217-219 east terrace, adelaide · removal of a significant tree. 217-219 east terrace, adelaide...
TRANSCRIPT
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
1
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
R V Jordan
Construction of a 6 level (ground plus 5 storeys) apartment building, and removal of a significant tree.
217-219 East Terrace, Adelaide
020/A065/15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO
AGENDA REPORT 2-30
ATTACHMENTS
1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 31-69
2: MAPS & PHOTOS 70-83
3: APPLICATION & PLANS
a. Holmes Partners – Planning Report
b. Phil Weaver & Associates – Traffic & Parking
Assessment
c. Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Arboricultural
Impact Assessment
d. Aspect Studios – Landscape Concept Design Report
85-181
4: AGENCY COMMENTS 182-184
5: COUNCIL TECHNICAL ADVICE 185-187
6: REPRESENTATIONS 188-238
7: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS 239-256
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
2
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
OVERVIEW
Application No 020/A065/15
Unique ID/KNET ID 2015/13216/01
Applicant R V Jordan
Proposal Construction of a 6 level (ground plus 5 storeys) apartment
building, and removal of a significant tree.
Subject Land 217-219 East Terrace
Zone/Policy Area City Living Zone, East Terrace Policy Area 29
Relevant Authority Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee of the
Development Assessment Commission
Lodgement Date 28 August 2015
Council Adelaide City Council
Development Plan Adelaide (City) Development Plan – consolidated 2 April 2015
Type of Development Merit
Public Notification Category 2
Representations 6 reps, 4 wish to be heard
Referral Agencies Government Architect
Report Author Elysse Kuhar, Planning Officer
RECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking to construct a 6 storey residential apartment building,
comprising 10 apartments and basement car park , and remove a significant tree, within
the City Living Zone . The proposed land use is consistent with the zone’s desire for
higher density infill development. It is also due to the intent of the zone that the removal
of the significant tree is supported.
The primary planning issues associated with the proposal include building height, design
and appearance, setback from side and rear boundaries and car parking. The proposal
exceeds the height limit of 4 storeys; however, the building proportion, balconies,
setbacks and materiality have contributed in minimising the building mass and height
when viewed from surrounding development. All apartments will have dual aspect, and
access to useable private open space and storage facilities, albeit short in some
circumstances.
The overall design and appearance is supported by the Government Architect, a
mandatory referral body.
The proposal was subject to Category 2 public notification, with 6 representations
received during the notification period. There were a number of concerns raised primarily
relating to the height and design of the development, and its impact on adjacent
properties in terms of noise, traffic, overlooking and overshadowing. The applicant has
adequately responded to the issues raised by the representors.
Overall, in considering the desired intent of the zone, representations received and the
comments from the Government Architect as well as the Adelaide City Council, the
proposal is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant planning consent.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
3
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
ASSESSMENT REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Strategic Context
The Council initiated Residential and Main Street Development Plan Amendment
(DPA) was consolidated on 30 October 2014. The DPA sought to review and
consolidate residential zones and investigate opportunities for medium rise residential
development on South Terrace and East Terrace. The DPA reviewed how previous
Development Plan quantitative controls such as density, floor space and height should
apply. The policy review included removing some of the non-complying triggers to
open up policy for more development to be considered on merit.
1.2 Pre-Lodgement Process
The proponent engaged in the pre-lodgement service, participating in three (3) Pre-
lodgement panel meetings and 2 (two) Design Review sessions.
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Application details are contained in ATTACHMENT 3.
The application is for the construction of a 6 storey (ground plus 5 storeys) apartment
building comprising 10 apartments and basement car park.
A summary of the proposal is as follows:
Land Use
Description
Residential apartment building including basement car park.
Building Height 6 levels (ground floor plus 5 storeys), building height of 20.46m
to the underside of the roof with a lift overrun of 1.94m
Description of levels Basement: Apartment dedicated car parking (22 spaces), 30
bicycle parking spaces.
Ground level: visitor car parking, including 1 disability access
car park (3 spaces), 2 x 2 bedroom garden apartments
Level 1-3: 2 x 3 bedroom apartments per floor
Level 4-5: 1 x 4 bedroom penthouse per floor
Apartment floor
area (excluding
balconies)
Apartments vary in size from approx. 124.9m2 to approx.
276.61m2.
Site Access Vehicle access via the existing Wilson Street crossover.
Car and Bicycle
Parking
22 parking spaces dedicated to the apartments located at
basement level with 3 visitor parking spaces, including one
disability access parking space, at ground level (total of 25 car
parking spaces). Bicycle racks for up to 30 bikes.
Encroachments Yes – Window shades on the northern elevation
Staging N/A
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
4
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
3. SITE AND LOCALITY
3.1 Site Description
The site consists of 4 (four) allotments, described as follows:
Lot No Street Suburb Hundred CT Reference
Lot 22 in DP 66895 East Terrace Adelaide Adelaide CT 5958/219
Lot 23 in DP 66895 East Terrace Adelaide Adelaide CT 5958/220
Lot 24 in DP 66895 East Terrace Adelaide Adelaide CT 5958/221
Lot 1 FP 5661 East Terrace Adelaide Adelaide CT 5958/224
The subject site is located on the corner of Wilson Street and East Terrace opposite
the East Parklands. The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage of 21.49m to
East Terrace and 47.14m to Wilson Street. The total site area is 1121.61m2.
The site currently contains a single storey building which has been used as offices for
the last 40 years. The rear of the site is predominantly used as a car park and
includes a free and unrestricted right of way servicing the property to the south
eastern corner of the site. A number of other easements for sewerage, water supply,
drainage, electricity, gas supply and TV signals are also accommodated on the site.
A significant tree is located on the boundary to Wilson Street in the north eastern
corner of the site.
The site falls slightly from west to east with a difference of around 0.75m.
3.2 Locality
The locality is characterised by a relatively intensively developed area including
predominantly apartment buildings and townhouse in the block bounded by East
Terrace, Halifax Street, Tomsey Street and Carrington Street. To the south of the
subject site, East Terrace accommodates a predominantly four storey built form,
typically built boundary to boundary. The locality is more urban than those parts of
East Terrace that are characterised by large detailed residences in landscaped
grounds.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
5
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Figure 1 – Location Map
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS or TECHNICAL ADVICE
4.1 Adelaide City Council
There is no formal statutory referral to Adelaide City Council, however, Council staff
have been informally consulted on the proposal through the case managed pre-
lodgement process and during the formal assessment process.
