application detail page1 of 3 - dac.sa.gov.au · search | staff | download files | log out |...

Search | Staff | Download Files | Log Out |

Application DetailHide All

General Hide

Unique Id : 51916

Development No : 473/D037/15

Application Type : Conventional Land Division

Application Extent : Provisional Development Plan Consent with Land Division Consent

Land Use/Building Consent : No

Council Name : Adelaide Hills Council

Agents Reference : 4127

Short Reference : DRIVER 5 WOODSUMMERT

Submitting Agents Name : Olden and Van Senden Pty Ltd

Submitted By : Geoff van Senden, Olden and Van Senden Pty Ltd

Application Status : Lodged & Distributed (No Decision)

Application Type Details : Conventional Land Division Hide

Total Area of Land to be Divided : 12.9 hectares

Reserve Area : 0 hectares

Number of existing allotments : 3

Number of proposed allotments (excluding roadand reserve) :

3

Number of additional allotments : 0

Applicant Details HideSalutation Name Organisation Name AddressMr GREG DRIVER C/- PO BOX 708

STIRLINGSA 5152South AustraliaAUSTRALIA

Owner Details Hide

Salutation Name Organisation Name AddressMr GREG DRIVER C/- PO BOX 708

STIRLINGSA 5152South AustraliaAUSTRALIA

Contact Details HideSalutation Name Address Telephone Fax EmailMr Geoff van Senden PO Box 708

Stirling 5152South AustraliaAUSTRALIA

Telephone 1 :8370 9699

Telephone 2 :0417 878 671

Mobile :

Fax 1 :8370 9699

Fax 2 :

[email protected]

Subject/Property Details Hide

House No. :Lot No. : 5

Street : WOODS HILL ROAD

Suburb/Town SUMMERTOWN

Hundred: ONKAPARINGA

Reference Section: 3 AND 5

Title Reference and Plan ParcelTitle Code Title Description Volume Folio Plan Code Plan Description Plan No. Parcel No.CT Certificate of Title 5076 287 D Deposited Plan 22394 A5

LT Limited Title 5700 770 F Filed Plan 129741 A87

CT Certificate of Title 5211 813 F Filed Plan 121530 A4

Other Details Hide

Existing Use : RURAL LIVING/HORTICULTURE

Description of Proposed Development : LAND DIVISION (BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT) IN 2 STAGES. 3 TITLES INTO 1 LARGE TITLE AND 2 SMALL TITLES

Does either schedule 21 or 22 of theDevelopment Regulations 1993 apply? :

No

Notes :

Additional Information Requests :

Additional Fees and Payments :

Page1 of 3Application Detail

1/09/2016https://www.edala.sa.gov.au/edala/EDALA.aspx?PageMode=ApplicationDisplay&App...

Lodgement Date : 24 Aug 2015

Months for Development Approval Request : 12

Categorisation Details Hide

Decision Authority : DACApplication Classification : Major

Kind of Development : MeritNotification Category : Category 1

Zone : Watershed (Primary Production)/Policy Area 8

Development Plan Map No : AdHi/15, 16, 51, 59

Allocated Planner : Nitsan Taylor

Categorisation Comments : Amended Plan 2/3/16 - ct 6148/869 added & lot configuration changedAdditional info - Soil report, supporting statement V3 & rhubarb report uploaded 11/03/16Re-categorised as non-complying, Cat 3 on 27/4/16 in response to ERD Court judgement Fiora v DAC [2015]SAERDC 43.Re-categorised as merit, Cat 1 on 13/5/16Amended Plan 23/5/16 - single stage development only

Categorised By : Ben CollettCategorisation Date : 20 Jun 2016

Distribution Details Hide

Referral Agency Referred to Agent First Accessed Referral State Due Date ResponseAdelaide Hills Council 07 Oct 2015 09 Oct 2015 Over-ridden Show

SA Water Corporation 07 Oct 2015 07 Oct 2015 Returned on 26 Oct 2015 Show

Adelaide Hills Council 07 Mar 2016 08 Mar 2016 Over-ridden Show

SA Water Corporation 07 Mar 2016 07 Mar 2016 Returned on 17 Mar 2016 Show

Adelaide Hills Council 15 Mar 2016 17 Mar 2016 Over-ridden Show

Adelaide Hills Council 24 May 2016 25 May 2016 Over-ridden Show

Adelaide Hills Council 20 Jun 2016 21 Jun 2016 Overdue 01 Aug 2016 Show

Decision Authority Distributed for Decision First Accessed Decision State DecisionIssued

Response

Development Assessment Commission 07 Oct 2015 07 Oct 2015 Over-ridden Show

Development Assessment Commission 07 Mar 2016 07 Mar 2016 Over-ridden Show

Development Assessment Commission 15 Mar 2016 17 Mar 2016 Over-ridden Show

Development Assessment Commission 24 May 2016 24 May 2016 Over-ridden Show

Development Assessment Commission 20 Jun 2016 22 Jun 2016 Current Show

Decision Details Show

Overturned Decision Details Show

Clock Stops (Development Assessment Commission only) Show

Lodgement Fees Show

Certificate of Approval (CoA) Details Show

Certificate of Approval (CoA) Clearance Requirements Details HideCoA Clearance Requirement Description CoA Id Stage

No.AgencyName

DistributionDate

Status Detail

SA Water has no requirements pursuant to the Development Act.

NO SERVICES AVAILABLE, NO REQUIREMENTS.

46851 001 SA Water Corporation NoRequirements

Additional DA Fees Show

Additional CoA Fees Show

Application Documents Show

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Only Documents Show



Final Plan Documents for Certificate of Approval (CoA) Show

Certified Certificate of Approval (CoA) Plan Documents Show

Mode:ApplicationDisplay/Revision:14

DisclaimerTerms andConditions

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastucture, Ground Floor 101 Grenfell Street, ADELAIDE South Australia 5000 - P 1800 752 664 Copyright



The Registrar-General certifies that this Title Register Search displays the records maintained in the RegisterBook and other notations at the time of searching.

