbour should you wish to access their property through any construction work adjacent the boundary.

(8) Where building work or work of a prescribed nature as defined in Regulation 75 (Division 3 of Regulations under the Development Act 1993 as amended) is undertaken on or adjacent to a boundary, the owner of the building site has obligations pursuant to Section 60 (Part 6 Division 3) of the Development Act to notify the adjoining owner/s of the proposed work.

Where the proposed works are on the boundary, the building owner is to ensure that no encroachments upon, over or under occur. This may necessitate a survey of the boundary by the building site’s owner to avoid a violation of the neighbour's rights.

(9) The following measures should be observed during relevant stages of demolition work:

a) any building area where it is possible that a person could be injured or property damaged by falling or rebounding material, should be fenced or barricaded;

b) clearly legible notices, warning people of the danger, should be affixed in places where they will be readily visible to anyone approaching the area;

c) temporary supports should be provided as necessary to ensure stability of any remaining part of the structure during demolition;

d) disconnection of the relative services should be carried out by the respective specialist trade;

e) no burning of materials or rubbish is to occur on the site;

f) materials should not be loaded at or transported from the site in a manner that will give rise to excessive dust;

g) damping or other suitable means should be used to prevent dust due to demolition work from rising into the air;

h) any footway, nature strip or road, is not to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or dangerous to the public during demolition work;

i) suitable measures are to be taken to protect any footpath, nature strip, street tree or road from damage, and the demolition contractor will be held liable. The demolisher shall be required to pay all costs incurred, as a result of Council reinstating all/and or any costs incurred by Council in rectifying any damage;

j) material and rubble should be removed from the site as soon as possible and in any event within 14 days;

k) an approved pest controller should be engaged to manage all vermin prior to commencing demolition work;

l) Special procedures may need to be implemented in cases where asbestos material is present. Advice and information can be obtained from the Dept. of Industrial Affairs – Mineral Fibres Branch.

m) Separate approvals to alter infrastructure may be required from the following: Telstra; SA Water; ETSA; Boral Energy; SA Metro Fire Service.

16

Defe

rred

City of Prospect

n) Onsite facilities for the storage or disposal of waste and for toilet accommodation for work persons should be provided.

o) Mud or sediment deposited on a roadway or gutter is to be cleaned up using dry sweeping methods at the end of each working day.

All domestic waste collection bins should be placed in storage or secured on-site while demolition works are undertaken or while the site is unattended to prevent damage, misplacement or theft of Council bins.

Scott McLuskey Development Officer - Planning

17

Defe

rred

Attachments 1-143 (pages 18-160) have been removed to comply with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968

City of Prospect

AGENDA ITEM: 5.2 To: Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 9 September 2013 From: Scott McLuskey, Development Officer Planning Proposal: Two Storey Detached Dwelling with Associated Masonry Fence

(DA 050/238/2013) Address: 16A McInnes Avenue Broadview (CT 6100/961)

SUMMARY: Planning Authority: Council Referrals (Schedule 8): Nil Public Notification: Category 1 Representations: Not applicable Respondent: Not applicable Development Plan Version: Consolidated 22 November 2012 Zone and Policy Area: Residential Zone (Policy Area A350) Issues: Setback, character, bulk and scale, streetscape appearance Recommendation: Refusal

1. LOCALITY AND SUBJECT LAND 1.1 Locality

1.1.1 For the purpose of assessment of the proposal, the locality is considered to

extend approximately 100m to the east and 100m west of the subject land. The locality is defined to this extent due to the consistency of allotment sizes and presentation of dwellings to the street, in combination with the extent of visibility of the proposed development within the streetscape.

1.1.2 The broader locality, indicating the location of the subject land within the relevant

Zone and Policy Area as described in the Development Plan is described in Attachment 1. Photographs of nearby properties are included at Attachments 2-5.

1.2 Subject Land

1.2.1 The subject land is located 150m west of Galway Avenue and 130m east of

Meredith Street. The land comprises one allotment with a total area of 553m², with a frontage of 10.4m to McInnes Avenue and a depth of 53.4m. The land is essentially flat.

161

City of Prospect

1.2.2 Presently, the site is vacant following demolition of the previous house. The

subject land is illustrated on Attachment 6. Photographs of the subject land at present and prior to demolition are also included for reference (refer Attachments 7).

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The subject land was divided into two allotments by application 050/155/2012. The

application provided two allotments that met the quantitative provisions of the Development Plan, and received Development Approval on 7 June 2012.

2.2 Preliminary advice regarding this proposal was sought from Development Services on 8 April 2013. A written response was provided, outlining concerns relating to the built appearance and character, building envelope, and length and height of boundary walls proposed. It was recommended that support was unlikely to be given for a proposal of this nature if it were to be lodged.

2.3 Further preliminary advice was sought in relation to amended plans provided to

Development Services on 15 May 2013. A written response was provided on 21st May 2013 acknowledging the softening of the appearance through the amendments. The response outlines the key provisions of the plan that relate to the assessment of streetscape appearance and offers no further comment on the likelihood of the application receiving support, advising that a thorough assessment would be required to establish this.

2.4 On the 22 May 2013, the applicant wrote to Development Services, seeking additional

comment as to the likelihood that the preliminary drawings would be supported if lodged as an application. The relevant officer responded on that same day, confirming that the concerns raised in the initial letter would be applicable if the application were to be lodged. The response outlined elements of the assessment process and confirmed the key components of the design that would be assessed.

2.5 This application, as lodged with Development Services on the 5 July 2013,

predominantly reflects the original design submitted for preliminary advice, retaining some of the amendments later submitted.

3. PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposal comprises the construction of a two storey detached dwelling with a

double-width garage under main roof, masonry pillar fence with aluminium tubular infill, widening of the existing crossover, and the establishment of associated fencing, paving and landscaping. A concrete plinth of approximately 200mm height is proposed to the side boundaries of the property to retain the minor amount of fill required. No other works are proposed.