No formal position has been offered with respect to the planning merits of the
proposal or the impact on adjacent residential properties.
Traffic/Transport
Given the width of the Wilson Street footpath any encroachment (balconies)
cannot achieve the appropriate setback to ensure that they will not be damaged
by tall vehicles and must be at a height of 5m from the underside of the
encroachment to the roadway.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
6
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Line of sight to the pedestrians travelling east along the Wilson Street footpath
cannot be achieved and convex mirrors will need to be installed at the cost of the
developer.
The position of the lift will narrow the aisle in the basement car park and 4 x
bollards will be placed to protect the structure however it is recommended that
bollards or similar be placed to ensure that a person existing the lift does not walk
straight into the path of a vehicle.
Danger that a vehicle reversing from space 5 or 6 may reverse into lift doors.
Any changes to on-street parking will need to be discussed with Council.
Roads/Footpaths
Any damage to ACC’s infrastructure during development will be the responsibility
of the developer to rectify to a standard equal to or better than pre-development
condition.
The Wilson Street footpath and crossover (driveway) will need to be designed and
constructed to Council standards including approved materials at the cost of the
development.
Stormwater
Stormwater runoff from the proposed residential development must be maintained
within the property boundaries, collected and discharged to the East Terrace road
reserved. The majority of stormwater runoff from the proposed development must
be discharged to East Terrace however Council will accept the discharge of minor
stormwater runoff to Wilson Street.
Collected seepage water from the proposed landscaped areas must be either
discharged to sewer or the proposed rainwater reuse tank located in the basement
car park.
Surface levels of the access road to the basement vehicle ramp off Wilson Street
must be a minimum 100mm above the top of kerb levels in Wilson Street adjacent
to the vehicle driveway to provide adequate freeboard protection to the basement
car park from the 1 in 100 year ARI rainfall event.
Lighting/Electrical/CCTV
The post-top lighting along Wilson Street is owned by Council
Any temporary or permanent alterations to the infrastructure must comply with:
o AS/NZS 300:2007 Electrical Installations
o AS/NZS 1158 Road Lighting as applicable for this location
The proposed development works will impact on the public lighting within the
proximity of the development site
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
7
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
If temporary hoarding or site works require modification of existing Council and/or
SA Power Network’s public lighting (including associated infrastructure such as
cabling etc) shall meet Council’s requirements. The works shall be carried out to
meet Council’s requirements and all costs borne directly by the developer.
All modifications requiring temporary removal/relocation/provision of temporary
lighting/reinstatement of existing Council and/or SA Power Network’s public
lighting (including associated infrastructure such as cabling etc) shall meet
Council’s requirements. The works shall be carried out to meet Council’s
requirements and all costs borne directly by the developer.
All damage to Council infrastructure, including damage to public lighting and
underground ducting etc caused by projects works or loading of site crane onto
pathways will be repaired to meet Council’s requirements at the cost of the
developer.
If new canopies are to be constructed as part of these works, then lighting to
meet Councils under verandah requirements shall be installed.
Lighting design and installation to be fully compliant with AS 4282 – 1997 Control
of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting. Sign off by a consultant is required to
confirm compliance.
Relevant lighting calculation grid detailing property lines should be provided for
Council’s records
Street Trees/Landscaping
Reinstatement of all streetscaping adjacent to the proposed development is
required.
Street trees are desired to be retained and any need for pruning and or removal
must be done by Council only. All costs including tree valuation will be borne by
the applicant.
Urban Elements
Any urban elements or assets created or existing assets effected (requiring
relocation, removal or temporary storage) by this development requires the
approval of the Asset Manager Urban Elements prior to any works commencing.
Council will provide an invoice for any such works and it must be paid prior to any
works commencing. Note the assets are the property of Council and only Council
or its representatives can carry out the work.
There is a street name plate in the vicinity of the development.
It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to conditions
addressing Council’s technical comments.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
8
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
5. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS
Referral responses are contained in ATTACHMENT 4.
5.1 Government Architect
The Government Architect is a mandatory referral in accordance with Schedule 8 of
the Development Regulations 2008. The Commission must have regard to this advice.
The Government Architect advises that there is overall support for the land use,
massing and form of the proposed scheme. The proposal responds to the surrounding
context and prominent corner location.
The upper level set back and general massing and configuration on the site reduces
the massing to both East Terrace and Wilson Street by expressing the building as a
predominantly four level built form. This is further reinforced with a change in
material above the fourth level.
General support was expressed regarding the landscaped garden space for the East
Terrace frontage, colonnade linking street corner and main entrance on Wilson Street
and general integration with the public realm.
The Government Architect questioned whether the configuration and gradient of the
basement access ramp was compromised as a result of the easements, however, it is
noted that this was not identified in Council’s technical comments nor in the Traffic
Impact Assessment Report. The traffic modelling provided by the traffic consultant
indicates that this arrangement is acceptable.
No recommended conditions were included in the referral comments.
6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was notified as a Category 2 development pursuant to PDC 17 (b) of the
City Living Zone as it is not neither Category 1 nor non-complying. Public notification was
undertaken (by directly contacting adjoining owners and occupiers of the land) and 6
representations were received.
Representor
ID
Issue Applicant’s Response
R1 Overlooking –
Children’s Centre
The CBC Children’s Centre is over 200m from
the subject site. No perceptible view into the
school site.
R2 Structural Integrity It is standard practice to require a dilapidation
report be prepared for any structure at genuine
risk of damage prior to the commencement of
construction work.
This could be dealt with by way of the
attachment of a condition to any consent.
Access to Neighbouring
Property
The preparation of a Construction Management
Plan will have due regard to the minimisation
of any road access disruptions.
This could be dealt with by way of the
attachment of a condition to any consent.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
9
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Representor
ID
Issue Applicant’s Response
Safety of Vehicular
Access on Wilson
Street
The proposal only involves 10 apartments with
an estimated 65 daily movements compared
with the current office movements of 75-80.