Registrar-General

Certificate of Title - Volume 5211 Folio 813Parent Title(s) CT 641/76

Dealing(s)Creating Title

CONVERTED TITLE

Title Issued 01/09/1994

Edition 3

Edition Issued 04/12/2009

Estate TypeFEE SIMPLE

Registered ProprietorGREG DRIVER INVESTMENTS PTY. LTD. (ACN: 139 952 211)

OF 16 WOODS HILL ROAD SUMMERTOWN SA 5141

Description of LandALLOTMENT 4 FILED PLAN 121530IN THE AREA NAMED SUMMERTOWNHUNDRED OF ONKAPARINGA

EasementsNIL

Schedule of DealingsNIL

NotationsDealings Affecting Title

NIL

Priority Notices

NIL

Notations on Plan

Product Register Search

Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:55PM

Customer Reference 4127

Order ID 20150618010690

Cost $26.50

Land Services Group Page 1 of 3

Copyright Privacy Disclaimer: www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyright www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatement www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer

https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/titleImageSearch/CT|641|76https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/planImageSearch/F121530http://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyrighthttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatementhttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer

NIL

Registrar-General's Notes

NIL

Administrative Interests

NIL

* Denotes the dealing has been re-lodged.


Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:55PM


Order ID 20150618010690

Cost $26.50



http://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyrighthttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatementhttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer


Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:55PM


Order ID 20150618010690

Cost $26.50





Registrar-General

Certificate of Title - Volume 5076 Folio 287Parent Title(s) CT 4320/656


CONVERTED TITLE


Edition 3




OF 16 WOODS HILL ROAD SUMMERTOWN SA 5141

Description of LandALLOTMENT 5 DEPOSITED PLAN 22394IN THE AREA NAMED SUMMERTOWNHUNDRED OF ONKAPARINGA

EasementsNIL



NIL

Priority Notices

NIL

Notations on Plan


Date/Time 28/07/2015 02:41PM

Customer Reference

Order ID 20150728007145

Cost $27.25



https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/titleImageSearch/CT|4320|656https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/planImageSearch/D22394http://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyrighthttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatementhttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer

NIL


NIL


NIL



Date/Time 28/07/2015 02:41PM

Customer Reference

Order ID 20150728007145

Cost $27.25





Date/Time 28/07/2015 02:41PM

Customer Reference

Order ID 20150728007145

Cost $27.25





Registrar-General

Limited Certificate of Title - Volume 5700 Folio 770Parent Title(s) LT H/193


CONVERTED TITLE


Edition 3




OF SUITE 23/168 MELBOURNE STREET NORTH ADELAIDE SA 5006

Description of LandALLOTMENT 87 FILED PLAN 129741IN THE AREA NAMED SUMMERTOWNHUNDRED OF ONKAPARINGA

ConditionsTHIS TITLE IS LIMITED AS TO DESCRIPTION OF LAND AND TITLE REFER SEARCH NO. 2450

EasementsTOGETHER WITH RIGHT(S) OF WAY OVER THE LAND MARKED A

Schedule of DealingsDealing Number Description

11548201 MORTGAGE TO AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.


NIL


Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:56PM


Order ID 20150618010710

Cost $26.50



https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/planImageSearch/F129741https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/dealingImageSearch/11548201http://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyrighthttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatementhttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer

Priority Notices

NIL

Notations on Plan

NIL


REFER DIVISION SECTION BEFORE FURTHER TRUNCATION VIDE 2450


NIL



Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:56PM


Order ID 20150618010710

Cost $26.50





Date/Time 18/06/2015 04:56PM


Order ID 20150618010710

Cost $26.50





Registrar-General

Limited Certificate of Title - Volume 6148 Folio 869Parent Title(s) CT 5696/25


DDA 12234803


Edition 1



Registered ProprietorWILLIAM SPENCER

OF SECTION 5 HUNDRED OF ONKAPARINGA1 / 2 SHARE

JAMES TRENORDENOF TIERS1 / 2 SHARE

Description of LandALLOTMENT COMPRISING PIECES 88 AND 89 FILED PLAN 129742IN THE AREAS NAMED ASHTON AND SUMMERTOWNHUNDRED OF ONKAPARINGA

ConditionsTHIS TITLE IS LIMITED AS TO DESCRIPTION OF LAND AND TITLE REFER SEARCH NO. 2449

EasementsSUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT(S) OF WAY AS MAY EXIST OVER THE WITHIN LAND



NIL


Date/Time 26/08/2016 03:07PM

Land Services Page 1 of 3


https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/childParentTitleSearch/CT%7C5696%7C25https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/dealingImageSearch/12234803https://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/products/order/planImageSearch/F129742http://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showCopyrighthttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showPrivacyStatementhttp://www.sailis.sa.gov.au/home/showDisclaimer

Priority Notices

NIL

Notations on Plan

NIL


REFER DIVISION SECTION BEFORE FURTHER TRUNCATION VIDE SCH 2449PARCELS SUBJECT TO REARRANGEMENT VIDE FILED PLAN F129742


NIL



Date/Time 26/08/2016 03:07PM





Date/Time 26/08/2016 03:07PM




File: 15022 18 August 2015 Mark Adcock Development Assessment Commission Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO BOX 1533 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Dear Mark Applicant: Greg Driver Subject Land: Lot 4, FP121530, Lot 5, DP 22394, Lot 87, FP 129741 and Piece

88, FP129742, 14 – 16 Woods Hill Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown

Proposal: Land Division – boundary realignment between three (3) allotments

Introduction I have been requested by Greg Driver to advise on the proposal to undertake a land division involving the realignment of the boundaries between three (3) existing allotments and prepare a brief letter to accompany the application containing my findings. I confirm that the views expressed herein are those of the writers and constitute my professional opinions based on assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. In forming my opinions as to the relative merits of the proposal, I have reviewed the proposed plan of division, prepared by Geoff van Senden, Olden & van Senden Pty Ltd, reviewed topographical and cadastral information, inspected the site and locality and reviewed the Adelaide Hills Council Development Plan, consolidated 9 January 2014. Pursuant to section 34(1)(b)(i) of the Development Act 1993, Regulation 38(1) and Schedule 10, clause 7 of the Development Regulations 2008, the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) is the relevant authority as more than 10% of the allotments area affected by the change in the boundaries of the allotments within the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection Area as declared under Part 8 of the Environment Protection Act 1993. The subject land is located within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and the Water Protection (Marble Hill) Policy Area. The proposal is a merit kind of development and is a Category 1 development for the purposes of public notification.

15022 ltr ma lodge 180815.docx page 2

Subject Land and Locality The subject land is known as 14 – 16 Woods Hill Road, Summertown and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown. The subject land consists of the following land parcels: • Allotment 4, Filed Plan 121530, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5211, Folio 813; • Allotment 5, Deposited Plan 22394, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5076, Folio 287; • Allotment 87, Filed Plan 129741, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5700, Folio 770; and • Allotment comprising Pieces 88 and 89, Filed Plan 129742, in the areas named

Ashton and Summertown, Hundred of Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 6148, Folio 869.

The subject land has a total area of approximately 12.93 hectares. The subject land is located to the north west of the Summertown. Allotments 4 and 5 are located on the eastern side of Woods Hill Road, north of the intersection of Woods Hill Road and Bickles Road. Allotment 87 is located on the northern side of Bickles Road, to the east of the intersection of Woods Hill Road and Bickles Road. Piece 88 appears to be a closed road that runs north-south along the western edge of Lot 87, continuing north past a portion of the eastern boundary of Lot 5 and then continuing northwards. A dwelling and associated outbuildings are located on Lot 4 with the boundary between Lots 4 and 5 currently dissecting a garage attached to the side of the dwelling along with an outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling such that a portion of the garage and the outbuilding is located on Lot 5. Vehicular access to the dwelling is gained, in the main, direct from Woods Hill Road, however, access is also gained from a driveway located on Lot 5. This driveway provides access to the horticultural buildings and dwelling located on Lot 5. Access to Lot 87 is gained from Bickles Road. However, for a considerable period of time (over 30 years) vehicular access between Lot 5 and Lot 87 has been via a portion of Piece 88 between the two (2) allotments. This portion of Piece 88 has a right of way in favour of Lot 87. This portion of Piece 88 may be subject to a possible right of way via possible Adverse Possession claim which may be explored further by the applicant in the future. In addition to residential uses, all of the allotments forming the subject land are used for horticultural uses. The character of the locality is generally of a mixed nature containing various land uses including residential living, farming and horticulture and large areas of native vegetation. The allotment sizes and configurations in the locality and the zone vary significantly. A small cluster of rural residential sized allotments are located along the northern side of Bickles Road. Two (2) other dwellings are located on the southern side of Bickles Road, adjacent the subject land. A watercourse runs generally west to east through the immediate locality of the subject land. This watercourse commences on Lot 4, passes to the south of Lot 5 (on adjacent land) and passes through the north western corner of Lot 87. The land slopes down towards the watercourse.


Proposal The proposal is to undertake a land division involving the realignment of the boundaries between three (3) existing allotments. The intention of the boundary allotment is to result in one (1) large consolidated land parcel to be used for horticultural purposes and two (2) smaller allotments to be used for rural residential purposes. The division will be undertaken in two (2) stages as follows: Stage 1

The amalgamation of existing allotments 5 and 87 to form one (1) allotment comprising pieces 30 and 31 and the creation of allotment 32. The allotment comprising pieces 30 and 31 will have a total area of 8.15 hectares. Allotment 32 will have an area of 2522 square metres, a frontage to Bickles Road of 34.32 metres and an average depth of approximately 90 metres.

Stage 2 The amalgamation of existing Lot 4 and Pieces 30 and 31, created in Stage 1 into one (1) allotment comprising pieces 29, 30 and 31 and the creation of allotment 33. The allotment comprising pieces 29, 30 and 31 will have a total area of 12.43 hectares. Allotment 33 will have an area of 2426 square metres, a frontage to Bickles Road of 44.13 metres and an average depth of approximately 67.4 metres.

Both existing allotments 4 and 5 currently contain dwellings while existing allotment 87 is currently vacant but is capable of accommodating of dwelling. The land division is to be staged such that the land owner can continue to reside in the dwelling on existing allotment 5 while building a new dwelling on proposed allotment 33. Once the new dwelling on allotment 33 has been completed the applicant will decommission the existing dwelling on existing allotment 5 (subject to a separate development application) paving the way to allowing Stage 2 of the land division. This will ensure that at no time will there be two (2) dwellings on one (1) allotment. Discussion The nature of the development is best described as a land division to realign the boundaries between three (3) allotments. Principle of Development Control (‘Principle’) 70 of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone states that all kinds of development are non-complying in the zone except those listed as exceptions. A land division is listed as an exception where no additional allotments are created within the zone, and where the development of the proposed allotments does not result in a greater risk of pollution of surface or underground waters than would the development of the existing allotments, and provided a suitable site for a detached dwelling is available such that the site and the dwelling would comply with the criteria in Table AdHi/5. The proposed land division will comply with these criteria. As such, the proposal is not a non-complying kind of development and is a merit kind of development. The proposal is a Category 1 development for the purposes of public notification.