3.2 The proposal plans are attached (refer Attachments 8-10). Supporting documentation

comprising a written submission regarding the proposal from the owner/applicant is attached (refer Attachment 11-16) which includes a series of photographs provided by the applicant in support of their application.

3.3 Briefly, the written submission identifies that a diverse character is present with McInnes

Avenue and adjoining streets, consisting of a variety of styles and design features. It notes several dwelling designs that are described as modern and minimalistic by comparison to the soft, classical detail of the proposal. Photos are provided in support of these comments.

162

City of Prospect

3.4 The submission further offers that the proposal addresses character of the locality by featuring: timber windows with glazing bars, detailing in the form mouldings around windows, colourbond custom orb roof of profile and pitch to complement locality and setback of the garage behind the front of the building and a verandah.

3.5 The submission also notes possible amendments to: front facade materials, front facade

roof form, appearance of roller doors, front setback and extent of paving and landscaping to front yard area.

4. REFERRALS 4.1 No independent consultant’s advice or consultation with external agencies was required. 5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 5.1 The application is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Section 38 of the

Development Act 1993, Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008 and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, as it involves the construction of a detached dwelling.

5.2 Accordingly, no public notification was undertaken. 6. PLANNING COMMENTARY 6.1 The application involves building work and therefore an application for development

approval is required. The proposal is neither a complying nor a non-complying development with reference to Principle of Development Control 13 of the Residential Zone and is therefore to be considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan.

6.2 It is noted that the subject land is located in an area within which the Residential Development Code may apply for new dwellings. It is further noted that the applications fails to satisfy the relevant criteria required for consideration and determination against the Code.

6.3 Pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993, a development that is assessed

by the relevant authority as being seriously at variance with the Development Plan must not be granted consent. To this end, the Panel must determine whether the proposal is seriously at variance with the Development Plan prior to making a decision on the application.

7. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 7.1 Land Use

7.1.1 The Residential Zone of the Development Plan expresses a desire for a range of

dwelling types and styles to meet the need of the community, together with local facilities of complementary scale and function (Residential Zone Obj. 1, PDC 2).

7.1.2 The proposed use is a residential use of land divided in accordance with relevant provisions of the Development Plan and embodies the clearly expressed intention of the zone.

163

City of Prospect

7.2 Site access

7.2.1 The Development Plan seeks to ensure that safe and convenient access is provided to all residential properties, with driveways and crossovers being compatible with the existing or desired character of the locality. (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 3, 7, 46, 170, 183, 184 and 186)

7.2.2 The proposal incorporates the widening of the existing access point to a total width of 4.8m. This alteration will not impact upon any street infrastructure and represents a reasonable crossover width, retaining opportunities for landscaping and minimisation of paving.

7.2.3 Council’s Infrastructure and Environment Department has not identified any

concerns with the proposed location of the crossover. 7.3 Site preparation

7.3.1 The Development Plan seeks to minimise the amount of cut and fill to properties while ensuring appropriate stormwater disposal methods including discharge of roof and groundwater to Council infrastructure without impact to adjoining properties. (Council Wide Obj. 16, PDCs 45, 46 and 209)

7.3.2 Some minimal site build up is proposed, which will involve the creation of minor (200mm approx.) concrete plinths to both side boundaries. These are not expected to cause unreasonable impact to adjoining properties.

7.4 Building works

7.4.1 The proposed dwelling would provide car parking, study, toilet and laundry facilities, and living areas at ground floor level, with a second living area, four bedrooms and two bathrooms (including ensuite) located at first floor level.

7.4.2 The maximum height of the proposed building is 7.7m above natural ground level,

with ceiling heights of 2.75m above finished floor levels. The garage and portico facade presents to the street with a height of 3.85m above natural ground level. The garage wall is proposed to be built to boundary at a height of 3.25m above natural ground level for a total length of 7.6 metres.

7.5 Design, Appearance and Character

7.5.1 New residential development should assist in providing a range of housing styles,

including two storey dwellings, which are consistent with the characteristics of development within the locality of any subject site. Building height, finished floor level and boundary setbacks to boundaries are key elements that the Plan seeks to manage to ensure the compatibility of new housing with existing localities (Council Wide Obj. 16 and 25, PDCs 46, 52, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 75 and 76).

The Desired Character Statement for Policy Area A350 expresses the following:

Future development in the Policy Area should comprise or address the following key elements/attributes:

(a) the use of a single storey and two storey building scale and vertical

proportions ie total height above natural ground level and height of eaves, consistent with the residential design forms typical of the area;

164

City of Prospect

(b) the establishment of side, front and rear building setbacks consistent with those of adjacent sites, that promote retention of mature trees and the creation of generous landscaped gardens that contribute to the established streetscape character;

(c) the use and combination of materials and finishes that respond to the

predominant character of the area created by the use of brick, stone and rendered finishes and architectural detailed design addressing fenestration, doorways, window and eaves;

(d) use of roof forms and features, including materials, design and pitch which

are consistent with those predominating in the locality; and

(e) the use of open style front fences and plantings to define the public realm and private property boundary.

7.5.2 At ground floor level, the front setback of the proposed dwelling is 6.25m to the

front portico, and 8m to the front door and garage facade, with the garage entry itself setback some 9.2m. With the exception of the garage wall as above, the dwelling is setback 900mm from the western boundary of the site and 1m from the eastern boundary of the site. The dwelling features a rear setback of 14m.

7.5.3 At first floor level, the front setback of the proposed dwelling is 10.2m, with a 2.5m

setback to the western boundary and 2.8m setback to eastern boundary. The applicant has provided building envelope plans that accurately depict PDC 11(a) of Policy Area A350 and show incursion into the envelope to both sides of the dwelling at both ground and first floor level, particularly in relation to facade design treatments.

7.5.4 Dwellings adjacent to the subject land are setback from front property boundaries

generally between 8.5m and 11.5m to the main face of the dwelling, with porticos at 6.5m and car parking facilities behind the main face of the dwelling. The adjacent two storey dwelling features side setbacks to its upper level of approximately 2.5m.