Considers that the proposal is unlikely to have
any greater impact on the neighbour being
able to access their driveway.
Significant Tree –
Result in loss of privacy
and noise protection.
Advice from acoustic engineers suggests that
vegetation provides little to no amelioration of
noise impact.
A replacement tree is proposed to be planted in
almost the identical location. The tree species
grows moderately fast and has dense foliage.
R3 & R4 Height Recognised that the proposal is taller than
existing surrounding buildings, however notes
the transition of the CBD to greater heights
and densities in many locations.
Has worked through design review to ensure
that the building design and massing are
appropriate in the location.
Has received support from the Government
Architect.
Plot Ratio Strong emphasis in the Development Plan, of
intensification of activity in this precinct,
particularly along Park Lands frontages.
Believes that the proposal meets broader
design criteria for the area in particular
extending boundary to boundary to reflect the
neighbouring properties to the north and south
The proposal provides ample floor space,
private open space and car parking, suggesting
that the proposed building sits comfortably on
the site.
Set Backs Wilson Street is 7.6m wide, meaning that the
proposed building is never closer the 7.6m to
the properties to the north.
The applicant has paid particular attention to
the northern façade of the proposed building
and endeavoured to make it particularly
attractive and interesting. The variations in the
building and introduction of a greenwall break
down the mass of the façade.
Overlooking –
Carrington Street
Believe that the private open space of the
buildings on Carrington Street will be screened
by the buildings fronting Wilson Street.
Pedestrian Entry Estimate 10 pedestrian movements per day.
The change in location of the pedestrian
entrance from North Terrace to Wilson Street
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
10
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Representor
ID
Issue Applicant’s Response
was encourage during design review and the
outcome is a more engaging environment of
Wilson Street.
Greenwall Extension The Greenwall could be extended to the ground
level in the vicinity of the pedestrian access
ramp, west of the main entrance.
The screening of the balconies on the northern
façade is not considered necessary as they are
not expected to be heavily utilised, nor do they
provide significant overlooking potential.
Sun/Heat Reflection of
Northern Wall
Does not believe sun/heat reflection will be
excessive. The northern elevation has many
deeply recessed balcony elements that will be
in shadow in summer months, has sunshading
over exposed windows and includes a
greenwall which is likely to have a cooling
effect.
Glass
Balustrades/Northern
Windows
Does not wish to include opaque glass on
northern aspect. Views from within the
apartments are strongly oriented toward the
parkland.
Generally accepted that there will be some
overlooking in a city living environment.
Notes that townhouses opposite have both
front and year outdoor open space area.
The proposal provides only bedroom outlooks
to the north.
The introduction of opaque glass may affect
the overall design of the building, however,
would contemplate the introduction of a
horizontal grille system to match the movable
screen to ensure there are no downward views
the adjacent townhouses.
Air Conditioning Noise The air conditioning plant is located on the roof
inside a screen parapet setback from the
building façade, as such the plant is over 20m
from the neighbouring properties. This is likely
to result in less noise impact than typically
experienced in a low density suburban
environment.
The plant will meet Australian Standards
Window Shades Over
Wilson Street
The window shades protrude 800mm into
Wilson Street at a height above ground level of
6-7m and will have no impact on the street. If
window grilles are introduced (see comments
above) then these shades will be removed.
Colonnade Lighting The colonnade will use directional lighting with
minimal light spill beyond the immediate
environs.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
11
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Representor
ID
Issue Applicant’s Response
Waste Management &
Collection
A waste disposal room is provided at ground
level. Contractors will remove the waste bins
via a roller door to the outside of the building
for disposal into the contractors rubbish
removal vehicles. This is likely to be required
once per week but will be arranged as often as
necessary.
Individual bins will not be placed on the
footpath on either East Terrace or Wilson
Street.
Affordable Housing The proposal does not include and is not
required to include affordable housing
Visitor Car Parking The proposal provides 25 car parks, in excess
of the required 18. While 3 spaces at ground
level have been identified for visitors there are
potentially 4 spaces in the basement car park
that could be used for visitor spaces.
There is ample visitor car parking along East
Terrace which typically has vacant spaces after
normal business hours.
Wilson Street Traffic
Volumes
The proposal only involves 10 apartments with
an estimated 65 daily movements compared
with the current office movements of 75-80.
Considers that the proposal is unlikely to have
a significant impact on traffic volumes a report
prepared by Phil Weaver & Associates Pty Ltd
is attached.
Basement Car Parking The accessibility of all car parking spaces has
been tested with all spaces be accessible. 4
spaces have been recommended for smaller
cars (notwithstanding their suitability for use
by the standard model car).
Considers that as proposal exceeds the
required number of car parking spaces, the
provision of 4 spaces for smaller cars is
acceptable.
Queuing on Wilson
Street
There is queuing space for 3 vehicles inside the
subject site prior to entering the car park
ramp. Given that the expected average vehicle
movements during peak hour is one vehicle
every 9 minutes it is improbable that any more
than one car would have to wait for another to
exit up the basement ramp.
Corner Cut-offs on
Driveway
Notes that none of the representors provide
cut-offs on their driveways.
All vehicles are expected to enter and exit the
site in a forward direction, as compared to the
reversing from car ports that occurs on
neighbouring properties.
Applicant is willing to provide for a convex
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
12
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Representor
ID
Issue Applicant’s Response
mirror at the point of the driveway exit to aid
pedestrian safety on Wilson Street.
Construction Activities A Construction Management Plan will be
prepared by the builder which will address dust
management, site safety and construction
vehicle movement around the site.
R5 Overshadowing It is acknowledged that the proposal will cast
shadows to the south and that the rear
elevation of 4/220 East Terrace will enjoy less
direct sunlight in the afternoon that currently
occurs.
Notes that it is anticipated that the site will be
redeveloped at a height and density well
beyond the current single storey built form.
All apartments in the neighbouring property to
the south will enjoy uninterrupted access to
sunlight from 9.00amm to 12.00pm year
round.
Notes that the standards sought by Council
Wide PDC 28 & 57 are exceeded.
R6 Height See response to R3 & R4 above
Waste Collection See response to R3 & R4 above
Car Parking See response to R3 & R4 above
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
13
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Figure 2 – Representation Map
A total of 4 representors wish to be heard by the Commission.