The proposal will form allotments of a size that are consistent with the sizes of the allotments within the locality. Proposed allotments 32 and 33 are of a size and configuration consistent with other allotments addressing this portion of Bickles Road. The proposal is in accordance with the Land Division Principles of Development Control (‘Principles’) 18 to 22 of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone. The proposal will ensure that the majority of the subject land will continue to the utilised for horticultural use by the creation of a large horticultural allotment. If the current allotments are individually sold in the current configuration it is highly likely that they would be converted to rural residential uses. The proposed land division does not result in a change in the use of the majority of the land. The land division itself does not involve any physical changes to the land or buildings. The proposed development is orderly and economic as it does not create any additional allotments; are used for activities that are compatible with adjoining uses; the allotments are serviced by the majority of public utilities they require; and will continue to make efficient use of infrastructure and services. The development will take place in a manner which will not interfere with the effective and proper use of any other land in the locality. The proposal will not prevent the attainment of the objectives for other adjacent the land. The proposal will not lead to a potential for land use conflict. Proposed allotments 32 and 33 will be of a width and depth that will provide for a dwelling envelope that would allow sufficient buffers between the dwelling and the adjoining horticultural land. The proposal does not increase the threat of impact of bushfires on life and property and the proposal does not obstruct or interfere with watercourses. The proposal does not include the filling of land or the construction of any flood restricting structures or devices, including fences. As such, the proposal will not increase flood hazard and potential risk to property is not increased. Access to the proposed allotments will be via existing driveways gained from Woods Hill road and via access points gained from Bickles Road. Both existing dwellings are adequately services by wastewater control systems and the systems are fully contained within the boundaries of the allotments. The subject land is within the High Bushfire Risk area of the Bushfire Protection Area but is not a kind of development that requires referral to the Country Fire Service (CFS). The intention of the bushfire protection provisions, and others, is for the protection of life and property and to direct development away from sites and areas with an unacceptably high level of bushfire hazard. The provisions require that landscaping provide for bushfire protection measures. This Statement, along with the plans forming the development application, contains all the information specified in the Minister’s Code: Undertaking development in Bushfire Protection Areas, February 2009 (as amended October 2012), for applications for land division in Bushfire Protection Areas.


The proposal does not result in any increase in development potential. As such, the proposal does not increase the danger to residents and occupants of buildings, or firefighting personnel, and does not increase the potential extent of damage to buildings during a bushfire. Existing driveways and vehicle manoeuvring areas provide for safe and convenient access that is from all-weather roads, have been constructed in locations that do not require the removal of vegetation, have an all-weather construction, have an appropriate slope and allows fire fighting vehicles to turn and enter and leave the allotments in a forward motion. The Development Plan, as a whole, strongly supports conservation, particularly native vegetation that contributes greatly to the landscape character and whose retention is invaluable to preserve areas of scenic beauty, wildlife habitats and in control of soil erosion, weed invasion and water quality. The proposal does not involve the removal of any vegetation, native or otherwise, including roadside vegetation. The proposal does not change stormwater management techniques, will not result in an increase in stormwater discharge from the subject land and will not cause deleterious effect on the quality, or hydrology, of groundwater nor increase erosion potential. Conclusions In my opinion, the proposed land division is clearly consistent with the intent of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and suitably accords with the relevant considerations under the Development Plan given the existing nature of locality and the circumstances of the subject land and, in my view, warrants Development Plan Consent, Land Division Consent and Development Approval. If you wish to discuss any aspects of the above please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Frank McIntyre, MPIA CPP [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

File: 15022 11 March 2016 Nitsan Taylor Development Assessment Commission Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure GPO BOX 1533 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Dear Nitsan Applicant: Greg Driver Development App No: 473/D037/15 Subject Land: Lot 4, FP121530, Lot 5, DP 22394, Lot 87, FP 129741 and

Pieces 88 and 89, FP129742, 14 – 16 Woods Hill Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown

Proposal: Land Division – boundary realignment between four (4) allotments

I referred to the abovementioned development application and the further information request from the Development Assessment Commission (DAC), dated 4 November 2015, along with the email to Geoff van Senden, Olden and van Senden Pty Ltd, dated 6 November 2015. The DAC’s letter requested an amended plan that meets the requirements of Schedule 5. Please find enclosed an amended plan prepared by Olden and van Senden Pty Ltd that shows the inclusion of the allotment comprising Pieces 88 and 89, FP129742 such that the proposal now involves the realignment of boundaries between four (4) contiguous allotments. Please note that the owners of the allotment comprising Pieces 88 and 89, FP129742, deceased a considerable time ago. Please note that it was the intention of the application to consist of four (4) allotments as it was contained in the description of the proposal in the planning report accompanying the application. The subject land was described in the planning report as consisting of the following land parcels: • Allotment 4, Filed Plan 121530, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5211, Folio 813; • Allotment 5, Deposited Plan 22394, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5076, Folio 287; • Allotment 87, Filed Plan 129741, in the area named Summertown, Hundred of

Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 5700, Folio 770; and • Allotment comprising Pieces 88 and 89, Filed Plan 129742, in the areas named

Ashton and Summertown, Hundred of Onkaparinga, Certificate of Title Volume 6148, Folio 869.

The email to Geoff van Senden, Olden and van Senden Pty Ltd, dated 6 November 2015, had attached a copy of the Judgement Flora V Development Assessment Commission [2015] SAERDC 43. The email suggested that in light of the Judgement, the application might be considered as a non-complying kind of development.