7.5.5 The proposed masonry fence features 5 pillars of 500mm width at 2m in height,

with tubular style aluminium fencing to a height of 1.7m. Fencing within the locality is of mixed form, with two adjacent properties utilising a similar form of fencing to that proposed.

7.5.6 Council Wide Objective 25 best summarises the desire of the Development Plan

with respect to the appearance of infill development: Objective 25: Harmonious integration of new development with the old.

7.5.7 Through a series of objectives and principles of development control as listed below, the Plan asks that the assessment of new dwellings consider the existing locality with respect to amenity, character and particular common design elements. Design solutions are sought to provide a variety of different housing types and styles that complement without visually dominating their localities. (Council Wide Obj. 2, 16 and 25, PDCs 3, 46, 52, 53 and 55, Residential Zone Obj. 1, PDCs 1, 10 and 11, and Policy Area A350 Obj. 1, PDC 4)

7.5.8 At present, the locality consists primarily of reasonably well setback single storey dwellings, which commonly feature stone and brick facades with gable roof structures on wider allotments. Parking facilities are generally via more recently added structures with low roof profile, though several reasonably inconspicuous

165

City of Prospect

garages under main roof are present. The presence of two other two storey dwellings within the locality is noted. These dwellings are shown in Attachment 5.

7.5.9 More recent developments consisting of stone or brick wall facade featuring tiled

hip roof forms are visible within the locality. Reasonably new development has been undertaken at 23 McInnes Avenue as shown in Attachment 4, approved on the 14th of April 2010. These more recent developments display setbacks and design features that complement common design features seen on older, existing dwellings, whilst retaining the original width and pattern of division.

7.5.10 The proposed dwelling reflects a modern design language not seen within the

locality. It uses projected parapet walls to create rendered, horizontal features above the ceiling level of each storey. The portico is partially enclosed, inhibiting the visibility of the front door, with no ground level habitable room windows facing the street. Due to the proposed setback of the dwelling, 4m of the garage boundary wall would project forward of the building line of the adjoining dwelling.

7.5.11 Of primary concern are the roof form, materials and colours, bulk of parapet

facade treatments, and the proportion of door and window openings to the front facade. In appearance, the garage and its facade treatment are the visually prominent components of the dwelling. This effect is exacerbated by the extent of paving and limited opportunity for landscaping within the front yard area.

7.5.12 Within the locality, dwellings typically feature multiple front windows, open

porticos and visually notable doors, framed by complementary material and colour choices for facade walls, which minimise the impact of wider garages located under main roofs. Indeed, three different approaches to this consistent design characteristic are seen in Attachments 4-5. These dwellings all feature a gable roof form in their design.

7.5.13 The prominent design features of the dwelling do not adequately reflect the

principal characteristics of dwellings within the locality. As such, the proposal represents a departure from the above identified objectives and principles of development control that seek to ensure harmony between old and new development.

7.6 Energy Conservation Measures

7.6.1 The Development Plan desires increased energy conservation and efficiency through passive design features such as orientation of windows, living areas and private open space, cross-ventilation opportunities and other design measures as relevant (Council Wide Obj. 16, PDCs 10 and 79).

7.6.2 Ground floor living and alfresco areas are orientated to the northern side of the house, although windows to the living area are shaded year-round by the alfresco. The lack of east or west facing windows minimises opportunity for cross-ventilation and natural light access to the kitchen area. The study provides one shaded east facing window.

7.6.3 Bedroom 1 provides one south facing window only, with the remainder of the first

floor level providing east and west facing windows only. This assists in cross-ventilation opportunities throughout the majority of the first floor, though the proposal could have provided a better outcome for bedroom 4 by the provision of a north, rather than west, facing window.

166

City of Prospect

7.6.4 Opportunities exist for the placement of solar panels to the northern aspect of the roof, which is proposed at a 25° pitch. This area is limited to a reasonably small footprint of approximately 9m².

7.6.5 In effect, the design of the proposed dwelling would not realise the potential opportunity for passive solar thermal design that is inherently possible in north-south oriented allotments.

7.7 Site Coverage and Private Open Space provision

7.7.1 New residential development of this type within Policy Area A350 of the Residential Zone should cover no more than 50% of the total area of the allotment. Development should also provide 25m² of private open space per proposed bedroom to be provided, with this area directly accessible from a living area of the dwelling, located to the side or rear of the dwelling and with a minimum dimension of 4 metres. The Plan provides that up to 20% of this area may be covered by a verandah (Residential Zone Obj. 1, Policy Area A350 Obj. 1, PDCs 8, 9 and 10).

7.7.2 The floor area of the proposal is 259m², which results in coverage of 47% of the allotment, satisfying the provisions of Policy Area A350 PDC 8.

7.7.3 The proposal provides 186m² of private open space to the rear of the dwelling

with some 18% of this area being covered. The private open space is north facing, directly accessed from an internal living area and features a minimum dimension greater than 10 metres.

7.7.4 The proposal achieves the quantitative provisions of PDCs 9 and 10, which would

require 100m² of private open space in this instance. The generous provision of private open space provides ample opportunity for landscaping within the rear yard as well as ample recreational space.

7.8 Car Parking

7.8.1 The Development Plan seeks the provision of two parking spaces, at least one of which is covered, for dwellings of up to 3 bedrooms, with an additional space to be provided for every two additional bedrooms proposed (Council Wide Obj. 16, PDCs 56, 57 and 59).

7.8.2 The proposal provides a total of four onsite parking spaces; with two covered

parking spaces provided in the proposed garage, with a further two stacked spaces in front of the proposed dwelling also available. The proposal therefore achieves the guideline parking provision of Council Wide PDC 56 as described above.

7.9 Overshadowing

7.9.1 New development should be designed to ensure that opportunities remain for adjoining residents to gain appropriate solar access to windows and areas of Private Open Space (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 69, 71, 76, 77, 78, 201 and 212).

