attachment 5 council response

ATTACHMENT 5

COUNCIL RESPONSE

ATTACHMENT 6

REPRESENTATIONS

1

Pluck, Daniel (DPTI)

From: Tom Game <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 4:50 PMTo: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel; Pluck, Daniel (DPTI)Subject: Representation - DA 145/E016/16 - proposed Supermarket and Retail Shops - 209 Port

Road, AldingaAttachments: P216177_001.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Daniel, Please see attached representation on behalf of Shahin Properties Pty Ltd. Feel free to contact me if you have any queries. Regards,

Tom Game Principal e. [email protected] m. 0419 809 361 | t. 8212 9777 | f. 8212 8099 Botten Levinson Lawyers | Level 1, 28 Franklin Street, Adelaide SA 5000 www.bllawyers.com.au

Please notify us immediately if this communication has been sent to you by mistake. If it has, client legal privilege is not waived or lost and you are not entitled to use it in any way.

jrb:p216177_001.docx

Our ref: THG/216177 3 August 2016 Daniel Pluck Development Assessment Commission GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001 By email: [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Daniel Representation - DA 145/E016/16 - proposed Supermarket and Retail Shops - 209 Port Road, Aldinga This firm acts for Shahin Properties Pty Ltd, the owner of land at Port Road, Aldinga1. This representation on the above development application is made on my client’s behalf. 1. The locality

The subject land is located on the north western corner of the intersection of Port Road and Main South Road (“the land”). My client’s land is adjacent to the land, on the southern side of Port Road. My client’s land has been developed with a substantial On The Run (OTR) facility providing a range of products and services, completed in December 2015.

2. The proposed development

The proposed development comprises the establishment of a supermarket with a floor area of 1701 square metres, along with four retail stores with a combined floor area of 463 square metres.

3. Concerns

My client is principally concerned about the traffic impacts of the proposed development. My client objects to the proposed development in its current form for at least the following reasons.

1 As contained in CT 5496/436

mailto:[email protected]


– 2 –


3.1 Port Road and Main South Road works

The site plan suggests that significant works are proposed to Port Road, including new crossovers, traffic islands, pedestrian refuges and slip lanes.

The potential for the works to Port Road to compromise and restrict traffic movements associated with the OTR site is of significant concern.

It is not clear whether the Onkaparinga Council has given its consent to these works. My client is not aware of any such agreement, and the DAC should be cautious about approving the proposed development on the basis of the Port Road works shown on the plans.

Further, the site plan is premised upon an assumed upgrade to Main South and Port Road and does not reflect the current alignment of those roads. Given the uncertainty about the timing of the upgrade works and their final form, the impacts of the proposal should also be assessed based on the current road alignments.

Given the potential for those works to impact upon the operation of the OTR facility, it is only appropriate that my client (and DPTI and the Council) be involved in any discussions regarding the road works and access arrangements associated with the proposed development. These discussions need to take place before any development on the subject land proceeds.

3.2 Restriction of OTR traffic movements

The only exits for the OTR facility and the proposed development are located on Port Road.

The proposed works to Port Road appear to include a traffic island which will prevent right-hand movements from the western exit of the OTR facility. This will severely frustrate the movement of vehicles seeking to return to Main South Road from the OTR facility.

Further, the eastern exit from the proposed development is located directly opposite to the main (eastern) exit from the OTR facility. Given the proximity of the new crossover to the intersection with Main South Road and the likelihood of increased queuing, this is also likely to frustrate the ability of vehicles exiting the OTR facility to turn right and return to Main South Road. This is of particular concern because a significant proportion of vehicles accessing the OTR facility comprise Main South Road bound traffic.

It is imperative that any works associated with the proposed development preserve and do not inhibit the ability of traffic from the OTR facility to return to Main South Road.

– 3 –


3.3 Traffic generation

The anticipated traffic generation for the proposed development has been calculated based upon surveys of interstate ALDI stores in 2006 and 2010. It is submitted that the traffic generation rates should be calculated based upon current traffic surveys from the existing ALDI stores in South Australia, to provide a more representative picture.

4. Traffic Engineers report

Regrettably my client has not, in the time available for making representations, been able to seek a review of the proposed development by a traffic engineer. My client may seek to supplement this representation with a report from a traffic engineer.

5. Conclusion

My client holds serious concerns about the potential traffic impacts arising from the proposed development.

My client wishes to be heard at the relevant meeting of the Development Assessment Commission. As such, I would be grateful if you could advise me of the time and date of the relevant meeting.

Yours faithfully

Tom Game BOTTEN LEVINSON Mob: 0419 809 361 Email: [email protected]

1

Pluck, Daniel (DPTI)

From: Stephanie Johnston <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 9:49 PMTo: Pluck, Daniel (DPTI)Cc: Geoff Hayter; Ben Victory; Kerry Flanagan; Gabe Kelly; David Gill; Toff WestSubject: Re: Category 2 Rep form for KF FlanaganAttachments: DAC SUBMISSION August 2 2016.doc; ATT00001.htm