15022 ltr nt finfo 110316.docx page 2

In the circumstances of the subject, particularly considering that the proposal involves an aggregation of contiguous allotments four (4) contiguous allotments, I am of the opinion that the proposal is not a non-complying kind of development. Further, the proposal differs from the circumstances of the land subject to the Judgement in that the applicant has an interest, in one form or another, in all the parcels of land forming the subject land. Mr Driver owns three (3) of the allotments forming the subject land and has a right of way over the allotment consisting of Pieces 88 and 89. Further, Mr Driver’s family has used a portion of Piece 88 (to a point parallel to the northern boundary of allotment 87) as if they owned it for well over 50 years. In fact, the applicant’s father commence Adverse Possession proceedings under the Real Property Act in the late 1980’s early 1990’s to obtain legal ownership of this portion of the land. These proceedings were only halted due to excessive legal costs. In addition to the above, in my opinion, the proposal is a realignment of boundaries and not the amalgamation of two (2) allotments and the division of another allotment. In my opinion, where a boundary realignment proposal consists of contiguous where the proponent has an interest in each land parcel, the proposal would properly be a boundary realignment not creating additional allotments rather than the amalgamation of two allotments and the creation of one or more additional allotments. If this is not the case then most proposals for boundary realignments that consist of more than two allotments could not be boundary realignments. Geoff van Senden has spoken with the Lands Title Office whom has advised that the creation of allotment comprising pieces 30 and 31 in stage 1 and pieces 34 and 35 in stage 2 is satisfactory to the LTO. For your information such an allotment has previously been granted approval and registered with the LTO (see development application no 473/D037/09). The DAC’s letter requested a site history or Allotment 87 to assist the Commission in determining whether the land is suitable for residential purposes given its historical use for primary production purposes. Allotment 87 was cleared of existing scrub vegetation by the applicant’s father. Since that time the allotment has been used for horticulture (the growing of vegetable crops) other than some periods when the land has been allowed to rest. The applicant has grown rhubarb on allotment 87, including the site of proposed allotments 32 and 33, for many years. In 2010 the applicant engaged Creation Innovation Agriculture and Forestry (CIAAF) to undertake investigations in relation to Rhubarb leaf spot. The CIAAF report included an herbicide residue analysis of the soil of the land which found that the concentrations of herbicide constituents were at low levels (below the Level of Reporting). Further testing undertaken in October 2015 shows that residues remain low. Such tests have been undertaken by the applicant on a yearly basis. Please see attachment A for the aforementioned reports and testing results. As the land has remained in the ownership of one family (since 1852) and has only ever been used for a food crop since it was cleared of scrub and in light of past soil test results, I am of the opinion that a site contamination report is not warranted. As stated within the planning report accompanying the application, in my opinion, the proposed land division is consistent with the intent of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and suitably accords with the relevant considerations under the Development Plan given the existing nature of locality and the circumstances of the subject land and, in my view, warrants Development Plan Consent, Land Division Consent and Development Approval.

15022 ltr nt finfo 110316.docx page 3

If you wish to discuss any aspects of the above please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Frank McIntyre, MPIA CPP [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Attachment A

REPORT

Greg Driver

Rhubarb Leaf Spot

July 2010

CIAAF Report – Greg Driver– Rhubarb Leaf Spot Page 1 of 10

Prepared by Creation Innovation Agriculture and Forestry, © July 2010 V1 31-07-10

REPORT

Client: Greg Driver

Project name: Rhubarb leaf spot

Date: 31-07-10

Summary

The rhubarb leaf spot is most likely to be caused by the fungal pathogen Ascochyta rhei. A. rhei has been

reported as a common pathogen of rhubarb in Queensland and the USA. It spreads from dead leaf tissue

and soil by water splash, wind, clothing, equipment and machinery. Good sanitation is critical to the

control of A. rhei, and a number of cultural and chemical recommendations to help manage the incidence

of A. rhei are made at the end of this report.

Introduction and Background

Tim Marshall (TM Organics) contacted Dr Ash Martin (CIAAF) in mid-May 2010 about Greg’s rhubarb

(Rheum sp.) leaf spot problem. Greg was concerned about the leaf spot problem, which had been

occurring for some time, as it was having a noticeable impact on returns from his rhubarb production. Dr

Martin and Dr Maria Manjarrez (CIAAF) visited Greg’s farm to see the problem, obtain information about

the incidence of the problem and any associated management practices, and take samples for

microbiological and other analyses on 19th May, 2010. Further observations were made and more samples

taken for analysis on 17th June and 19th July, 2010.

Objectives

1. Identify the cause of the leaf spots observed in the rhubarb; and,

2. Identify suitable control methods and design a control plan.

Methods

Several analysis methods were used to identify the cause of the rhubarb leaf spot:

1. Visual assessment;

2. Herbicide residue analysis;

3. Microscopy; and,

4. DNA analysis.



A literature search was conducted to obtain information that could help to identify the cause of the leaf

spots.

Visual assessment

The morphology of the leaf spots (necrotic lesions) was examined in the field and at the laboratory on two

occasions following sampling. Attention was paid to the pattern of occurrence on the leaf, morphology of

the lesions and the presence of any reproductive structures. Images were taken of the necrotic spots and

surrounding tissue, and sent to mycoplasma experts and compared with images from agricultural

institutions published online.

Herbicide residue analysis

Soil samples were analysed using HPLC-GC by AMAL Pty Ltd (Glen Iris, Victoria) for herbicide residues,

including the main constituent (diuron) of the most common herbicide used on the farm (Krovar; DuPont

(Australia) Ltd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales).

Microscopy

Light microscopy was used to confirm the observations made by visual assessment. Small pieces of leaves

containing necrotic lesions and surrounding tissue were mounted on slides in a lactic acid and glycerol mix.

Slides were examined under low magnification to observe the morphology of the necrosis and the presence

of any fruiting bodies.

DNA analysis

Colonies grown from affected leaf tissue on agar plates were subject to 18s rDNA analysis to identify a

probable fungal pathogen.

Results

Visual assessment

The first visual assessment in the field on 19th May, 2010 proved inconclusive because the leaf spots did

not resemble any common pathogen. No fruiting bodies were observed on the undersides of the spots,

which would have been a typical indicator of a fungal pathogen, and the morphology and distribution of the

necrosis was not very consistent with a bacterial pathogen. Visual assessment by a specialist agronomist

familiar with virus and mycoplasma infections of crops also proved inconclusive. Images of the necrotic

spots and surrounding tissue were sent to mycoplasma experts at the Queensland Department of Primary

Industries, who advised that the spots were unlikely to be caused by mycoplasma infection.

A second visual assessment in the field on 17th June, 2010 found similar symptoms on weeds growing

adjacent to one of the affected (home) blocks. The necrotic spots on the weed leaves were identified in the

field as a fungal infection, similar to a ‘blight’ type infection. Comparison with the necrotic spots on the

rhubarb leaves revealed that the rhubarb pathogen was likely to be the same as that affecting the weeds,



but the relatively fleshy nature of the rhubarb leaves meant that the necrosis morphology appeared slightly

different.

The morphology of the spots closely resembled that observed in images of rhubarb leaves affected by a

‘blight’ type fungal pathogen published online (Webb & Beckerman 2002; University of Illinois 2002;

Queensland DPI&F 2004). Subsequently, the cause of the necrotic spots was identified as Ascochyta rhei

Ellis and Everh.

Figure 1 – Necrotic spots in rhubarb leaves.


All herbicide constituents tested were present (or absent) below the level of reporting available (Appendix

A)

Microscopy

Assessment by microscopy confirmed the results of the second visual assessment.

DNA analysis

Two attempts were at DNA analysis were made. The first attempt identified the organism as Rhizopus

stolonifer (Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill., an ubiquitous fungus that is a very common post-harvest pathogen. It is

commonly known as bread mould, and could not be the cause of the leaf spots. It was most likely already

present on the leaves and grew very well on the agar plates.

A second attempt used leaves that had been surface sterilised with 10% didecyl-dimethyl-ammonium

chloride solution to prevent contamination of plate cultures by R. stolonifer on agar that was selective for

Ascochyta rhei. At the time of preparing this report the results of this analysis were not available.

Discussion and Conclusions

Ascochyta rhei is a frequent pathogen of rhubarb in Queensland (Queensland DPI&F 2004), the United

States of America (Gonsalves & Ferreira 1994; Webb & Beckerman 2002; University of Illinois 2002), the

United Kingdom (Zhao et al. 2003) and China (Wang et al. 2009). In addition, at least one new cultivar of



rhubarb has shown particular and significant susceptibility to A. rhei. In horticultural situations, A. rhei

reproduces from spores inside infected leaves, including any that have been cut and left to decay near

beds. Like most ‘blight’ type fungi, it grows best in warm (20 to 30°C), humid environments and, in the

absence of other vectors, is mostly spread by water splash and by wind during wet conditions (Webb &

Beckerman 2002; Qld DPI&F 2006). Spores land on the surface of leaves, germinate, penetrate the leaf

cuticle, and invade the surrounding leaf tissue, resulting in tissue necrosis (death).

The condition and symptoms of A. rhei infection agree with the observations by Greg Driver that the leaf

spot problem is most severe during summer when overhead irrigation is used. The morphology of the

necrotic lesions on the rhubarb and weed leaves sampled from Greg’s farm closely resemble those caused

by A. rhei in rhubarb in the USA.

A. rhei is unusual in that, unlike other ‘blight’ type fungi, it does not form reproductive structures on the

underside of the necrotic lesion, but rather inside the surrounding leaf tissue (Webb & Beckerman 2002;

University of Illinois 2002). This was concurrent with the observed absence of reproductive structures

under the lesions in visual and microscopic assessment. Given these observations, and in the absence of

contrary DNA identification thus far, it is most likely that the cause of the rhubarb leaf spots was the

pathogenic fungus Ascochyta rhei.

Recommendations

It is strongly recommended that all of the cultural recommendations described below be integrated into

normal farm practice as a first line of defence. Putting the cultural recommendations into practice will help

to reduce the pressure of the disease (Qld DPI&F & Pulse Australia 2006) and minimise the potential for

severe outbreaks. Sanitation is a key factor in the control of Ascochyta (Webb & Beckerman 2002; Qld

DPI&F & Pulse Australia 2006). Chemical recommendations should be used to compliment the cultural

recommendations. It is highly unlikely that chemical methods alone will control the disease effectively.

Cultural

Ascochyta is easily spread by water splash and wind during wet conditions (Webb & Beckerman 2002; Qld

DPI&F 2006). However it can also be spread on clothing, tools and equipment (Qld DPI&F 2006).

1. Phase out overhead watering and replace with surface or sub-surface irrigation. Avoid overhead

watering in windy conditions.

2. Remove all cut and dead leaves from growing areas as soon as possible, or, alternatively, incorporate

plant residues thoroughly into soil between rows after harvest (University of Illinois 2002). Leaf removal

could be achieved on an ongoing basis by having separate buckets for waste leaves in the field when

picking is taking place. Destroy removed leaves (Bretag et al. 2006) or dispose of them off site if

possible, for example, as animal feed or compost feedstock. Potential destruction methods are on-farm

composting, provided adequate pile temperatures are achieved, or incineration.



3. Control broad leaf weeds around rhubarb plots, as these could be a substantial source of infection.

4. Clean down all machinery and equipment (Qld DPI&F 2006) daily with a hospital grade commercial

disinfectant. Wash the soles of footwear in a disinfectant bath several times a day, for example,

whenever entering or leaving the shed. This could be achieved by using a containing a piece of foam

rubber soaked in disinfectant.

5. Field workers should wear plastic-fronted aprons and disposable plastic sleeves whenever cutting. The

plastic fronted aprons should be wiped down with disinfectant several times a day, and at the end of the

day. Disposable sleeves should be replaced at the end of each row.

6. Test different rhubarb cultivars for susceptibility to leaf spot and replace existing genotype with a more

resistant genotype.

Chemical

No chemicals are specifically registered for the control of Ascochyta rhei in rhubarb. However, some of the

following have been effective in helping to control other species of Ascochyta in other crops. Off-label

permits (if necessary) should be sought to test the effectiveness of the following chemicals in your

situation:

1. Copper fungicides (Webb & Beckerman 2002);

2. Mancozeb fungicides (DPI NSW 2009; GRDC 2009; Qld DPI&F 2006);

3. Chlorothalonil fungicides (GRDC 2009; Qld DPI&F 2006), for example, Bravo; and,

4. Azoxystrobin fungicides (University of Illinois 2002), for example, Amistar.

Always rotate fungicides to prevent the build up of chemical resistance in the pathogen.

Copper and mancozeb fungicides are most effective when used as preventatives when experience dictates

that disease pressure is likely to escalate. Chlorothalonil fungicides are probably more effective than

copper or mancozeb fungicides once an outbreak has occurred. However, you should consider the

withholding periods for any chemicals used.

References

Bretag TW, Keane PJ and Price TV. 2006. The epidemiology of ascochyta blight in field peas: a review. Australian

Journal of Agricultural Research. 57(8): 883-902.

DPI NSW (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales). 2009. Ascochyta fungicides for 2009 chickpea

growers. Agriculture today, March 2009. State of New South Wales.

Gonsalves AR and Ferreira SA. 1994. Ascochyta primer. Crop knowledge master (online publication). University of

Hawaii, Manoa, USA. URL: http://www.exteno.hawaii.edu/Kbase/crop/Type/asc_prim.htm. Date accessed: 07-06-

2010.



GRDC (Grains Research and Development Corporation). 2009. Ascochyta blowouts in chickpeas in 2008 – why did

they occur and what changes need to be made to management in 2009. GRDC Research Updates, 23-10-2009, online

publication. URL:

http://www/grdc.com.au/director/events/researchupdates?item_id=C48A8219A1AC&.... Date accessed: 31-07-2010.

Qld DPI&F (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland) and Pulse Australia. 2006. Protocol for

managing an outbreak of chickpea Ascochyta blight in central Queensland. Department of Primary Industries and

Fisheries, Queensland.

Queensland DPI&F (Officers of Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland). 2004. Growing rhubarb.

DPI&F note, file no. H0011. The State of Queensland (Department of Employment, Economic Development and

Innovation).

University of Illinois. 2002. Vegetable Diseases Update: Rhubarb Leaf Spot. News, August 16th, 2002. Online

publication. URL: http://veg-fruit.cropsci.illinois.edu/News/News-2002/August-2002/081601.htm. Date accessed:

07-06-2010.

Wang Y, Chen X and Li Y. 2009. Survey and pathogen identification of rhubarb diseases in Gansu province [article in

Chinese]. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 34(8): 953-956.

Webb P and Beckerman J. 2002. Rhubarb Leaf Spots. Yard and garden briefs P259R 03/02. University of Minnesota

Extension Service, USA.

Zhao Y, Grout BW and Crisp PC. 2003. Identification and characterization of pathogenic fungi causing spot disease on

rhubarb (Rheum raponticum L.) in the UK. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Science. 68(4 Pt B):

695-704.



Appendix A

TEST SUBSTANCES AND LEVEL OF REPORTING

(LOR)

NOTE: All laboratories used in the FreshTest program are NATA Accredited for Fresh Produce 01 July 2015 V4

CHEMICAL TESTS

CHEMICAL LOR

(mg/kg) CHEMICAL

LOR (mg/kg)

CHEMICAL LOR

(mg/kg)

C3 C3 (Cont) C3 (Cont) Organophosphates Acaricides Fungicides Acephate 0.01 Bifenazate 0.01 Benalaxyl 0.01 Azinphos-methyl 0.01 Bifenazate diazene 0.01 Biteranol 0.01 Chlorpyrifos 0.01 Chlorfenapyr 0.05 Captan 0.10 Chlorpyrifos-methyl 0.01 Clofentezine 0.01 Chlorothalonil 0.05 Chlorfenvinphos 0.01 Etoxazole 0.01 Cypraconazole 0.01 Diazinon 0.01 Propargite 0.01 Cyprodinil 0.01 Dichlorvos 0.01 Tebufenpyrad 0.01 Dicloran 0.05 Dimethoate 0.01 Tetradifon 0.01 Difenoconazole 0.01 Ethoprophos 0.01 Dimethomorph 0.01 Fenamiphos 0.01 Synthetic Pyrethroids Diphenylamine 0.05 Fenitrothion 0.01 Bifenthrin 0.01 Fenarimol 0.01 Fenthion 0.01 Bioresmethrin 0.01 Fludioxonil 0.01 Fenthion oxon 0.01 Cyfluthrin 0.02 Flusilazole 0.01 Fenthion oxon sulfone 0.01 Cyfluthrin-beta 0.02 Hexaconazole 0.01 Fenthion oxon sulfoxide 0.01 Cyhalothrin 0.01 Imazalil 0.01 Fenthion sulfone 0.01 Cyhalothrin-lambda 0.01 Iprodione 0.05 Fenthion sulfoxide 0.01 Cypermethrin 0.01 Kresoxim-methyl 0.01 Malathion 0.01 Cypermethrin-alpha 0.02 Metalaxyl 0.01 Methamidophos 0.01 Deltamethrin 0.01 Myclobutanil 0.01 Methidathion 0.01 Esfenvalerate 0.01 Paclobutrazol 0.01 Mevinphos 0.01 Fenvelarate 0.01 Penconazole 0.01 Monocrotophos 0.01 Fluvalinate 0.01 Penthiopyrad 0.01 Omethoate 0.01 Fluvalinate-tau 0.01 Piperonyl butoxide 0.01 Parathion-ethyl 0.05 Permethrin 0.01 Prochloraz 0.01 Parathion-methyl 0.01 Phenothrin 0.02 Procymidone 0.01 Phorate 0.01 Pyrethrins 0.05 Propiconazole 0.01 Phosmet 0.01 Pyrimenthanil 0.01 Pirimiphos-methyl 0.01 Organochlorines Quintozene 0.01 Profenofos 0.01 Aldrin 0.01 Tebuconazole 0.01 Prothiofos 0.01 BHC-alpha 0.01 Tolclofos-methyl 0.01 Terbufos 0.01 BHC-beta 0.01 Triadimefon 0.01 BHC-delta 0.01 Triadimenol 0.01 Herbicides BHC-gamma (Lindane) 0.01 Vinclozolin 0.01 Chlorthal-dimethyl 0.01 DDD-p,p 0.01 Linuron 0.01 DDE-p,p 0.01 Others Metribuzin 0.01 DDT-p,p 0.01 Abamectin 0.01 Oxyfluorfen 0.05 o.p-Dicofol 0.05 Buprofezin 0.01 Pendimethalin 0.01 p.p- Dicofol 0.05 Fenoxycarb 0.01 Dieldrin 0.01 Fipronil 0.01 Phenols Endosulfan-alpha 0.01 Fipronil sulphenyl 0.01 O-Phenylphenol 0.01 Endosulfan-beta 0.01 Fipronil sulphone 0.01 Endosulfan-sulphate 0.01 Fipronil trifluoromethyl 0.01 Carbamates Endosulfan-Total 0.01 Hexythiazox 0.01 Carbaryl 0.01 Endrin 0.01 Indoxacarb 0.01 Pirimicarb 0.01 Keto-Endrin 0.01 Pyriproxyfen 0.01 HCB 0.01 Sulfoxaflor 0.01 Heptachlor 0.01 Heptachlor epoxide 0.01 Trichlorfon 0.01

C5 C5(cont) C4 Azoxystrobin 0.01 Methomyl-oxime 0.01 Dithiocarbamates 0.20 Benomyl 0.01 Pymetrozine 0.01 Boscalid 0.01 Pyraclostrobin 0.01 Carbendazim 0.01 Spinetoram-A (Ethyl-spinosyn-J) 0.01 Chlorantaniliprole 0.01 Spinetoram-B (Ethyl-spinosyn-L) 0.01 Dithianon 0.02 Spinosad-A 0.01 Diuron 0.01 Spinosad-D 0.01 Fenhexamid 0.01 Spirotetramat 0.01 Fenpyroximate 0.01 Tebufenozide 0.01 Flubendiamide 0.02 Thiabendazole 0.01 Imidacloprid 0.01 Thiacloprid 0.01 C6 Methomyl 0.01 Thiamethoxam 0.01 Test Code C3 + C5 Trifloxystrobin 0.01

MICROBIAL TESTS HEAVY METAL TESTS

MICROBIAL LOR

(cfu/g) MICROBIAL

LOR (cfu/g)

HEAVY METAL LOR

(mg/kg) M1 M3 HM1

Refe

r to

FS

AN

Z

Sta

nd

ard

1.4

.1

E.coli

REPORT

Greg Driver

Rhubarb Leaf Spot

July 2010



REPORT

Client: Greg Driver


Date: 31-07-10

Summary














Objectives



Methods




3. Microscopy; and,

4. DNA analysis.




spots.

Visual assessment










Microscopy





DNA analysis



Results

Visual assessment















different.




Ellis and Everh.




A)

Microscopy


DNA analysis






























Recommendations







Cultural






















resistant genotype.

Chemical




situation:










References







2010.





publication. URL:







Innovation).



07-06-2010.







695-704.



Appendix A

REPORT

Greg Driver

Rhubarb Leaf Spot

July 2010



REPORT

Client: Greg Driver


Date: 31-07-10

Summary














Objectives



Methods




3. Microscopy; and,

4. DNA analysis.




spots.

Visual assessment










Microscopy





DNA analysis



Results

Visual assessment















different.




Ellis and Everh.




A)

Microscopy


DNA analysis






























Recommendations







Cultural






















resistant genotype.

Chemical




situation:










References







2010.





publication. URL:







Innovation).



07-06-2010.







695-704.



Appendix A

17 March 2016

SA WaterLevel 6, 250 Victoria SquareADELAIDE SA 5000Ph (08) 7424 1119

Our Ref: H0037826Inquiries Wendy HebbardTelephone 7424 1119

The ChairmanDevelopment Assessment Commission136 North TerraceADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Sir/Madam

PROPOSED LAND DIVISION APPLICATION NO: 473/D037/15 AT SUMMERTOWN

In response to the abovementioned proposal, I advise that this Corporation has no requirementspursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act.

NO SERVICES AVAILABLE, NO REQUIREMENTS.

Yours faithfully

Wendy Hebbard

for MANAGER LAND DEVELOPMENT & CONNECTIONS

PO Box 44Woodside SA 5244Phone: 08 8408 0400Fax: 08 8389 [email protected] line: 8408-0530File Ref: 15/885

6 July 2016

Development Assessment CommissionGPO Box 1815ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Sir/Madam

Development No 15/885/473Proposal Boundary realignment (4 into 4) (DAC relevant authority)Subject Land 16 Woods Hill Road, Summerto