A copy of each representation is contained in ATTACHMENT 6 and the applicant’s
response is contained in ATTACHMENT 7.
7. POLICY OVERVIEW
The subject site is within the City Living Zone and the East Terrace Policy Area as
described within the Adelaide (City) Development Plan Consolidated 2 April 2015.
7.1 Zone
The City Living Zone comprises Adelaide’s main living districts with a range of
housing styles and types. Carefully executed high quality residential infill is envisaged
and opportunities are presented for comprehensive redevelopment on larger sites.
7.2 Policy Area
The East Terrace Policy Area encourages the reinforcement of the existing
character of grand buildings set on attractive, landscaped grounds in a Park Lands
edge setting. The policies envisage the continued development of residential flat
buildings which are complementary in design, to the many State and Local
Heritage Places.
7.3 Council Wide
The Council Wide provisions provide guidance relating to dwelling functionality
and amenity (through private open space, minimum apartment sizes, access to
natural light and ventilation, outlook and effective deign) and seeks a high
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
14
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
standard of design and appropriate bulk and scale of buildings and contribution to
streetscape.
Relevant planning policies are contained in Appendix One and summarised below.
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
7.4 Overlays
7.4.1 Affordable Housing
The proposal is subject to the affordable housing overlay; however, as the
development will result in less than 20 dwellings there are no requirements for
affordable housing.
7.4.2 Adelaide City Airport Building Heights
The proposal is subject to the Adelaide City Airport Building Heights Overlay;
however the building is well under the OLS Contour Boundary.
7.4.3 Other Overlays
Wilson Street is identified as a Major Walking Route on Map Adel/1 (Overlay 2).
The proposal is not on a Primary or Secondary City Access or a Local Connector
and is not within the Core or Primary Pedestrian Area and nor is it subject to
any further overlays.
8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Adelaide (City)
Development Plan, which are contained in Appendix One.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
15
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
8.1 Quantitative Provisions
Development
Plan Guideline Proposed Guideline
Achieved Comment
Unit Size 2 bed – min 65m2 3+ bed – 80m2 plus 15m2 for every additional
bedroom over 3
2 bedroom apartments range from 124.94m2-184.30m2
3 & 4 bedroom apartments range from 208.86m2-276.61m2
YES NO PARTIAL
Building
Height
Up to 4 storeys or
14m
20.46m to the
underside of the roof with a lift overrun of 1.94m
YES
NO PARTIAL
Over height by 2
storeys and approx. 6-8m.
Plot Ratio 1.8 2.1 YES NO PARTIAL
Exceeds plot ratio by 345.7m2 floor area
Land Use Predominantly residential with some non-residential (minimal amenity impact)
Residential YES NO PARTIAL
Car Parking - 1 per apartment
up to 200m2 - 2 per apartment over 200m2
- 1 in 15 for
disability/pram access - 1 in 30 for purely disability access = 18 including 1
disability access and 1 disability/pram
access
25 including 1
disability access
YES
NO PARTIAL
Meets the car
parking requirements set out in Table Adel/7 of the
Development Plan, however provides only one disability access car park.
Bicycle
Parking
1 per apartment
with floor area less than 150m2. 2 per apartment with floor area over 150m2. 1 visitor space per 10 apartments
= 20
30 YES
NO PARTIAL
Front Setback
Prevailing setback of adjoining buildings
5-12m – East Terrace
2-5m – Wilson
Street
YES NO PARTIAL
Prevailing setbacks along East Terrace are
from 5m to 7m
and along Wilson Street from 0 to 3m setback.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
16
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Rear and Side Setback
Habitable room
windows, balcony,
roof garden,
terrace or deck
should be setback
from the
boundaries of
adjoining
allotments by at
least 3m (for
amenity, privacy
and to not restrict
reasonable
development of
adjacent sites)
West: 15m all levels South: nil to 5m at all levels
YES NO PARTIAL
Meets the setback requirement to the west but not to the south. The building on southern boundary
already built hard-up along boundary. Discussed in assessment below.
Private Open Space
2 bed – 11m2 3+ bed – 15m2
Ranges from 39.28m2/ apartments to 143.41m2/apartment
YES NO PARTIAL
Storage 2 bed – min 10m3 3+ bed – min
12m3 (50% must be within apartment)
Over 12m3 for all apartments
YES NO
PARTIAL
It is considered that the
apartments will be suitably large enough to provide
ample storage space
Landscaped Open Space
Minimum 30% of site
Approx. 23.3% YES NO PARTIAL
Discussed in assessment below
8.2 Land Use
The City Living Zone policies generally seek a high amenity residential living
environment along with related, compatible non-residential land uses. Zone policies
particularly focus on higher density infill development in order to meet the desired
increase in the City’s resident population.
The application is for the construction of a residential apartment building containing
10 luxury apartments and associated basement car park.
From a land use perspective the application is wholly consistent with the provisions of
the Adelaide (City) Development Plan, in particular Objectives 1 and 2 of the City
Living Zone seeking a range of dwelling types and increased dwelling densities and
PDC 1 of the East Terrace Policy Area which specifically seeks the development of
residential flat buildings.
8.3 Housing Choice
Council-wide Principles of Development Control seek provision of a variety of
accommodation to meet the various social, cultural and economic needs of the
population.
The apartment offering proposed is predominantly of 2 and 3 bedrooms; two 4
bedroom penthouses are offered at the 4th and 5th level.
The spread of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments is considered positive on balance and
broadly in keeping with the policy direction.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
17
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
8.4 Building Height
Zone provisions call for maximum heights of 4 storeys or 14m with the exception of
buildings on catalyst sites. Furthermore, PDC 8 of in the City Living Zone seeks that
“where development proposes a building higher than the prevailing building heights
that contribute to the desired character of a locality, the taller building elements
should be setback from street frontages to avoid a detrimental impact on the
prevailing character”.
The application is for the construction of a 6 level (ground plus 5 storeys). The
building is 20.46m tall to the underside of the roof on level 5 with a lift overrun of
1.94m, bringing the overall height to 22.4m. The upper two levels of the proposed
building are set back in the order of 7-8m.