7.9.2 Council Wide PDCs 77 and 78 provide quantitative guidelines for the appropriate amount of solar access to be retained by existing dwellings, though the desire of PDCs 70 and 71 to minimise any impact upon the existing amenity enjoyed by adjoining residents must also be considered.

167

City of Prospect

7.9.3 As the allotment is south facing, the proposal inherently achieves many of these desired outcomes. Neighbouring areas of private open space will be affected for less than half of the six hour period prescribed by PDC 78, with no overshadowing to north facing windows of adjacent properties. As a result, any impact to adjoining properties will be minor only and will satisfy the desired outcome.

7.10 Visual Privacy

7.10.1 The privacy of adjoining neighbours should be appropriately protected from direct overlooking by occupiers of new development. Design techniques are recommended to prevent the direct overlooking of adjacent private open spaces and adjoining windows, which include window sills to a height of 1.7m above floor level and balcony screens to 1.8m above floor level (Council Wide Obj. 2 and 16, PDCs 89, 90 and 91).

7.10.2 As a result of the minimal amount of site build up, overlooking from ground floor windows and outdoor areas will be ameliorated by ordinary boundary fencing. Upstairs windows are proposed to be fixed and obscured to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level. This achieves the quantitative provisions of Council Wide PDC 90.

7.10.3 No balcony or deck is proposed to form part of this application. The south facing

window is not proposed to be fixed or obscured, but provides wing walls that prevent overlooking to the windows of adjoining dwellings, while providing passive surveillance to McInnes Avenue.

8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The application seeks the construction of a building that is generally envisioned by the

Development Plan. It would provide appropriately sized areas for functions such as private open space and car parking, while addressing the potential concerns of overlooking and overshadowing.

8.2 The style and siting of the proposed dwelling, however, is not consistent with or

complementary to the existing character of its locality, or the desired future character of the Development Plan. The proposal varies in design from nearby dwellings by height, roof form, materials and colours, bulk of parapet facade treatments, and the proportion of door and window openings to the front facade, all of which are key elements forming the streetscape character of the locality.

8.3 Further, the proposal provides limited opportunity to soften its appearance through

setbacks or landscaping, being closer to the front property boundary than adjacent dwellings, marginally exceeding the building envelope in both storeys and paving the majority of the front yard area.

8.4 The application is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of

the Prospect (City) Development Plan and does not merit the granting of development plan consent.

168

City of Prospect

9. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended: That with reference to the relevant provisions of the Prospect (City) Development Plan, the zoning of the land within which the proposed development is situated and the locality within which the land is situated, the Panel resolves that development application 050/238/2013 is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan and as such a decision shall be made on the merits of the application; and That pursuant to the Development Act 1993, as amended, Development Plan Consent be refused to DA 050/238/2013 from Rob and Tania Condo for Two Storey Detached Dwelling with Associated Masonry Fence at 16A McInnes Avenue Broadview (CT 6100/961), as the proposal would: Be inconsistent with the desired future character and the existing character of the locality. As such, the proposed development would be at variance with the relevant provisions of the Prospect (City) Development Plan and in particular: Council Wide Objectives 2, 16 & 25; Council Wide Principles of Development Control 3, 46, 52, 53 and 55; Residential Zone Principles of Development Control 1 & 2; Residential Policy Area A350 Desired Character Statement; Residential Policy Area A350 Objective 1; and Residential Policy Area A350 Principle of Development Control 4. Advisory Notes: Pursuant to Section 86(1)(a) of the Development Act, 1993, you have the right of appeal to the Environment, Resources and Development Court against either 1) a refusal of consent or 2) any condition(s) which have been imposed on a consent. Any such appeal must be lodged with the Court within two (2) months from the day on which you receive this notification or such longer period as may be allowed by the Court. The Environment, Resources and Development Court is located in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide SA 5000 (Postal Address: GPO Box 2465, Adelaide SA 5001).

Scott McLuskey Development Officer - Planning

169

Attachments 1-16 (pages 170-185) have been removed to comply with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968

ITEM NO.: 6.1 TO: Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 9 September 2013 FROM: Chris Newby, Manager Development Services SUBJECT: Summary of Court Appeals and Enforcement Matters 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide a monthly update to DAP members on the current appeals involving City of Prospect and to advise of any current enforcement notices that have been issued.

2. RELEVANCE TO STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS / POLICY

2.1 Core Strategy 4 – Our Character – “Welcoming and interesting public spaces, leafy streets, heritage places, local stories and diverse people; the Character of our City.”

3. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

3.1 No consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Monthly updates are provided for the information of the DAP in relation to:

(1) any planning appeals before the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERDC) and their status; and

(2) any Section 69 or 84 enforcement notices issued.

4.2 There are currently no appeals against development application decisions before the ERDC.

4.3 The following enforcement notices have been issued by Council in respect of alleged breaches of the Development Act. Updates on each matter are highlighted in italics:

(1) 16 Asquith Street, Nailsworth: The construction of an approved two storey dwelling addition has been completed, but not all of the upper storey windows have been screened in accordance with the approval. A Section 84 notice has been issued requiring that the screening be established. Temporary screening has been established while screening solutions are being considered by the applicant.

(2) 16 Alpha Road, Prospect: Planning consent has been granted for a single-storey dwelling, garage and pool, but building rules consent and development approval have not been issued. Siteworks and retaining walls have commenced without approval. A Section 84 notice has been issued requiring that works cease until approval is obtained. No further works have been undertaken since the notice was issued.

(3) 61 Prospect Road, Prospect: Pruning works on a regulated tree had commenced without approval. A Section 84 notice has been issued requiring that works

186

cease. An arborist has been engaged to advise on whether or not the tree should be retained. No further pruning works have been undertaken.

(4) 3 Dudley Avenue, Prospect: Development approval had been granted for the construction of a dwelling at the rear of the existing dwelling. While construction of the dwelling has been completed and it is now occupied, the driveway has not been surfaced in accordance with the approval. A Section 84 notice has been issued requiring that the driveway be completed. The owner has confirmed that the driveway will be completed soon.