Dear Daniel, Yes Kerry Flanagan and Gabe Kelly have been in Europe for a while now (according to Facebook) so they may have missed the material in the mail. I am copying them in here and will try to track them down to make sure they are aware of the new application, and to see if they wish to put in a representation (if only simply to endorse or raise the ongoing community concerns outlined below and in my letter attached. They are both members of FOPW.) Regarding the landscaping along the northern wall, I have received some information from the City of Onkaparinga that the landscaping plan has reverted back to the use of a deciduous tree species along that northern boundary of the allotment, although you informed me that mature plantings of Tuckeroo (cupaniopsis anacardioides) is on the current Outerspace Landscape Architects landscaping plan. As I don’t seem to be able to check this for myself on the online application, I would appreciate it if you would, as the impact of that wall and roof (when combined with the proposed infill) on the natural topography and views of the historic attributes of the township has been recorded on several occasions as a key concern of community groups and the Aldinga Trade Association, and the heritage experts (including Dr Iris Iwanicki) we’ve consulted with. Council and community had negotiated a switch from an exotic deciduous (Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ ornamental pear) which will not provide year around screening, to an evergreen native species (‘Tuckeroo' cupaniopsis anacardioides) that will. Daniel, I would appreciate it if the DAC would take the remaining key concerns into account in its assessment of the new application, namely height and scale of the supermarket building, in particular the infill to street level, against the natural slope of the site, and the height of the roofline, as well as the height of the Twin Pole sign, and the fact that the sign sits above the canopy. I realise community and business groups no longer have much negotiating power, (the applicants have indicated they don’t want to reduce the fill unless forced to by the courts), but a previous DAC was able to stipulate that the signage of the OTR development across the road come down from 9m to no more than 6m, and this did make a significant difference with impact on the town’s heritage attributes, and views of the Uniting Church steeple "focal point” in particular. (See photo in submission attached.) Members of the community would really appreciate it if the twin pole were to come down to below the canopy - i.e. 6m ideally, noting that the applicant publicly indicated a willingness to consider this compromise when the previous non-complying application was considered by the City of Onkapringa DAP. The issue was raised by both FOPW and FOWB - it is a small ask, and it might make all the difference when approaching the town in terms of allowing the Uniting Church focal point to take "pride of place" over the Aldi Twin Pole sign. AT 10.4m above ground level, the twin pole sign is currently proposed to be as high as the 10.5m streetlight pictured in Figure 1 of the attached application. These are the points I would like to make on behalf of community groups with the support of Development Plan provisions, if given the opportunity of addressing the DAC at a public hearing, noting your website does allow for submissions and presentations from private citizens or organisations affected by the proposal at the discretion of the DAC.

2

Kind regards Stephanie Stephanie Johnston B Arch St MURP MPIA MICOMOS

The Secretary� Development Assessment Commission GPO Box 1815�ADELAIDE SA 5001 Tuesday 2 August 2016 To whom it may concern RE: Cat 2 Development Number: 145/E016/16 Supermarket and Retail Shops 209 Port Road, Aldinga Representor’s name: Stephanie Johnston B Arch St MURP MPIA MICOMOS , Chair, Friends of Port Willunga and Spokesperson, Southern Community Coalition Representor’s residential address: 25 Mindarie Street, Port Willunga SA 5173 Representor’s postal address: 31 Main Street, Eastwood, SA 5173 NB I request to be heard at the DAC hearing if the DAC shows discretion to grant the opportunity At a meeting held at the Old Vine, Old Coach Road, Aldinga, on 21 August 2015 at 6.30pm, members of the Southern Community Coalition (SCC) including the Friends of Port Willunga, The Friends of Willunga Basin, the Aldinga Bay Residents Association and the Aldinga Arts Eco Village raised a number of issues with regard to the original NON‐COMPLYING DA 145/2758/2014 for a Supermarket and Detached Retail Shops – 209 Port Road, Aldinga, which was subsequently approved by the City of Onkaparinga, with concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission. Friends of Willunga Basin and Friends of Port Willunga are currently appealing that approval in the ERD Court. A number of issues were raised by Friends of WIllunga Basin and Friends of Port WIllunga with regard to the NON‐COMPLYING application, including:

1. Traffic congestion on Port Road and the proposed Port Road upgrade 2. Height and scale of the supermarket building, and in particular the height

above natural ground level of the proposed infill, the supermarket and roof ridgeline, and proposed above‐canopy signage.

3. Excessive corporate signage (including above canopy signage) in the context of Development Plan provisions for the Historic Conservation Area

4. An issue around an awkward triangular allotment between the Aldinga Hotel Car Park and the supermarket “facing” onto Port Road, and inappropriate colorbond fencing at the interface to the historic core of the town.

5. Failure of/ineffective/inadequate proposed landscaping plan using deciduous exotic species to screen the north facing wall of the supermarket all year around

Some of the above issues have since been addressed however the following issues remain unresolved: 1. Height and scale of supermarket building, and in particular the height above natural ground level of the proposed infill, supermarket and roof ridgeline. General Section�Historic Conservation Area PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PDC 14 Development should respect the existing topography and the relationship of sites to street levels and to adjoining land and not involve substantial cut and/or fill of sites. � Onkaparinga Council Table Section Table Onka/7 ‐ Historic Conservation Area and Local Heritage Places Design Guidelines Built Form

New development should preserve and enhance the heritage qualities of the town.

Do ensure that new development does not become a dominant feature, demanding pride‐of‐place at the expense of historic landmarks.

The view of SCC members including Friends of Port Willunga, Friends of WIllunga Basin and members of the Aldinga Trade Association was that the height of the ridge line of the roof of the supermarket is a key issue for its visual impact on views of the heritage buildings of the historic township, the land mark Uniting Church historic village focal point and state heritage listed Temperance Hotel in particular, especially with regard to the supermarket building becoming “a dominant feature demanding pride of place at the expense of (those) historic landmarks”. It was noted that the key issue here is the proposal by the applicant to infill the supermarket site to street level, instead of cutting the floor of the building into the natural fall of the slope, as anticipated by the Development Plan provisions. The proposed 2.4 metres of infill at the northern end of the site is regarded as excessive, and the visual impact of the combined height of the proposed supermarket building and retaining wall is regarded as unacceptable from the point of view of impacts on views from the north as you approach the township, and views from the Port Road gateway and inner core of the township itself. We note that previous court decisions Elbourn v Mallala DC (1997) 4 SAPED 122; Judgement OE 427 delivered August 20 1997 ERDC and Steel v Burnside CC (1998) EDLR 655; (1998) 5 SAPED 87; Judgement OE514 delivered 21 September 1998 ERDC) determined that any planning assessment needs to be made of the proposed built form itself, and not rely on landscaping to ameliorate impacts of the built form on the landscape and views of and from the township.