Building heights in the locality vary between 2 to 4 storeys. Along East Terrace north
of the subject site the predominant building height is 2 storeys. Immediately south of
the subject site the built form increases to be predominantly 4 storeys in height and
contemporary in design.
The applicant has noted that while this particular site is not a catalyst site by virtue of
the size of the site (under 1500m2), a number of sites fronting East Terrace are and
this provides potential for a greater height and density within the precinct in the
future.
The Government Architect has shown support for the height of the proposed building
as it responds to the surrounding context and prominent corner location.
The building height is considered acceptable. The zone provisions contemplate
buildings higher than the prevailing building heights where the taller building
elements are set back from street frontages. The proposed stepping back of the
upper two levels minimises the impact of the building and overall sits well in the more
urban context of this section of East Terrace. Also, the applicant’s contention
regarding the presence of catalyst sites on East Terrace is considered to have
grounds. It is the case that there are catalyst sites along East Terrace in the vicinity
of the subject land and this creates real potential for variation in building heights
along East Terrace.
8.5 Design and Appearance
The East Terrace Policy Area seeks the continuation of the existing character of
buildings set on attractive, landscaped grounds and envisages substantial, high
quality landscaped open spaces in order to frame East Terrace. There is little in the
way of policy providing fine grain direction regarding design and appearance within
both the City Living Zone and the East Terrace Policy Area. This being the case,
relatively generic policy regarding the desire for high quality design and appearance
is most relevant in this context.
Landscaping is discussed in a subsequent section of this report. The proposed building
proportioning and massing is broken up both vertically and horizontally through the
use of window shutters, projecting balconies, material changes and a secondary
facade created by the sliding timber screens. The Government Architect has indicated
support for the proposal and in particular highlighted the use of the colonnade and
public seating as positive aspects of the proposals integration with the public realm.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
18
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
8.6 Floor Levels
PDC 10 in the City Living Zone seeks that the finished ground floor level of buildings
be at grade and/or level with the footpath to provide direct pedestrian access and
street-level activation.
The site falls from west to east and, as a result, the building will be 0.75m above
ground level at its eastern face. It is noted that a number of other properties to the
south of the subject site are similarly affected. The applicant has responded to this
site condition with design and landscaping responses. Furthermore, the pedestrian
access to the apartments is provided from the colonnade on East Terrace through to
the main entrance on Wilson Street, and therefore the finished ground level will not
have a significant impact on pedestrian access.
It is noted that the height may exacerbate views into the car park below; however it
is considered that this has been appropriately addressed through the use of
materiality and landscaping. The deviation from this policy is not considered to be
detrimental to the proposal.
8.7 Apartment Amenity
As identified in Section 8.1 above, the following matters are suitably addressed by the
proposal:
Apartment size
Private open space (in terms of area available to individual apartments and
minimum dimension of private open space areas)
Storage
8.7.1 Access to Light and Ventilation
Council Wide provisions broadly seek that apartments have direct access
to ventilation and natural light. All apartments are dual aspect providing
considerable access to light and ventilation. All bedrooms have direct
access to natural light and, with the exception of apartments on the
ground floor, all living areas open out onto balconies. The Government
Architect supports the layouts of the apartments and their prioritisation
of cross ventilation. This is considered acceptable.
8.7.2 Outlook
Council Wide provisions seek to ensure that the living rooms of medium
to high scale residential development have a satisfactory outlook. The
apartments are all designed to have their main living area to the east
with access to eastern facing balconies. All apartments are afforded an
outlook across the East Parklands. It is considered that provisions
regarding outlook are met.
8.7.3 Setbacks from Adjoining Allotments
As identified in Section 8.1 above, the proposal partly satisfies Council-
wide PDC 67 which seeks that habitable room windows, decks, balconies
roof gardens and terraces be setback 3m from adjoining allotments.
The departure from PDC 67 occurs at the southern boundary where the
neighbouring allotment accommodates a building with zero set-back
presenting the subject site with a blank wall.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
19
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
With the exception of the south eastern balcony of the top penthouse
level, the proposed building generally complies with this provision. It is
noted that this balcony could potentially be enclosed in the future.
This balcony also departs from Council Wide PDC 84 which seeks to
“…maximise security and safety, buildings should be designed to
minimise access between roofs, balconies and windows of adjacent
buildings”.
These departures are not considered to be detrimental to overall
development and it is recommended that any consent granted the
proposal be subject to a condition that will yield an appropriate response
to this policy.
8.8 Interface
8.8.1 Overlooking
Council-wide policy seeks broadly that overlooking to be minimised.
The proposed development enjoys uninterrupted views to the east across the
East Parklands towards the Adelaide Hills. All balconies enjoy eastern views
across the Parklands and away from the adjacent residential properties to the
west, north and south of the subject land. No concern is held with views to the
east that can be gained from the proposed building.
Views to the west are also from bedrooms and are across the 15m rear yard
space (car parking, access road and landscaping). It is noted that the
townhouse to the west is heavily vegetated providing effective screening from
views into the courtyard.
Views to the south will be screened using opaque screening to 1800mm on
levels 3, 4 and 5 to avoid overlooking of the adjacent balconies, courtyards and
windows.
As shown in Figure 4 below, To the north across Wilson Street are a row of 2
storey townhouses with garages fronting Wilson Street, beside which are
courtyards, it is noted that these townhouses also have courtyards to the north
which are screened from the proposed development. The proposal provides
only bedroom outlooks to these townhouses. This being the case it is
considered that this particular instance of overlooking is acceptable noting that
the City Living Zone contemplates buildings up to and beyond four storeys.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
20
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Figure 4 – Properties north of the subject site
Council wide PDC 66 seeks the minimisation of overlooking of habitable rooms
and living areas of adjacent sites.