5. PREFERRED OPTION & JUSTIFICATION

5.1 The status of appeals and enforcement notices has been provided to the DAP for information purposes.

6. RECOMMENDATION

(1) The Development Assessment Panel receives and notes the information.

Chris Newby Manager Development Services

187

City of Prospect

Page 1

ITEM NO.: 6.2 ON AGENDA TO: Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 9 September 2013 FROM: Chris Newby, Manager Development Services SUBJECT: Feedback to Council on the Development Plan and the DAP

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide the DAP an opportunity to consider advice to Council on trends and issues relating to planning or development that have become apparent through assessment of applications under the Development Act.

2. RELEVANCE TO CORE STRATEGIES / POLICY

2.1 Core Strategy 2 – Our Economy.

2.1 Target and encourage appropriate and diverse commercial investment.

2.2 Support retail, commercial, home and e-business development across our City.

2.2 Core Strategy 3 – Our Environment.

3.1 Support our community to minimise our City’s impact on the environment in the areas of waste management, water usage, energy efficiency and biodiversity.

2.3 Core Strategy 4 – Our Character.

4.1 Encourage preservation of character dwellings and surrounding residential amenity.

4.2 Encourage development on arterial roads to improve housing options and to complement the character, heritage and amenity of our City.

2.4 The Terms of Reference for the City of Prospect Development Assessment Panel identify that a function of the DAP is to provide advice and reports to Council.


3.1 Two workshops were undertaken with DAP members to inform this report. No further consultation is required.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 At the March 2013 meeting of the DAP, members expressed an interest in holding a workshop to provide feedback to Council on the Development Plan. A workshop was held after both the June and July DAP meetings. The DAP broadly discussed the format and procedures of DAP meetings, the design review process, adequate

188

City of Prospect

Page 2

provision of private open space, public notification, hammerhead blocks and semi-detached dwellings.

4.2 A draft submission to Council (refer Attachments 1-9) has been prepared to reflect the discussion that occurred. The submission will be reported to Council following endorsement by the DAP.


5.1 The draft submission reflects the discussion of the DAP members and will provide an insight for Council into matters relating to planning or development identified by the DAP.

6. RECOMMENDATION

(1) The Development Assessment Panel endorses the feedback to Council as contained in Attachments 1-9.


189

City of Prospect

CITY OF PROSPECT 128 Prospect Road, Prospect SA 5082 Telephone (08) 8269 5355 Facsimile (08) 8269 5834

MEMORANDUM TO: Council FROM: The Development Assessment Panel (DAP) DATE: 9 September 2013 SUBJECT: Feedback to Council from the DAP on planning matters Dear Elected Members, Council’s Development Assessment Panel held two informal discussions on a range of matters in June and July 2013, with a view to collating feedback for Council on current trends, issues or other matters pertaining to the planning and development assessment process, with particular regard to the current provisions of Council’s Development Plan. The following feedback has subsequently been endorsed by the DAP. DAP Meetings The format, structure and procedures of the DAP meetings were discussed and the current DAP is considered to be operating well. When appropriate, opportunities are provided for stakeholders to be heard and the process is focussed on achieving the best possible development outcome. Design Review It is generally agreed that an efficient and effective design review process could be achieved by referring an application to an independent architect for advice as part of the assessment process. The advice from the architect could then be provided to the DAP as part of the report from administration, and the DAP would undertake the final review of the design. Private Open Space It is suggested that consideration should be given to changing the criteria against which private open space is assessed. Changes to policy may achieve the intended balance between retaining the existing neighbourhood character and the amenity that large rear yards provide, while providing sufficient flexibility to suit a range of housing types. Public Notification While it is desirable that applications be more widely notified, it is anticipated that changes to the legislation and/or to the Development Plan would be required to enable public notification for a wider variety of applications. For example, the displaying of a notice on land where development is proposed be undertaken falls outside Council’s legislative authority, although Council may (through amendments to its Development Plan) identify a wider range of development that is subject to Category 2 notification.

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 1 190

City of Prospect

Hammerhead Development The benefits and drawbacks of hammerhead development and semi-detached dwellings for in-fill development was discussed and it is agreed that the suitability or otherwise of each solution is dependent on context. The character of a locality as felt by local residents is not just about the view from the street, but also the view from their rear yards. It was noted that a 3 metre wide driveway area would be sufficient to gain access to the rear dwelling, rather than the 5 metre wide access way currently suggested in the Development Plan. Semi Detached Dwellings and New Development In discussion on semi-detached dwellings, and more broadly on all new development in existing character areas, it is suggested that the applicant should be required to address the potential streetscape impact of new development through the submission of a detailed streetscape analysis by an architect or urban designer, particularly for applications for semi-detached dwellings. Additional notes from the discussion are provided on the following pages for your reference. Sincerely, David Blaikie Presiding Member, Development Assessment Panel

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 2 191

City of Prospect

Development Assessment Panel Meetings

1. DAP members appreciate some informality, as it is easier for DAP members and applicants to discuss matters.

2. The process at Prospect is generally more user-friendly and offers a more relaxed environment than at other Councils’ DAPs.

3. Some leeway is shown to ensure people are heard and that matters are discussed openly, and it was felt that better decisions are made as a result.

4. The DAP process is outcome-focussed and members are aware of the need to try not to design by committee, but to assess an application on its merits.

5. The need for caution in determining reasons for deferring applications was discussed, although it was agreed that deferral usually resulted in better design outcomes.

6. Reports from staff are easy to read. Design Review

1. The potential issues with a detailed design review, such as the Design Review Process undertaken by Office for Design and Architecture (ODASA), is that it is labour-intensive and resource hungry. Time frames for assessment are also of concern, as some proposals have taken 9-18 months to go through ODASA.

2. A “Design Review Light” could be implemented, for development that may not be State significant, but is Prospect significant, although there is a question mark over how the State could support this.