That said, it is the view of FOPW and FOWB that an evergreen native species of adequately mature plantings should be used to screen and soften the northern wall of the proposed supermarket building.

Figure1:ViewofAldingaVillageasviewedfromMainSouthRoad.Wenotethattheheightofthestreetlightatthestandard10.5metrescanbeusedtoindicatetheapproximateheightabovestreetleveloftheproposedabove‐canopyTwinPolesign10.4mabovefloorlevel,andtheproposedsupermarketbuildingrooflineheightabovethefloor,itself2.4mabovenaturalgroundlevel.

2. Excessive corporate signage and above canopy signage General Section Advertisements PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PDC 14 The proliferation of advertisements on any one building, site or locality should be discouraged. � General Section�Historic Conservation Area PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PDC 13 Advertisements and/or advertising hoardings associated with places and areas of heritage significance should: (a) be of a size, colour, shape and materials that enhances the character of

the locality � (b) not dominate or detract from the prominence of any place and/or area

of historic significance. � Port Willunga/Aldinga Policy Area 62 OBJECTIVES 1 Development that contributes to the desired character of the policy area. DESIRED CHARACTER Precinct 29 Aldinga Village …”This will be complemented by uncluttered, effective and attractive signage, with a minimum of illumination and no flashing, rotating signage display.” “Visual connections with the town’s broader setting are supported by key street vistas that take in the surrounding rural setting low, open‐style front fencing as well as low scale signage for commercial development, help to ensure these vistas are not unduly compromised.”

We assert that the application proposes an excessive amount of corporate signage. 9 signs in total include 2 large gable signs, a small gable sign, an illuminated sign, a poster box sign, a shared pylon sign, a single pylon sign, a shared plinth sign, and, finally, a twin pole sign @ 10.4meteres above up to 2.4 metres of infill. Restraint with corporate signage and heritage design that is complementary to its context is practiced in historic conservation areas all over the world, and with thought and sensitivity could equally be applied at this site. As an example of best practice not attempted in this application, Figure 2 shows a McDonalds outlet blending into the built fabric of the historic centre of Lisbon.

4

CONCLUSION The 900 metre square retail space footprint non‐complying trigger applicable to a previous application for this site was originally put in place so that large scale supermarkets with associated traffic and heritage impacts could not be approved in the Aldinga historic conservation area. The policy was put in place in consultation with the local community to reinforce that any retail development in the area would be compatible in scale with local buildings and businesses and cater to local demand, and not aim to attract shoppers from outside the township, in accord with Adelaide’s retail centres hierarchy. The place for such supermarkets would be District Centre and Neighbourhood Centres, not the historic conservation zone. With its excessive corporate signage and according to its own retail analysis, the Aldi supermarket clearly aims to attract customers from across the broader region. While the supermarket chain has since successfully negotiated to have the 900metre limit removed from Development Plan policy, the original rational for a lower retail floor limit remains: the avoidance of an out‐of‐scale building having negative impacts on the heritage values and attributes of the township, and indeed on the heritage values and attributes of the Character Preservation district immediately adjacent. While acknowledging that significant effort has been made to meet the historic zone guidelines in terms of built form and materials, the scale and height of the main supermarket building, and in particular the impact of a 2.4m above‐natural‐ground‐level infill is unacceptable.

Figure2Bestpracticeheritage‐complementarycorporatesignageanddesigninLisbon’shistoriccentre.

This issue should be assessed in the context of the decision of the DAC to restrict the number of signage pylons and to reduce the height of all pylons in the OTR development across the road to a maximum of 6m. Community members have strongly urged the applicant to consider cut rather than fill to reduce all visual impacts, but the applicant has chosen not to consider that option, despite conceding that it would be possible to do so. Given the applicant’s ongoing refusal to reduce the fill, it seems a small request for DAC to require that the applicant reduce the height of the twin pole pylon from 10.4m to 6m, and to also ensure that an evergreen screen of mature plantings is used for landscaping along the northern boundary of the allotment. Yours sincerely

Stephanie Johnston B Arch St MURP MPIA MICOMOS Chair, Friends of Port Willunga RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 25 Mindarie Street, Port Willunga SA 5173 BUSINESS AND POSTAL ADDRESS: 31 Main Street Eastwood SA 5063 [email protected] Mobile: 0400 738 855

ATTACHMENT 7

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO

REPRESENTATIONS

12 September 2016 REF No.: 00280

Mr Daniel Pluck

Development Assessment Commission

GPO Box 1815

ADELAIDE SA 5001

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Daniel,

RE: APPLICATION 145/E016/16 – 209 PORT ROAD, ALDINGA - RESPONSE TO

REPRESENTATIONS AND AGENCY COMMENTS

We refer to the Development Application lodged on behalf of ALDI Stores to construct a supermarket and four

detached retail shops with associated car parking, signage, landscaping, fencing up to 2.4 metres in height,

retaining walls up to 1.2 metres and earthworks.