The issue of overlooking into the courtyards of the townhouses opposite Wilson
Street was raised in the representations. These courtyards have been created
within the front setback area of the properties and it is noted that each
property also has a rear courtyard to the north. Some of the representations
called for opaque glass balustrades and windows to be used to mitigate
overlooking into the properties opposite Wilson Street. This considered to be
overly onerous and not necessary for the following reasons:
While there is balcony access to the north, the configuration of the
balconies and layout of the apartments orients balcony use and views to
the east;
The road forms a greater separation than what would ordinarily be
required by the Development Plan if these townhouses were on an
adjacent site (i.e a total of 6m pursuant to Council Wide PDC 67);
The introduction of opaque glass elements to the northern elevation will
potentially sully the architectural expression;
The introduction of opaque glass elements will significantly erode the
quality of outlook gained from
Within the immediate vicinity of the subject site there are multiple
buildings that use clear glass balustrades on their balconies and which
provide vantages into neighbouring private open spaces (including the
four storey apartment building to the south of the subject site);
The courtyards, each with visually permeable entrance gates, effectively
form the front yard of the townhouses.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
21
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
The Government Architect supports the proposals approach to minimising
overlooking of neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposal
generally meets the provisions of the Development Plan with regard to
overlooking.
8.8.2 Overshadowing
PDC 57 seeks that at least two hours of direct sunlight to at least one habitable
room and to at least 20% of private open space.
To the south of the subject site are a series of four storey apartment buildings.
Overshadowing in the mid winter months is relatively substantial from noon
onwards for these properties, however, each apartment will receive
uninterrupted sunlight until 12.00 noon each day in their primary living areas
fronting East Terrace.
The shadow diagrams provided identify that neighbouring property exceeds the
standard sought by PDC 57. This is considered to be acceptable.
8.9 Traffic Impact, Access and Parking
8.9.1 Pedestrian Access
Map Adel/1 (Overlay 2A) identifies pedestrian links. The southern section of
East Terrace is not identified as a primary pedestrian corridor.
Council Wide provisions broadly seek development that contributes to the
quality of the public realm promoting the comfort, enjoyment and security of
pedestrians.
Pedestrian access is proposed to be gained from Wilson Street with a colonnade
linking the street corner and the main entrance. As identified in the comments
from the Government Architect, this entry through the colonnade further
provides for an appropriate address on East Terrace and along with the
proposed public seating proposed to the East Terrace frontage adds to the
public realm and the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Both Adelaide City Council and the traffic engineer engaged to inform the
proposal raised concern with pedestrian sight distances for the access on
Wilson Street. Both have recommended the installation of a mirror within the
landscaped area to the east of the access point to address this. It is
recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition
requiring the installation of a mirror to address pedestrian safety.
Pedestrian access to the site is considered acceptable.
8.9.2 Bicycle Parking
As identified in Section 8.1 above, the proposal meets the bicycle parking
requirements set out in Table Adel/6 – Bicycle Parking Provisions.
8.9.3 Vehicle Access and Parking
The proposed development gains access via an existing cross over on Wilson
Street to the rear of the proposed apartment building. A ramp to the basement
car park is located at the rear of the proposed building in the south western
corner of the site.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
22
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
This proposed arrangement is the subject of a Traffic Impact Assessment,
prepared by Phil Weaver and Associates Pty Ltd (contained in ATTACHMENT 3),
which provides that:
the bicycle and car parking provided meets the Development Plan
requirements
the proposal will not result in adverse traffic impacts on the adjacent
road network; and
the proposal meets the relevant Australian/New Zealand standards for
off street parking areas.
The Traffic Impact Assessment recommended the installation of traffic signals
to control basement ramp entry/exit movements. It is recommended that any
consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition that requires the
installation of traffic signals for the basement ramp.
The proposal includes the provision of 25 car parking spaces spanning the
basement and ground levels. The 3 spaces on the ground floor are to be
dedicated to visitor car parking for the residential apartments. As identified in
Section 8.1 above, the proposal partially meets the car parking requirements
set out in Table Adel/7- On-site Car Parking Provisions.
Table Adel/7 seeks that 1 in every 15 car parking spaces provided function as
an car parking space suitable for use by people with disabilities and other
people with small children and prams. It further seeks that 1 in every 30
spaces be reserved for the exclusive use of people with disabilities.
Pursuant to Table Adel/7, 2 accessible spaces should be provided, however only
1 of these 2 spaces has to be a specifically dedicated accessible parking space.
The proposal provides 1. Noting that the proposal provides visitors car parking
and more than the required 18 car parks where Table Adel/7 does not call for
this, and that there is no requirement to provide accessible car parks for Class
2 buildings under the Building Code, this departure is considered minor.
Adelaide City Council’s traffic engineer has recommended:
that bollards or similar be placed to ensure that a person exiting the lift
does not walk into the path of a vehicle; and
that continuous footpath treatment be used across the area of the
driveway.
The placement of bollards against the lift is not considered necessary on the
basis that the basement car park is for resident use and occupants of the
building will develop familiarity with the operation of the car park. It is
considered that a surface treatment that aids pedestrian/driver awareness is
advisable – it is recommended that an advisory note should be attached to any
consent. A continuous footpath on the hand is considered appropriate
accordingly it is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be
subject to a condition that requires continuous footpath treatment.
It is seen that car park space 14 may present some difficulty given the turning
manoeuvre required to access it. However, as this is to be dedicated to an
apartment the user of the car park is likely to gain familiarity with this turning
manoeuvre.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
23
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
8.10 Landscaping
East Terrace Policy Area PDC 5 seeks a minimum of 30% landscaped open space on
the site of any development.
The site contains a total of 23.3% of “landscaped open space”** as defined in the
Adelaide (City) Development Plan. Policy Area provisions seek for 30% landscaped
open space. While the proposed development falls short of the guideline for
landscaping, it is noted that the proposal offers extensive areas of landscaping within
the private open space areas of individual apartments in the form of planter boxes at
all levels and green wall on the northern elevation from levels 1-3. Furthermore, hard
landscaping in the form of screening of the colonnade and sculpture court is used to
create interest. While they don’t strictly meet the Development Plan definition for
“landscaped open space” it is considered that all of these elements further add to the
overall landscaping of the site.
The intention of these policies is to maintain and continue the character of the Policy
Area being large buildings set in generous landscaped grounds. It is noted that this
section of East Terrace has a much more urban character than sections further north
what with neighbouring buildings having been constructed boundary to boundary,
thereby creating an existing character quite different to that which the Policy Area
describes. Given the context of the apartment buildings to the south, the approach
adopted is considered appropriate.