3. When the Design Review Process should apply will depend on the nature of the application. Higher density development on corridors will require architectural design, review and streetscape analysis.

4. If a Prospect Design Review Panel was established, then there could be involvement by Council elected members on the Panel, although expertise in architecture and design was preferred.

5. If Prospect had a panel of architects, the process might involve a review of the proposal plan, then a face to face meeting with the applicant/designer, feedback and negotiation, then a final review of the amended plans.

6. If the administrative budget allows, then there should be architectural advice in the assessment process, which can then be used to negotiate a better outcome, in much the same way as heritage or parking advice is used. It was suggested that a trial of getting an independent consulting architect to report on proposals was seen as a potentially feasible option within the current legislative framework, rather than an ODASA-style design review.

7. A clear issue is that the “average” applicant doesn’t understand contextual assessment. Early advice during the process is required, preferably from an architect on staff or engaged as a contractor by Council. Alternatively, or in addition, a report on the contextual analysis of a proposal could be requested from the applicant.

8. It will always be beneficial to have architects on the DAP, but an architect should not be chairperson of the DAP. In addition, with two architects on the DAP and the ability to defer applications for further design modifications, it was suggested that Council is already using the DAP for design review.

Private Open Space

1. The current guideline of 25m² per bedroom should be changed to reflect diversity of dwelling types. The function and location of private open space is critical, as good space can be more valuable than lots of space.

2. More flexibility is required to reflect changing family/community needs. 3. However, the policy guiding the provision of private open space doesn’t always

appear to reflect the existing character of an area. E.g. an important part of the

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 3 192

City of Prospect

character of an area may be large back yards, but the current policy doesn’t require that these be retained. Particularly in the middle range of 400-600m² sites, this is often an issue.

4. Other Development Plans are different, and relate the provision of private open space to the amount of the site that should remain open rather than the number of bedrooms.

5. Excerpts from the SA Planning Policy Library (v6) and the City of Unley, Prospect and West Torrens Development Plans provide some examples of the different policy approaches that may be available.

Public Notification

1. While of benefit to the community, the displaying a notice on the property when a proposal is submitted is outside the control of the Council.

2. While consistent with legislative requirements, concerns were raised about not undertaking public notification for applications for variations to previous approvals to Council.

Hammerhead Blocks

1. Hammerhead style development is generally an acceptable outcome from a streetscape perspective, if the original house is being retained.

2. It can, however, detract from adjoining properties as the new house at the rear impacts on views from adjoining properties.

3. An issue is that it requires too much land to be dedicated to driveway and manoeuvring areas, which then discourages hammerhead, so driveway width should be reduced.

4. Maintaining the provision of on-street parking is an issue with all types of in-fill development and needs to be carefully considered.

5. Blocks that are narrow and deep, and result in development such as long semi-detached dwellings, may be able to be developed with a more cohesive character than hammerhead allotments.

Semi Detached Dwellings

1. The desired form of semi-detached dwellings needs to be descriptive, but flexible enough to be adaptable for individual streets.

2. Current provisions of the Development Plan favour the demolition of dwellings and construction of semi-detached dwellings, which are sometimes inconsistent with the established character.

3. All development should focus on streetscape impact and encourage the retention of the existing character.

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 4 193

City of Prospect

Development Plan Excerpts (Private Open Space) SAPPL

Private Open Space

1 Private open space (available for exclusive use by residents of each dwelling) should be provided for each dwelling and should be sited and designed:

(a) to be accessed directly from a habitable rooms of the dwelling

(b) to be generally at ground level (other than for residential flat buildings) and to the side or rear of a dwelling and screened for privacy

(c) to take advantage of, but not adversely affect, natural features of the site

(d) to minimise overlooking from adjacent buildings

(e) to achieve separation from bedroom windows on adjacent sites

(f) to have a northerly aspect to provide for comfortable year round use

(g) not to be significantly shaded during winter by the associated dwelling or adjacent development

(h) to be partly shaded in summer

(i) to minimise noise or air quality impacts that may arise from traffic, industry or other business activities within the locality

(j) to have sufficient area and shape to be functional, taking into consideration the location of the dwelling, and the dimension and gradient of the site.

2 Dwellings at ground level should provide private open space in accordance with the following table:

Site area per dwelling (square metres)

Minimum area excluding any area at ground level at the front of the dwelling (square metres)

Minimum dimension(metres)

Minimum area provided at the rear or side of the dwelling, directly accessible from a habitable room (square metres)

>500 80, of which 10 may comprise balconies, roof patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres

4 24

300-500 60, of which 10 may comprise balconies, roof patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres

4 16

<300 24, of which 8 may comprise balconies, roof patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres

3 16

3 Private open space should not include driveways, effluent drainage areas, rubbish bin storage

areas, sites for rainwater tanks and other utility areas, and common areas such as parking areas and communal open space.

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 5 194

City of Prospect

4 Private open space at ground level should be designed to provide a consolidated area of deep soil (an area of natural ground which excludes areas where there is a structure underneath, pools and non-permeable paved areas) to:

(a) assist with ease of drainage

(b) allow for effective deep planting

(c) reduce urban heat loading and improve micro-climatic conditions around sites and buildings.

City of West Torrens

At

tach

men

t

Attachment 6 195

City of Prospect

Prospect RPA A350, A450 and A560

RPA B200

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 7 196

City of Prospect

City of Unley

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 8 197

City of Prospect

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 9 198

City of Prospect

Page 1

ITEM NO.: 6.3 ON AGENDA TO: Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 9 September 2013 FROM: Chris Newby, Manager Development Services SUBJECT: Feedback to Council on the Planning Reform

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide the DAP with information concerning the current planning reform and an opportunity for discussion on possible improvements to the planning system.

1.2 To provide an opportunity for feedback to be provided by the DAP to Council on matters relating to planning or development.