This correspondence seeks to review and respond to the following four (4) valid representations received by the

Development Assessment Commission in response to Category 2 public notification:

Name Affected Property Support/Object Wish to be Heard

Botten Levinson (for Shahin

Properties Pty Ltd) On The Run – 208 Port Rd, Aldinga O Y

Stephanie Johnston (for Kerry

Flanagan & Gabe Kelly) - O Y

Stephanie Johnston, Chair,

Friends of Port Willunga 25 Mindarie Street, Port Willunga O Y

David Smallacombe Historic Temperance Hotel opposite 206

Port Rd, Aldinga S N

In addition to the representations, we are also in receipt of correspondence from Onkaparinga Council dated 12

August 2016, State Heritage Unit (DEWNR) dated 26 August 2016 and the Safety and Service Traffic Operations

division of DPTI dated 2 August 2016.

As previously outlined, the current application follows Council’s approval and the Commission’s concurrence of

an earlier application (145/2758/14) for an almost identical proposal, albeit the earlier application was a ‘non-

complying’, category 3 form of development. We note that fewer representations were received during the

recent public notification of the current proposal and that both Council’s and State Heritage’s views are notably

more encouraging.


REF 00280-001 | 12 September 2016 2

Notwithstanding, we recommend that this correspondence be read in conjunction with the earlier response to

representations and agency submissions (refer Appendix 1) as this provides context to both our response and

the comments made in the submissions to which we respond.

As a number of the matters raised in representations and agency submissions are of a similar nature, we

respond to these collectively under the following headings.

Built Form and Siting

Substantial commentary in relation to built form and character is provided in the original planning report (Page

25, Section 6.3.2).

Since commencement of this project, considerable effort has been invested in the design of the proposed

buildings to ensure they are sympathetic to the historic character of the township.

Preliminary feedback received from Council’s Heritage advisor in relation to the original proposal informed the

design of the built form with notable adopted features including:

greater variation in the material colour palette generally;

introduction of sandstone coloured and textured blockwork and corresponding reduction in the

amount of redbrick;

more verticality in fenestration patterns and additional modulation in the facade by setting the gable

elements slightly forward;

use of a darker colorbond roof colour (Wallaby as suggested); and

finer-grain detailing in the speciality shop design including the introduction of stallboards to the

windows, an adjustment of window proportions and facade detailing.

Notwithstanding earlier and current concerns raised by Ms Johnston in relation to the scale of the supermarket

building, we are pleased to note that the Friends of Port Willunga acknowledge “that significant effort has been

made to meet the historic zone guidelines in terms of built form and material…”. We also note that the State

Heritage Unit have no concerns with the appearance, siting of the buildings or materials proposed for the

development. Lastly, we note Council’s recognition that the original proposed underwent ‘substantial

negotiation and redesign between Council, the applicant and Council’s heritage advisor’ to ensure the

supermarket and shops were sympathetic to the existing built form character within the locality.

In relation to the suggestion that the floor level of the supermarket should be lowered, we reiterate that a

further reduction in the supermarket floor level is not a workable solution and furthermore the supermarket is

already sited lower than Port Road and the floor level of the detached speciality shops, as illustrated in the

section image over page (refer Appendix 2, Drawing TP06/01 of the application lodgement package).

A further drop in the floor level would compromise the car park (which needs to remain relatively flat for safe

trolley use and pedestrian convenience) as well as customer access generally and also truck deliveries. In

addition, a split floor level within the supermarket itself is not a viable or practical option given operational

logistics. The modification to the natural ground level as proposed in the application is relatively limited and the

design minimises cut and fill to a reasonable level.

REF 00280-001 | 12 September 2016 3

Figure 1 Natural ground and floor level section through centre of site

While it is acknowledged that the supermarket building floor plate and therefore roof span of the current

application varies marginally from the originally approved scheme (an increased floor area of 167m2 ), in our

view this minor change does not necessitate a revisit of any fundamental design issues previously raised and we

maintain our view that the architectural design, form, materials and siting of the proposed buildings achieves

the primary built form objectives of the Township Zone and Precinct 29 Aldinga Village.

Fencing and Landscaping

For clarity and in response to comments in Ms Johnson’s submission, we confirm that the proposed landscaping

plan submitted with the application (refer Appendix 5 of the application lodgement package) has the

endorsement of Council and does include the evergreen Tuckeroo tree species along the length of the northern

boundary and within the car park.

We note the State Heritage recommendation which seeks a Condition related to the extent and alignment of

the western boundary fence near the southern boundary. While we do not object to this condition, we question

its necessity given that the fencing is not proposed to extend out to the southern boundary. The fencing

arrangements along the western boundary comprise a 2.4m colorbond© fence for portion of the boundary then

converting to a 2.4m timber paling fence for the balance of the boundary, returning along the northern end of

the wedge shaped piece of land. There is no fencing proposed along the 18.78m western boundary length to the

southern boundary. This arrangement ensures this space remain visually open with the landscaping set in front of

the timber fencing which is set well back from the Port Road frontage.

Traffic Management

We note the comments of the Safety and Service Traffic Operations division of DPTI and have amended the site

plan to reflect the change in the extent of land required to accommodate the proposed round-a-bout on the

corner of Port Road and Main South Road (increased from 32m2 to 42m2) and have repositioned the proposed

pylon sign accordingly (refer Appendix 2). This minor adjustment has had no discernible impact on the proposal.

We also note the submission prepared on behalf of the ‘On The Run’ (OTR) integrated service station facility

recently constructed immediately south of the subject site. We note that OTR raise concern with the proposed

public works on Port Road and the impact of these works on the operation of the OTR facility.