**
landscaped open space: open space at ground level having a minimum horizontal dimension of one
metre which incorporates substantial landscape planting and is designed, developed, maintained and capable of being used as a garden, grassed, or paved area for pedestrian use and enjoyment, or a
swimming pool. It includes a driveway within the site of a single dwelling, but does not include a parking area or any shared area for vehicles, a service area, or any area used for storage of refuse or waste.
8.11 Environmental Factors
8.11.1 Crime Prevention
Council Wide provisions 82, 83 and 84 provide guidance in the attainment of a
crime resistant urban environment through the use of natural surveillance and
the design and location of physical features.
The proposed apartments are designed to overlook the street and public open
space allowing for casual surveillance, particularly the living areas and
balconies that are oriented to the east giving views to the parklands. Doors,
windows and building entrances and oriented towards the street. The basement
car park and service areas will be linked to motion sensor activated lighting. It
is considered that the change in use from office to residential apartments
constitutes an improvement on the current situation (by virtue of greater
surveillance potential resulting from increased hours of use of the land).
It is considered that the proposal effectively meets requirements of the
Development Plan with regard to crime prevention.
8.11.2 Waste Management
The proposal incorporates ground level waste collection points including
recycling facilities and the opportunity of bulk waste bins rather than the use of
sulo bins (240L capacity) only.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
24
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Waste will be collected in individual apartments and transferred to the ground
level waste bins via the lift. This is considered acceptable as the waste disposal
area is just outside the lift lobby.
It is proposed that the bins would be pulled out of the refuse rooms via an
automated roller door and paved link to Wilson Street, by a collection
contractor.
The applicant has stated that a number of differing refuse collection methods
could be used on site depending on the preferred method of the contractor and
the Council.
The Zero waste Better Practice Guide: Waste Management for Residential and
Mixed Use Developments nominates the following waste resource generation
rates for a medium density residential dwelling:
Land Use Type
General Waste
Recycling Organics Metric Other
Medium Density Residential Dwelling – no garden
35 30 20 L/bedroom/wk Hard and Electronic Waste 0.77m3/household/yr
The apartment building offers a total of 30 bedrooms across the 10
apartments.
While the application has not provided the fine grain detail regarding waste
collection, it is considered that the site includes an appropriately sized disposal
area and waste capacity to deal with the amount of waste produced and that it
is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a
condition that will require the submission of a detailed waste management
plan.
8.11.3 Energy Efficiency
Council Wide PDCs 106-112 provide guidance regarding energy efficiency.
Broadly provisions seek the minimisation of energy use for heating, cooling and
lighting using a range of design techniques such as building orientation,
internal layout, cross ventilation and natural lighting.
As discussed in Section 8.7.1 above, each of the apartments is dual aspect
providing significant access to natural light and ventilation.
The proposal also includes:
Heat pump air condition systems with variable compressor output
which can bring energy use down to 25% of its total rated capacity.
Photovoltaic panel system with a rating in the order of 5-7 kWatts.
LED lighting throughout including motion sensor lights in the car park
and service areas.
Rainwater re-use via underground tank with 22000L capacity
Double glazing to all windows
The proposal aims to achieve a 6 star energy rating.
It is considered that the proposal generally meets Development Plan provisions
regarding energy efficiency.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
25
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
8.11.4 Wind Analysis
Council-wide PDC 125 provides buildings over 21 metres should mitigate wind
impact.
The proposed building does not exceed 21 metres, is set back from East
Terrace and is not on a core pedestrian route.
It is considered that wind impacts are acceptable.
8.11.5 Site Contamination
Information regarding potential site contamination does not form part of the
application. It is general practise that a preliminary site history report be
provided to shed light on whether potentially contaminating activities have
occupied the site and therefore whether there is a risk of the proposed
development creating a pathway between potential contaminants and people.
It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject of a
reserved matter requiring submission of a preliminary site investigation in the
first instance and potentially implementation of practices that accord with
Environment Protection Authority.
8.12 Significant Tree
The application proposes to remove a significant tree from the subject land (see
Figure 5 below).
Figure 5 – Significant Tree
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
26
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
The arborists report noted that the tree has a limited useful life expectancy due to the
heavily modified growing environment and conflict with surrounding services.
Alternative design options to accommodate the tree have been considered, however
no practicable options were identified that would reduce impacts on the growing
environment. The arborists report recommends that the tree should not prohibit
reasonable development and therefore should be removed and replaced with a
suitable species.
The subject tree is listed in Table Adel/5 – Significant Trees of the Adelaide (City)
Development Plan.
The Council Wide Section of the Development Plan seeks to protect significant trees.
PDC 301 of the Council Wide section of the Development Plan outlines scenarios that
may result in the need to remove a significant tree; namely where it is diseased,
presents an unacceptable risk to safety, is threatening to cause substantial damage
to property or in some cases is in a Bushfire Protection Area. The proposed tree
removal does not meet the requirements of this policy.
The Development Plan acknowledges that while indiscriminate and inappropriate
Significant Tree removal should generally be prevented, the conservation of
Significant Trees should occur in balance with achieving the appropriate development.
In this particular instance the tree is located in the City Living Zone, East Terrace
Policy Area. Provisions in the zone specifically seek infill development in the form of
residential flat buildings and particularly encourage the amalgamation of allotments
to achieve this outcome.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing tree with a feature tree (Zelkova
Serrata also known as a Japanese Elm). This particular species has a maximum
height of 14m and maximum spread of 10m. The natural vase shape of the tree will
allow pedestrians and vehicles good visual access to pass under its canopy and it is a
species that is hardy and adaptable to the urban environment.
On balance, and considering information provided by the arborist, the removal of the
Significant Tree is considered acceptable.
9. CONCLUSION
The proposed land use is consistent with the zone’s desire for higher density infill
development and as discussed is in keeping with the majority of relevant policy
directions. There are departures from policy regarding building height, setbacks and floor
levels, however contextual factors and design features lead to these being considered
acceptable.
According, it is considered that Development Plan Consent is warranted.
10. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:
1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the
policies in the Development Plan.