2. RELEVANCE TO CORE STRATEGIES / POLICY

2.1 Core Strategy 1 – Our Community.

1.1 Create an active, healthy, connected and safe community.

2.2 Core Strategy 2 – Our Economy.

2.1 Target and encourage appropriate and diverse commercial investment.

2.2 Support retail, commercial, home and e-business development across our City.

2.6 Seek to improve the communication links between government and business.

2.3 Core Strategy 4 – Our Character.

4.1 Encourage preservation of character dwellings and surrounding residential amenity..

4.2 Encourage development on arterial roads to improve housing options and to complement the character, heritage and amenity of our City..

4.6 Improve the regulatory environment.

2.4 Core Strategy 5 – Your Council.

5.3 Develop new public infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

5.5 Actively improve non vehicular community movement.

5.7 Provide efficient and effective services using the most appropriate service delivery model and technology.

5.8 Ensure Financial Stability.

199

City of Prospect

Page 2

2.5 The Terms of Reference for the City of Prospect Development Assessment Panel identify that a function of the DAP is to provide advice and reports to Council.


3.1 While consultation by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform has commenced, no consultation by Council administration has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

3.2 It is noted that the Purpose and Role of the DAP as described in its Terms of Reference limits the functions and responsibilities of the DAP. With due regard to these limitations, it is anticipated that the DAP would not be precluded from making comment on the Planning Reform (or similar legislative review), as well as providing comment to Council for consideration.

3.3 DAP members would also be able to make individual submissions in their capacity as members of the community.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 South Australia’s Expert Panel on Planning Reform was launched by Minister Rau in February 2013 with bipartisan support. The Expert Panel, chaired by Brian Hayes QC, has been given a very wide remit to review the State’s planning system and to report to Government and Parliament by December 2014 on recommendations for a new statutory framework, governance and administrative arrangements for the planning system. While the Expert Panel will focus on the planning legislation, it will also look carefully at all legislation that intersects with planning, and any other factors that have an impact on the planning system.

4.2 Accordingly, the Panel’s membership represents a wide range of experience within South Australia’s planning system. Membership of the Expert Panel is comprised of:

Brian Hayes, QC (chair); A prominent Senior Counsel and acknowledged expert in planning and environment law.

Natalya Boujenko; A founder of Intermethod and specialist in integrated street design, city development, transport planning and organisational development.

Stephen Hains; Former CEO of the City of Salisbury and past National President of the Australian Planning Institute.

Theo Maras, AM; Chairman of the Maras Group, Chairperson of the Rundle Mall Management Authority and Board Member of the Urban Renewal Authority.

Simone Fogarty; An urban and environmental planner, Principal Planner with consulting firm GHD and member of the Development Assessment Commission.

4.3 To support its work, the Expert Panel has established two Reference Groups – the Planning Reform Reference Group and the Agency Reference Group.

4.4 The Planning Reform Reference Group consists of representatives of a wide range of community and industry groups that have a strong interest in the planning system. The

200

City of Prospect

Page 3

discussions and conclusions of this group will be essential to the Expert Panel’s consideration of reform directions, options and, eventually, decisions, over the course of the reform process. Following his nomination by City of Prospect, Chief Executive Officer Mark Goldstone has been appointed to the Planning Reform Reference Group.

4.5 The Agency Reference Group is made up of all State Government agencies that interact with the planning system. The role of this group is to provide information and comments to the Expert Panel on how the Panel’s directions, options and decisions affect or intersect with other State legislation or work. The Expert Panel will also establish ‘ad hoc’ working parties to provide feedback and information to them throughout the reform process.

4.6 The Expert Panel’s Terms of Reference (refer Attachment 1) require it to:

Review legislation related to planning (specifically the Development Act 1993 and other relevant legislation) and all relevant governance and administrative arrangements.

Have regard to government policies and strategies for a vibrant city, liveable neighbourhoods and thriving regions.

Consult with community, industry, Councils and Members of Parliament.

Consider interstate and international practices and research.

Report to Government and Parliament by December 2014.

4.7 The Expert Panel has determined five key themes that will drive the reform and poses the following questions in relation to each theme:

1. Partnerships

1. How can our planning system encourage partnership across government, with the community and with business?

2. How can our planning system facilitate participation by South Australians in planning decisions? How can we promote better engagement with our community in shaping our future communities?

3. How should governance arrangements be established to foster a sense of shared endeavour in our planning system, help realise a shared vision for our community and build confidence in decision-making?

2. Integration

1. How can we ensure the community's shared vision for our future is delivered in an integrated fashion with other government policy?

2. How should our planning system facilitate, monitor and respond to change in a more integrated manner across government? How should other areas of government policy be integrated with the planning system?

3. What ways can we ensure infrastructure and government services keep pace with growth and ensure future communities are provided with high quality services?

201

City of Prospect

Page 4

3. Design thinking

1. How can we embed design in our planning system, revitalise our zoning framework and improve the quality of our streetscapes and public places?

2. How can we use design to set a standard of excellence that will become a hallmark of our communities in years to come?

4. Urban renewal

1. How can our planning system deliver urban renewal rather than continuing urban sprawl?

2. What mechanisms do we need to support regeneration of established suburbs and neighbourhoods?

3. How can we ensure that key urban precincts and places are activated and managed to make our communities vibrant and dynamic?

5. Performance

1. How can we ensure that our planning system is competitive, responsive and efficient?

2. How can we use new and emerging technologies to ensure our planning system is accessible and navigable for the community?

3. What ways can we monitor and measure performance so that we can ensure our planning system is delivering outcomes for the community?

4.8 Given the scope of the reform, the Expert Panel will be approaching the reform of the planning system within four key stages. The first stage has been completed and the reform is now in its second stage. The stages are as follows:

1. Stage One (March - July 2013)

1. Reviewing the current situation (research). The Panel considered the current planning system, understanding where we have been and the current and historical context of this reform process.

2. Establishing Partnerships (engagement). The Panel established the Reference Groups that will support it in its work, and the community and stakeholder links that will support the extensive engagement in Stage Two.

2. Stage Two (August – December 2013)

1. Researching best practice (research): The Panel will be analysing the planning system, utilising case studies and evidence based information to identify what is working well and not working well with the current system.

2. Listening/Scoping (engagement): The Panel will be undertaking an extensive stakeholder and community engagement program to:

Better understand how the current planning system is working from the perspective of different stakeholder groups and the members of the public.

202

City of Prospect

Page 5

Assist it in identifying the key questions the Panel should consider when developing options for reform, and

Identify desired outcomes of a future planning system

3. Output: Stage Two will result in a Progress Report summarising stakeholder and community views gathered during the engagement process and outlining the key questions that will be considered by the Panel in the context of the desired outcomes for the planning system.

3. Stage Three (January – July 2014)

1. Developing options (research): The Panel will utilise the knowledge gained through Stage Two to develop alternative legislative models and planning systems.

2. Exploring/Discussing (engagement): The Panel will engage with stakeholders and the community to discuss the relative merits of different models and systems, and to discuss which are most likely to achieve our desired planning system.

3. Output: An Options Paper will be published outlining proposals for reform for discussion with stakeholders and community.

4. Stage Four (August - December 2014)

1. Developing a preferred planning system (research): The Panel will consider all the inputs it has received, and develop a preferred planning system.

2. Proposing Testing (engagement): The Panel will release its preferred planning system and associated legislative changes for further feedback and discussion.

3. Outputs: A preferred planning system will be released by the Panel in August 2014 for final feedback.

4.9 A briefing session with South Australia’s Expert Panel on Planning Reform was held on 15 August 2013, with an invitation for all South Australian Elected Members extended to include CEOs and senior planning staff. Ideas, issues and suggestions raised by attendees included:

1. Development Plans should be more focussed on local Council issues, rather than reflecting the direction of State government.

2. There should be no more Ministerial Development Plan Amendments.

3. Development Plan Amendments should place greater emphasis on health, social and environmental issues.

4. Pictures or diagrams should be used in the Development Plan to better describe a desirable development outcome, rather than relying on words alone.

5. The Development Plan should include a clear indication of the hierarchy or weighting to be applied to each provision of the Plan.

203

City of Prospect

Page 6

6. There should be greater legislative protection for heritage and character buildings.

7. The planning system should encourage consolidation of allotments to achieve better development outcomes.

8. The planning system should reflect the democratic system, with neighbourhood notification for all developments. The public notification process should generally be improved.

9. The Design Review Process should be expanded to include smaller developments and outer metropolitan areas.

10. The anticipated reduction in property values due to new development on a nearby property should be able to be considered in the assessment process.

11. The potential should be explored for a mediation process to occur between applicants and representors prior to applications being considered by the Development Assessment Panel.

12. Reports to the Development Assessment Panel should not include recommendations from staff.

13. The establishment of regional Development Assessment Panels may assist in further improving the distinction between Council as a policy-maker and the (independent) DAP as a decision-making body.

4.10 The discussion highlighted that the planning system needs to be sufficiently robust to ensure that the rules are clear. Further, that the system should be structured in a manner that clearly describes when debate on topics (such as high-rise buildings) would occur, at which stage in the process that debate would be had, and who would be involved in the debate.

4.11 This initial briefing session, as well as other sessions held in Naracoorte and Port Augusta, marked the commencement of the ‘listening and scoping’ stage of the Expert Panel’s engagement process. Agency and community workshops will be held across South Australia during August and September 2013 to enable the Panel to hear a diversity of views about how a new planning system can be created.

4.12 Other topics that may be of interest to the Expert Panel could include:

1. The expense borne by Council as a relevant authority (including policy amendments, development assessment and planning appeals) compared with the income received for development applications.

2. The success of the streamlined assessment process known as the Residential Development Code.

3. Potential improvements to prosecution and enforcement processes, as well as the ability of Council to fine or penalise when breaches of the Act are detected.

4. Implications of an increased inspection and compliance regime.

4.13 It is anticipated that the Expert Panel will make its final recommendations to the Minister and to Parliament in December 2014.

204

City of Prospect

Page 7


5.1 The information on the Planning Reform has been provided to initiate discussion among DAP members. The discussion will inform the drafting of feedback, which will be presented to the DAP for endorsement at a subsequent meeting.

6. RECOMMENDATION

(1) The report be received.


205

EXPERT PANEL ON PLANNING REFORM

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. The Expert Panel on Planning Reform is established to review the State’s planning system and provide advice to the Government and Parliament for potential reforms.

2. The Expert Panel is required to—

(a) review legislation relating to planning, urban design and urban renewal—including the Development Act 1993 and the Housing and Urban Development (Administrative Arrangements)

Act 1995

(b) review the role and operation of all other legislation that impacts on the planning system (c) review statutory and non-statutory governance and administrative arrangements relating to the

planning system (d) propose a new statutory framework, governance and administrative arrangements for the

planning system, and (e) consider any matters referred to the Panel by the Minister for advice.

3. Recommendations of the Expert Panel must have regard to the vision for—

(a) a vibrant inner city for Adelaide—including the city centre, park lands and inner suburbs (b) liveable, affordable and healthy neighbourhoods, and (c) thriving, sustainable regional communities as outlined in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and the new strategic plans for regional areas of the State.

4. The Expert Panel is required to—

(a) consult widely with the community, industry, councils and parliamentarians (b) review interstate and overseas planning systems and urban renewal legislation, and (c) consider relevant public reports and academic research relating to planning, urban design and

urban renewal.

5. The Expert panel must provide a final report outlining recommendations for a new planning system by no later than the end of December 2014.

6. The Expert Panel may provide such interim reports or advice to the Government as it thinks fit, including advice on any matters that can be acted upon ahead of its final report.

7. Draft legislation will be developed by the Government, with the assistance of the Expert Panel. The

Government will consult with parliamentarians in drafting legislation.

Hon John Rau MP DEPUTY PREMIER MINISTER FOR PLANNING

Atta

chm

ent

Attachment 1 206

development assessment panel of city of prospect the north-east, 150m to the south and 250m west of...

Documents