We find the comments within this representation particularly perplexing in light of the following:

The location of crossover points and access/egress arrangements servicing the ALDI development were

designed to accommodate the approved OTR vehicle access/egress arrangements as shown the

approved OTR plans;

REF 00280-001 | 12 September 2016 4

OTR engaged GHD engineers to prepare a Port Road civil works plan (dated April 2015) to ensure the

location of the crossover points between the two sites were functional and compliant and ALDI

subsequently adjusted their site plan to accommodate the GHD plan;

In light of the above, OTR appear to be objecting to a road design which, as far as we are aware, was

designed by their own consultant engineers;

We understand that the western-most OTR driveway does not contain the central island to control left

turn in and out only movements as previously indicated on their publically available site plan and

therefore we presume OTR’s representation is submitted in an attempt to retain these currently

unrestricted movements (notwithstanding it appears contrary to the GHD design and possibly their

approved plans);

The suggestion that the GTA traffic report should be based on traffic data volumes from SA stores is

noted, however this is an impractical proposition given that ALDI stores in South Australia only opened

in early 2016 and it is too early to gain accurate survey data from these stores; and lastly

We reiterate that the proposed upgrade of Port Road is an Onkaparinga Council lead project and is

beyond the subject site area.

Signage

We note the comments presented in relation to the proposed signage. As previously stated, we are of the view

that the signage, both in terms of number, design and height is acceptable in the context of the proposed

development.

Further, the size and number of signs proposed is identical to that previously approved by Onkaparinga

Council’s DAP and subsequently issued concurrence by the DAC.

We trust that all outstanding information has now been provided in support of the proposed Development

Application and that the proposed development will now be processed, assessed and determined at the next

available Development Assessment Commission meeting on 22 September 2016.

Should the representors elect to present at the DAC meeting where the application is determined, we would

welcome the opportunity to address the panel and respond and reply to those representors or questions that

may be raised by the DAC members.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 7231 0286 should you require any additional

information in support of the proposed Development Application or should you have any questions or queries in

relation to the proposed development.

Yours Sincerely

Rebecca Thomas

Senior Associate

Appendix 1. Response to representations and agency comments –

Application 145/2758/2014

08 December 2015 REF No.: 00032-006

City of Onkaparinga

Kyle Tapscott

Development Officer (Planning)

PO Box 1

NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Kyle,

RE: NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 145/2758/2014 – RESPONSE TO

OUTSTANDING MATTERS AND REPRESENTATIONS

We refer to Development Application (145/2758/2014) lodged on behalf of ALDI Stores to construct a

supermarket and detached retail shops with associated car parking, signage, landscaping and earthworks.

This correspondence seeks to review and respond to the following eight (8) valid representations received by

the Development Assessment Commission in response to Category 2 public notification:

Name Affected Property Support/Object Wish to be Heard

Stephanie Johnston Friends of Port Willunga O Y

Toff West Aldinga Bay Business & Tourism

13 Old Coach Road, Aldinga S Y

Geoff Hayter Friends of Willunga Basin S* Y

Karen Lever 9 Tetragonia Walk, Aldinga O Y

Salvatore LeMaura 9 Old Main South Road, Aldinga O Y

Alan Cheng Fortune Bay Investments S Y

David Smallacombe Owner Temperance Hotel S N

Lawrence Gutteridge 2 Olearia Walk, Aldinga O Y

*Support subject to amendments

We note that half of the representors advise of their support for the proposal while the remaining half have

raised concerns. In particular we note the support of the Aldinga business community who recognise the local

employment and investment benefits an ALDI Store and speciality shops will bring to the township and

surrounding residential community.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 2

In addition to the matters outlined in the representations, we are also in receipt of email correspondence from

Council dated 22 October 2015 which raised a number of issues to which a response has been requested. Also

appended to Council’s email was:

• email correspondence from Council’s Local Heritage Advisor dated 12 August 2015;

• referral response from DPTI’s Safety and Service – Traffic Operations division dated 21 October 2015;

and

• referral response from the State Heritage Unit dated 25 September 2015.

As a number of the matters raised in all these submissions are of a similar nature, we respond to these

collectively under the following headings.

Heritage, Built Form and Siting

Issues raised by Representors:

• Recognition of effort put into built form design and materials;

• Scale of supermarket and intended catchment area is inappropriate for a Township Zone;

• Incompatible with the historic character of Aldinga;

• Visual impact due to height of roof ridge line;

• Infill to northern end of the site is excessive – building level should be lowered; and

• Awkward triangular allotment created on western boundary and resulting boundary fencing is

inappropriate.

Issues raised by Council’s Local Heritage Advisor:

• Generally positive feedback on the building design and material selection;

• A larger site area would minimise the need for retaining walls and provide for a better transition to the

north - ensure that the proposed retaining walls and landscaping can be constructed as shown and

provide a suitable buffer to future residential development;

• 2.4m high fence is excessive and should be lowered towards Port Road; and

• Unusual junction of boundary in south-western corner – should be adjusted and more landscaping

provided.

Issues raised by State Heritage Unit:

• No concerns raised regarding built form design (confirmed verbally);

• Concern regarding the location of the wide entry point into ALDI site and its siting in the context of the

eastern portion of the former Temperance Hotel;

• Western crossover will detrimentally affect the setting of the State Heritage place and should be

relocated further east on Port Road to protect the outlook and sense of location;

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 3

• 2.4m high fence should be relocated further east; and

• Staggered shop fronts along Port Road is not typical and diminishes the setting of the State Heritage

place.

Issues raised by Council Planning Staff:

• Verandah’s to Port Road will require an encroachment permit;

• Height of 2.4m high fence and retaining wall is a concern and fence height should be tapered down as

it reaches Port Road; and

• Suggest a realignment of western boundary to eliminate the wedge shaped piece of land and inclusion

of more landscaping.

Applicants Response:

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by certain representors we are pleased to note that the Friends of Port

Willunga acknowledge “that significant effort has been made to meet the historic zone guidelines in terms of

built form and material…”. We also note that the State Heritage Unit have no concerns with the appearance,

siting of the supermarket or materials proposed for the development.

We also welcome the feedback of Council’s Local Heritage Officer that the “amendments to the proposed

development since previous comments were made are positive” as there “…is more variety in the proposed

colour palette which assists in breaking down the perceived bulk and mass”. We also note the highly positive

feedback on the design of the group of specialist shops in that the “…series of amendments to the built form of

the proposed shops has substantially improved their relationship with the prevailing built form character…” and

similarly for the supermarket building whereby Council’s Heritage Officer acknowledges that “…modulation in

roof form, some modulation in walls (projecting wall panels) and the use of a number of different materials helps

to break down building bulk.”

Considerable effort has been expended to ensure the design of the proposed buildings are sympathetic to the

historic character of the township with the majority of the suggestions made by the Council Heritage Officer via

preliminary feedback prior to lodgement having been adopted including:

• greater variation in the material colour palette generally;

• introduction of a sandstone coloured and textured blockwork and corresponding reduction in the

amount of redbrick;

• more verticality in fenestration patterns and additional modulation in the façade by setting the gable

elements slightly forward;

• use of a darker colorbond© roof colour (Wallaby as suggested); and

• finer-grain detailing in the speciality shop design including the introduction of stallboards to the

windows, an adjustment of window proportions, façade detailing.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 4

We conclude from the responses provided that the architectural design, form, materials and siting of the

proposed buildings is supported and achieves the primary built form objectives of the Township Zone and

Precinct 29 Aldinga Village.

An issue which was raised on a number of occasions related to the south-western boundary junction to Port

Road and the resulting wedge shaped piece of land. As illustrated below, this boundary has now been modified

following negotiations with the vendor and a piece of land 18.78m long on the western boundary and 10.81m

wide has been incorporated in to the subject site and is proposed to be landscaped. The wedge itself equates

approximately 76m² of land. A full set of amended plans from Nielsen Architects is located as Appendix 1.

Figure 1 South-western boundary reconfiguration

Original Proposal Amended Proposal

A row of ‘Capital Pear’ will be planted along the driveway edge and centrally within the wedged piece of land,

complimenting (but distinguishing from) the existing stand of gum trees along the western boundary within the

adjoining hotel carpark. Please refer to the amended landscape plans plan from Outerspace located as Appendix

2.

The fencing arrangements along the western boundary have also been amended with a 2.4m colorbond© fence

for portion of the boundary then converting to a 2.4m timber paling fence for the balance of the boundary,

returning along the northern end of the wedge shaped piece of land. There is no fencing proposed along the

18.78m western boundary length. This arrangement ensures this space remain visually open with the

landscaping set in front of the timber fencing which is set well back from the Port Road frontage. Until such time

as the hotel carpark is developed, this space will have the appearance of an attractive landscaped pocket

adjacent the unfencing gravel carpark.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 5

We note the suggestion by the State Heritage Unit that the western crossover should be relocated further east

which would enable “an augmented and consolidated triangular strip of tall landscaping” to be created. While

we are unable to relocate the crossover (for the reasons outlined below) the inclusion of the large wedge of

land in the south-western corner achieves the request for an augmented and consolidated triangular strip of tall

landscaping. In addition, the ground surface of the driveway from the boundary to Port Road to the rear of the

speciality shops is to be constructed of interlocking boral pavers (rather than bitumen) to soften the appearance

of this space and compliment the materials used in the shop façade.

In relation to the location of the western crossover, while the Applicant did explore whether relocation or a

narrowing of the crossover could be achieved, the following non-negotiable constraints were identified:

1. The western driveway cannot move east due to the constrained median arrangement on Port Road

which is primarily dictated by the approved OTR crossovers. In particular, there is no space further east

on Port Road to allow for a right turn slip lane due to the adjacent drive-thru exit from OTR site;

2. Any relocation of the western crossover further east will conflict with the location of the proposed

eastern crossover and jeopardise the internal car park layout (noting that access via South Road is not

permissible by DPTI so all ALDI access must be from Port Road); and

3. The width of the turn path required for a 19 metre semi-trailer has set the shape and width of the ALDI

driveway – no encroachment into the driveway shape or width is possible as the truck turn path will be

compromised.

In addition, the following issues/comments in relation to a relocation of the crossover further east should be

considered:

• The majority of the roadworks which State Heritage appear concerned with are associated with the

upgrade of Port Road itself and are outside of the subject site area. It is understood that an upgrade of

Port Road is to occur with or without the ALDI development proceeding (road improvements are

necessary as a result of the OTR development and the now proposed DPTI round-a-bout);

• An access point in the middle of the site on Port Road as requested would result in delivery truck

driving through the centre of the a redesigned carpark is which less desirable than the current

arrangements which confines the truck to the western side of the site;

• A crossover relocation may also necessitate the relocation of the loading dock to the eastern side of

the supermarket (which would be less desirable in terms of the built form presentation to Main South

Road) and the supermarket shop front to present the west adjacent the boundary fence (which is also

undesirable and illogical); and

• It is inevitable that the northern outlook from the Temperance Hotel site will change overtime given all

the land on the northern side of Port Road is privately owned and located within the Township Zone

which anticipates development (unlike the adjoining Primary Production or Open Spaces Zones).

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 6

While it is acknowledged that the setting of the State Heritage listed place will change as a result of the

proposed development, we do not agree that the location of a paved crossover itself causes sufficient detriment

to the context of the heritage place to a degree that the application should not be supported. This statement is

also made in the context of the support shown by the State Heritage Unit for the adjacent OTR development. It

is difficult to comprehend how virtually unconditional support can be offered the OTR development while the

location of an at-grade vehicle crossover is apparently so detrimental.

The following images illustrate the current interface of the Temperance Hotel with Port Road and the subject

site.

Figure 2 Images of the Temperance Hotel interface with Port Road

Combined with the existing large gums along the western boundary, the additional landscaped area of land

offered adjacent the western crossover will create a generous green buffer and, in our opinion, will improve the

visual outlook from the Temperance Hotel site.

In relation to fencing, the portion of fence visible from the Temperance Hotel site is proposed to be timber

paling while the section of boundary abutting the existing hotel carpark is not intended to be fenced. This

alleviates the concern of the boundary fencing meeting Port Road.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 7

Commentary in relation to site levels is noted however fails to recognize the relatively limited extent of fill

proposed and that the supermarket is already sited lower than the row of speciality shops. The retaining wall in

the north-west corner of the site reaches a maximum height of 1.2 metres at any point, tapering down to 0

metres whereby the fence continues at its height of 2.4 metres. The section of boundary where the retaining

wall and fence is at its highest point (3.6m) extends for a limited length and will not be visible from Port Road

and will have limited visibility from Old Coach Road (until such time as the balance of the land is developed at

which point it will not be visible at all). The proposed landscaping along the northern boundary (as agreed to by

the vendor) will offer a landscaped buffer and an attractive buffer between the commercial site and the future

residential development.

The suggestion to lower the floor level of the supermarket further than proposed is not a workable solution

given the need for a relatively level site for car parking, pedestrian access and deliveries. A split floor level within

the supermarket itself is not a viable or practical option given operational logistics. The proposed modification

to the natural ground level is limited and the design minimises cut and fill to a reasonable level.

The proposed development reflects the built form outcomes sought in the Development Plan by introducing

shops to the street edge and providing an intermediary building element which assist to link the new

developments (OTR and ALDI) with the established main street along Old Coach Road. This built form ‘edge’

together with other well separated buildings surrounded by landscaping achieves the objectives of the

Township Zone and Precinct 29.

Other issues related to built form have been addressed in detail within the Statement of Effect report prepared

by Ekistics.

Signage


• Excessive signage - Signage should not exceed 6 metres.

Issues raised by Council’s Local Heritage Advisor:

• Proposed signage is inconsistent with Precinct provisions but expected that the extent and nature of

signage will be commensurate with site use and consistent with the OTR opposite recently approved -

defer to Council planning staff on this matter (no concerns raised by Council staff).

Issues raised by State Heritage Unit:

• Signage associated with the crossover should be relocated further east.

Issues raised by DPTI’s Safety and Service – Traffic Operations division:

• Proposed pylon sign must be relocated outside of the road widening areas nominated.


• Proposed pylon sign within Council road reserve will generate a $10,000/annum lease.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 8

Applicants Response:

A detailed assessment of the proposed signage is provided on page 33 of the Statement of Effect report

prepared by Ekistics. As outlined, we are of the view that the signage, both in terms of number, design and

height is not excessive and is compatible with the location and nature of the proposed development

notwithstanding it does not precisely replicate the signage suggested in Table Onka/5 of the Development Plan.

The pylon sign to Main South Road has now been relocated to a position within the subject site boundary

resolving DPTI’s concern and alleviating the need for any lease arrangement with Council. The sign is also clear

of the DPTI road widening setbacks. This position and the height of the sign reflects that approved on the OTR

site.

The signage associated with the western crossover is minimal, being a small ‘Keep Left’ sign which meets the

requirements stipulated by the DPTI referral (that appropriate signage and line marking be installed to reinforce

the desired traffic flow at the Port Road access points – refer Condition 2 in the DPTI’s Safety and Service

referral letter). Its size and design accords with the relevant Australian Standards. In the context of the

development as a whole, this sign will not be overly visible. As a regulation traffic sign, if located within the road

reserve, it would not comprise part of the application and not be the subject of a State Heritage referral. We do

not consider this sign will detract from the setting of the adjacent State Heritage place.

We refer readers to the 3D perspective image TP10 with Appendix 1 which provides a visual representation of

the proposed signage on the site and demonstrates the moderate form it will take within the context of the

development.

Traffic Management


• Increased traffic generally;

• Traffic congestion on Port Road;

• Access into site from Main South Road sought; and

• Concerns regarding capacity of Main South Road and Port Road intersection;

Issues raised by DPTI’s Safety and Service – Traffic Operations division:

• Main South Road and Port Road junction has been identified as requiring upgrading to a roundabout

and funding for this project has recently been allocated;

• Proposed eastern access is situated opposite the proposed two-way access for the adjacent petrol

station and Council should ensure appropriate signage and turning restrictions are in place to minimise

right turn conflict;

• Council should be satisfied that right turn movements associated with the western access will not

result in queuing into the through land on Port Road or a reduction in road safety;

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 9

• Car park aisle immediately adjacent the eastern access point are close to a four way intersection and

intersection should be closed to minimise vehicle conflict;

• Location of the pedestrian crossing on Port Road should be considered; and

• Road widening requirements include a 4.5m x 4.5 m corner cut-off and a 10 metre strip along Main

South Road.


• Seeking confirmation as to ALDI’s willingness to contribute to the necessary upgrade of Port Road

through a legal infrastructure agreement.

Applicant’s Response:

Since lodgement of the application, the proposed upgrade works to Port Road have been confirmed and ALDI

undertook a number of site design adjustment in order to accommodate the road design which has been

primarily driven by the location of the multiple crossover points approved as part of the OTR development.

In addition, DPTI announced its intention to install a roundabout at the Main South Road and Port Road

intersection.

The revised site plan located in Appendix 1 now reflects DPTI requirements (roundabout and road widening

setbacks) and the Port Road upgrade design.

This design, which incorporates suitable signage, medians, a pedestrian crossing/refuge and slip lanes for

turning vehicles is understood to address DPTI’s comments in their referral letter. In addition, line marking and

give way signage will be installed within the car park to manage the four-way junction in proximity to the

eastern crossover.

The Applicant is aware of Council’s desire to enter into an infrastructure deed or similar in order for ALDI Stores

to contribute towards the cost of the public works generated by the proposed ALDI development within Port

Road (and Old Coach Road with respect to stormwater – refer below). It is understood that Peregrine

Corporation intends to enter into a similar agreement with Council in relation to the upgrade of Port Road.

As previously advised, ALDI Stores welcomes the opportunity to discuss and negotiate a position with respect to

a financial contribution to Council for such works in the event that Planning Consent (and subsequent DAC

concurrence) is granted. We understand that at the appropriate time Council will approach ALDI and Peregrine

with an intended scope of works and a breakdown of costs from which negotiations can commence.

Stormwater Management


• Detention tank detail with inlet, outlet and orifice location should be shown on the drawing;

• Car park stormwater runoff should be fully captured by underground drainage system and treated

before discharging into Old Main South Road;

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 10

• Gross Pollutant Trap detail with specification is required to be submitted;

• The future swale detail with scour protection is required. Council prefers to have an underground

drainage pipe system;

• The existing swale in Old Main South Road is not adequate to carry the flow from the site. It is

recommended to install an underground drainage pipe to discharge into the downstream creek;

• New underground drainage pipe in Old Main South Road should be designed to carry the flows from all

future developments;

• Water Quality Targets are to be met prior to discharging to the creek; and

• Some of these points could be conditioned however the Applicant’s engineers should consider these

points at this stage of the process to ensure that the stormwater matters can be addressed in concept.


An updated Stormwater Management report from Wallbridge and Gilbert is provided as Appendix 3. Additional

detail has been provided addressing the points raised including the intention to upgrade the swale along Old

Coach Road. Council’s request that the stormwater infrastructure be upgraded with underground piping of a

capacity to carry “the flows of all future development” is completely unreasonable. ALDI’s proposal to rebuild

and upgrade the existing swale will double the capacity of the existing swale which is above what is required for

the minimal additional flow generated by the development site.

A swale is also proposed through the future residential land to the west and north of the subject site. The

agreement between ALDI and the vendor will see this upgraded to an underground pipe system in conjunction

with the future construction of an internal road servicing proposed housing (which will be the subject of a

separate application).

The level of information provided for the purposes of planning assessment is considered more than sufficient

and we welcome Council’s approach that, where necessary, final stormwater management details can be dealt

with via suitable planning conditions imposed.

Amenity Issues


• Development will generate noise during construction and after including delivery vehicles.


Sonus have revisited the acoustic assessment based on the revised boundary fencing arrangements and have

submitted an updated Environmental Nosie Assessment report located at Appendix 4. Subject to appropriate

construction of the timber fencing (air tight junctions between palings), there original assessment and

conclusions remain unchanged (refer to pages 28 and 29 of the Statement of Effect prepared by Ekistics).

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 11

Landscaping


• Concerns with the ability of the screening trees along the northern boundary edge to successfully grow

within the width proposed.


As mentioned, Outerspace have issued a revised landscape plan (Appendix 2) incorporating the additional land

to the west. In considering a response to the concerns raised regarding the northern boundary plantings, the

Applicant and vendor discussed the option to plant the trees within what would become a future road reserve

along the rear boundary of the subject site, rather than within the site itself. While the rear boundary setback is

of sufficient width to accommodate the trees selected, the opportunity to locate the trees to the immediate

north makes more sense given the future intention of the adjoining land (whereby the trees will contribute to

future residential amenity) and the trees will sit in front of the proposed fencing and retaining wall, providing a

better visual buffer. As with the stormwater arrangements, the Applicant and vendor have agreed to such works

occurring at ALDI’s cost and ongoing upkeep. We understand Council staff are supportive of this arrangement.

Operational Matters


• Confirm if outdoor dining is proposed;

• Confirm operating hours of supermarket and specialist shops; and

• Confirm location of bin storage for speciality shops.


On behalf of the applicant we confirm as follows:

• Future tenants of the specialty shops are not yet know. If a café operators seeks to occupy one of the

shops, it will their responsibility to seek the necessary permits from Council for outdoor dining;

• The hours of operation for the supermarket will be established and potentially varied in response to

customer demands, however will be in accordance with any limitations set out by the Shop Trading

Hours Act, 1977; and

• A separate bin storage enclosure has been incorporated into the proposal to the rear of shop 1

adjacent the western driveway.

We trust that all outstanding information has now been provided in support of the proposed Development

Application and that the proposed development will now be processed, assessed and determined at Council’s

next available Development Assessment Panel (DAP) meeting in January 2016.

REF # 00032-006 | 8 December 2015 12

Should the representors elect to present at the DAP meeting where the application is determined, we would

welcome the opportunity to address the panel and respond and reply to those representors or questions that

may be raised by the DAP members.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 7231 0286 should you require any additional

information in support of the proposed Development Application or should you have any questions or queries in

relation to the proposed development.

Yours Sincerely

Rebecca Thomas

Associate

Appendix 2. Amended Site Plan

- Nielsen Architects

attachment 5 council response

Documents