2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the
proposal meets the key objectives of the City Living Zone.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
27
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by R V Jordan Pty
Ltd for the Construction of a 6 level (ground plus 5 storeys) apartment building,
and removal of a significant tree at 217-219 East Terrace, Adelaide subject to the
following reserved matters and conditions of consent.
RESERVED MATTERS
1. Pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the following matters shall
be reserved for further assessment, to the satisfaction of the Development
Assessment Commission, prior to the granting of Development Approval:
1.1 The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Development
Assessment Commission a Preliminary Site Investigation Report prior to
commencement of sub-structure works upon the site. In the event that
the Preliminary Site Investigation Report identifies that the site has
previously been put to potentially contaminating activities, the following
may be required to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission:
a remediation management plan prior to approval for any substructure
works upon the site
a remediation validation report prior to occupation of the site
PLANNING CONDITIONS
1. Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by
conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict
accordance with the details and following plans submitted in Development
Application No 020/A065/15.
Plans:
Tim Evans – Coversheet – North East Street View Perspective – June 2015
Tim Evans – Coversheet – North East Street View Perspective – June 2015
Tim Evans – Locality Plan – Drawing No. PA.01G - June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Site Plan – Drawing No. PA.02G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Basement Plan – Drawing No. PA.03G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Ground Floor Plan – Drawing No. PA.04G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Floor Plan Level 1-3 – Drawing No. PA.05G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Floor Plan Level 4 – Drawing No. PA.06G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Floor Plan Level 5 – Drawing No. PA.07G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed East Elevation – Drawing No. PA.08G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed North Elevation – Drawing No. PA.09G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed West Elevation – Drawing No. PA.10G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed South Elevation – Drawing No. PA.11G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Streetscape Elevations – Drawing No. PA.12G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Shadow Diagrams – Drawing No. PA.13G – June 2015
Tim Evans – Proposed Perspectives – Drawing No. PA.14G – June 2015
Reports:
Phil Weaver & Associates – 217-219 East Terrace, Traffic and Parking Assessment –
29 June 2015
Aspect Studios – 217 East Terrace – Landscape Concept Design Report – July 2015 –
Rev B (noting that this includes a replacement tree to part satisfy Regulation 6A of
the Development Regulations 2008)
Holmes Partners – Development Proposal, 217-219 East Terrace – August 2015
Arborman Tree Solutions – Arboricultural Impact Assessment, 217-219 East Terrace
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
28
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
2. Traffic signals controlling vehicular entry and exit movements shall be installed at the
basement car park ramp. The traffic signals may be operated by either loop
detectors or remote control transmitters and shall conform with the requirements of
AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.
3. A convex mirror shall be installed at the point of the driveway exit to aid pedestrian
safety on Wilson Street.
4. Prior to the commencement of construction a dilapidation report (i.e. condition
survey) shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to ensure the stability and
protection of adjoining buildings, structures and Council assets. A copy of this report
shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commission.
5. A payment of $168 shall be made into the Planning and Development Fund (2
replacement trees @$84 per tree) within three (3) months from the date of
Development Approval being granted.
Note: Cheques to be made payable and marked "Not Negotiable" to the Development
Assessment Commission and payment made at 101 Grenfell Street, Adelaide or sent
to GPO Box 1815 Adelaide 5001. Payment may also be made over the phone with
Credit Card (Mastercard or Visa) by calling our Customer Service Officer on 7109
7040. All payments must be accompanied by reference to the Development
Application number and the reason for the payment.
6. A horizontal grille system be installed to the northern windows to ensure there are
no downward views the adjacent townhouses. Details of this system shall be
provided prior Development Approval being issued, to the satisfaction of the
Development Assessment Commission.
7. Details of devices that suitably prevent access from balconies on the southern
elevation of Level 5 shall be provided prior to Development Approval to the
satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission.
8. A Waste Management Plan shall be developed and implemented that details the
proposed waste management practices to be adopted for the use and operation of
this development. The plan shall cover three phases of the development, namely:
resource recovery during demolition;
waste minimisation and resource recovery during construction; and
resource recovery during occupation or use of the Development including
proposed methods of recycling of all recyclable materials.
A copy of this plan shall be provided to the Adelaide City Council and the
Development Assessment Commission prior to the commencement of superstructure
works.
9. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and
implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA
publications “Handbook for Pollution Avoidance on Commercial and Residential
Building Sites – Second Edition” and “Environmental Management of On-site
Remediation” – to minimise environmental harm and disturbance during
construction.
The management plan must incorporate, without being limited to, the following
matters:
air quality, including odour and dust
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
29
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
surface water including erosion and sediment control
soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of
soil contamination
groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination
noise
For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA
Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?'.
ADVISORY NOTES
a. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date of
this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development
Assessment Commission.
b. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date of this
Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment Commission.
c. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12 months of the date of this
Notification.
d. The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by this Notification
must be completed within 3 years of the date of the Notification unless this period is extended by the Commission.
e. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed on this
Development Plan Consent or Development Approval.
f. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development Court within
two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow.
g. The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located in the
Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 8204 0289). h. The applicant is advised that any shade structures encroaching onto the Wilson Street footpath
must be a height of 5m from the underside of the encroachment roadway so as to ensure
protection from damage by tall vehicles.
i. The applicant is advised that a surface treatment be installed to the driveway directly in-front of the lift entry in the basement car park would aid in pedestrian/driver awareness.
j. The applicant is advised that any changes to on-street parking will need to be discussed with
Council.
k. The applicant is advised that any damage to ACC’s infrastructure during development
will be the responsibility of the developer to rectify to a standard equal to or better
than pre-development condition.
l. The applicant is advised that the Wilson Street footpath and crossover (driveway) will need to
be designed and constructed to Council standards including approved materials at the cost of the development.
m. It is recommended that the applicant liaise with Council regarding all works within the public
realm including lighting, temporary hoarding, streetscape works, tree pruning. Any urban elements or assets or existing assets effected (requiring relocation, removal or temporary
storage) by this development requires the approval of the Asset Manager Urban Elements prior to any works commencing. Council will provide an invoice for any such works and it must be paid prior to any works commencing. Note the assets are the property of Council and only Council or its representatives can carry out the work.
Development Assessment Commission
26 November 2015
30
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Elysse Kuhar
Planning Officer
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE