attachment a [attachment a consists of 3 pages] 3... · world war two building styles and...

City of Charles Sturt 51. DAP Report 1/04/15

ATTACHMENT A

[Attachment A consists of 3 pages]

DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS - CONSOLIDATED 25 September 2014

Residential Zone Mid Suburban Policy Area 16 Desired Character - Mid Suburban Policy Area 16

This policy area will be characterised by a mix of dwelling types throughout, such as detached and semi - Does not comply detached dwellings, interspersed with a range of well -designed medium density housing on larger,

wider allotments as well as on main road frontages and facing larger public open spaces.

It is desirable that dwellings will be designed to complement and enhance the high quality pre and post-

World War Two building styles and incorporating setback, siting, materials, roof forms and features consistent with and enhancing the established character.

Development of detached and semi —detached dwellings up to two storeys in height is appropriate

provided there is minimal overshadowing or overlooking of adjoining properties. Group dwellings and residential flat buildings are appropriate on larger, wider sites or those achieved through site amalgamation.

Objective 1 Development that contributes to the desired character of the policy area. Does not comply PDC 1 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the policy Does not comply

area.

GENERAL SECTION Design and Appearance Objective 1 Development of a high architectural standard and appearance that responds to and reinforces positive Does not comply

aspects of the local environment and built form. PDC 1 Buildings should reflect the desired character of the locality while incorporating contemporary designs Partially complies

that have regard to the following:

(a) building height, mass and proportion

(b) external materials, patterns, colours and decorative elements

(c) roof form and pitch

(d) façade articulation and detailing

(e) verandas, eaves, parapets and window screens.

PDC = Principle Development Control 0 = Obiective

PDC 22 Except in areas where a new character is desired, the setback of buildings from public roads should: Does not comply (a) be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other buildings in the locality

(b) contribute positively to the function, appearance and/ or desired character of the locality PDC 23 Except where specified in a particular zone, policy area or precinct, the main face of a building Does not comply

should be set back from the primary road frontage in accordance with the following table:

SetbackS difference between Sethack ofnew' buildingu buildings on adjacent allotmentw

•Up-to-2-metresn The- same-setback-as-one-of-the-adjacent-buildings-asillustrated- belowif

new J

L \kfflas

When b - as 2, setback of new dwelling e or b

Greater- than-2-rnetresu At-least-the-average- setback-of-the-adjacent-buildings

GENERAL SECTION

Residential Development

PDC 6 Garages, carports and residential outbuildings should have a roof form and pitch, building materials and Complies detailing that complement the associated dwelling.

PDC 7 Residential outbuildings, including garages and sheds, should not be constructed unless in association Complies with an existing dwelling.

PDC = Principle Development Control 0 = Obiective

PDC 8 6 Garages, carports and residential outbuildings should not dominate the streetscape and be designed Proposal does not comply with within the following parameters:

minimum setback from primary

Parameter Value I road. See report for discussion.

Maximum floor area 60 square metres

Maximum wail height 3 metres

Maximum building height 5 metres

Minimum setback from a primary road Garages and carports setback in accordance with the frontage following:

(a) within the Residential Zone or Residential Character Zone - at least 5.5 metres or 0.5 metres behind the main face of the associated dwelling, whichever is the greater distance from the primary frontage

(b) no closer than any part of its associated dwelling and in any other case, be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres

Outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling

Minimum setback from a secondary road 0.9 metres or in-line with the existing dwelling frontage

Minimum setback from a rear or side 0 metres vehicle access way

Maximum length along the boundary 8 metres or 50 per cent of the length along that boundary (which ever is the lesser)

Maximum frontage width of garage or No maximum carport with an opening facing a rear access lane

Maximum frontage width of garage or Less than 50 per cent of the allotment frontage provided the carport with an opening facing the street width does not exceed 6 metres within the Residential Zone

or Residential Character Zone

Orderly and Sustainable Development Objective 1 Orderly and economic development that creates a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which Does not Comply

to live.

Objective 4 Development that does not prejudice the achievement of the provisions of the Development Plan. Does not Comply - -

Table ChSt/2 - off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements Dwelling 2 on site car parking spaces, one of which is covered (the second space can be tandem) Complies

(detached

and semi - detached)

PDC = Principle Development Control 0 = Objective


ATTACHMENT B

[Attachment B consists of 28 pages]

0

' V

•. o • c •G $ o Q

• •+*, •4 •+c 4) ' +

Development Application DevelOpment Act 1993 To Submit an application, sections 1-15 of this application must be completed. Please use block letters and black or blue pen. The completed form must be accompanied by all required documents as specified in the planning requirements checklists and the applicablefees.

Applications submitted that do not indude the prerequisite infoimation listed in the "Planning Requirements Checklist" will be returned for resubmission by

0

Form Office Ue Only

252/2.t311 Property Nu Cr:

Date l,odged:

Received By:

me applicant once uiey are complese.

1 Application Type:

Complying Development E Building Rules Consent (Building Only)

Development Plan Consent (PlanningOnly) 1J Development. Approval (Both• includes approval to prune or remove a significant tree

- Planning and Building)

2 Location of Proposed Development

No: jQ Street: J.(JRt\J4 Suburb: .IK%D4A)J EK Postcode: SO2S Lot No: OP: Section No: (Full/Part) Hd:

Certificate of Title: Volume: _S)51 Folio: ___________

3 Detailed DescrIptIon of Proposed Development _________________________

4 Cost of the Proposed Development (excluding fit-out costs such as furniture)

$ .SC1t Please note: Council may require written justification to verify costs.

S Details of Parties Sections marked must be completed.

(Please note that all correspondence will be addressed to the Applicant. In the event of multiple applicants the addressee will be the first named)

*Applicant

NarneJMrs/Ms/Cornpany): .__i CA Lcc'irr

Email: crtrt, ' - Lc: -t./l.E • cOs" '

PostalAddress:

Phone: Mobile: (,.tl i12.. Fax: *Buflde r: (1e Licence r'io: L_c 62 11-0

Email: ck^l(5? lsk . . Postal Address: '2.2 1 ecL Sô- Phone: Mobile: 04.-Il 2'S ). Fax: *Owner(s) of Subject Land: (Mr/Mrs/Ms) ( + <

Email:

Postal Address: 10 13U4"tS Phone: Mobile: Fax:

CIty of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road, Woódville, South Australia 50111088408 1111 FOB8408 1122

1

Li

2

6 Has The Construction Industry Training Fund Act 193 Levy Been YesCD No EZ.1 Paid?

7 Does a regulated tree exist on the site or on adjoining land which Yes U might be affected (including damage to tree roots) by the proposed

development?

New Dwellings and Dwelling Additions (Sections 8 and 9 only)

8 Site Declarations -. New Dwellings Only:

8.1 . Was the allotment created on or after 3. Septeniber 2009? Yes U No U 8.2 Does the site have connection to or is capable of being connected to Yes No U

a sewage system or waste control system which complies with the Public and Environmental Health Act, 1987?

83 Was the site, to the best of your knowledge and belief, subject to Yes U No U site contamination as a result of a previous use of the land or a

previous activity on the land?

9 Site Declarations - New Dwellings, Dwelling Additions and Carport,/Garages:

9.1 If the proposed building includes a garage/carport, does it gain / driveway access from: (if not applicable)

- . 911 an existing driveway or authorised access point; or Yes 1J No

9.1.2 a mountable or rollover kerb; or Yes No

9.1.3 a driveway access point illustrated as part of an approved .. Yes U No U land division; or

9.1.4 a driveway access point that is not located within 6 m of an Yes U No U intersection or a dedestrian actuated crossing and will not interfere with a tree, Street furniture, or other infrastructure?

22/031W13

2

3

10 *Contact Person for Further Information (if other than the applicant)

Name: pvQQ ,,. Email: .ckr 'I C'.

Phone: . Mobile: 01-1 I 92. Fax:

11 Current Land and Property Use (e. dwelling, shop, industry, warehouse)

Historic Use of Land

Are there any easements on the land? D Yes No

Are there any significant trees on the land or adjacent land? Yes E No

Is there a brush fence wIthin 3 metres of the proposed building work? . {J Yes No

12 Building classification details. .

Building classification sought: Present classification(s):

Commercial/Industrial applications:

Number of employees: . Male: -- Female:

Institutional buildings: Number of persoris.accommodated:

Assembly buildings: Number of occupants:

13 Decision Notification bistrib.ution

Decision Notices and associated documentation will be distributed by email if less than 5mb and the applicants email address is included in the Applicant Details section on page 1 of this form. When greater than 5mb in size or where an email address is not provided the decision documentation will be distributed on a CD unless a paper copy is specifically requested.

Please senda paper copy of the decision documentation by post.

14 Privacy policy I acknowledge that copies of this application and supporting documentation may be provided to interested persons in accordance with the Development Regulations 2008 and Development Act 1993 and where public notification is required may be made available on council's website.

Details provided by the applicant, written representations and other technical reports form part of the reports attached to Council agendas. The agenda, minutes and accompanying report is made available on Council's webs,ite. Information, including names and addresses recorded in these documents can therefoie be searched by the various v'ebsite search engines.

15 *signed: .. H *Date: Oc7 ff ZApplica"n.t J Owiler Authorised Person

16 Office Use Only:

Date;.

Receipt No:

3

4 Title Register Search

LANDS TITLES OFFICE, ADELAIDE For a Certificate of Tftle feeued pursuant to the ReSt Property Act 1836

REGISTER SEARCH OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * VOLUME 5151. FOLIO 38 *

COST : $26.50 (GST exempt ) PARENT TITLE : CT 4022/517

REGION : EMAIL AUTHORITY : CONVERTED TITLE AGENT : PUSH BOX NO : 000 DATE OF ISSUE : 26/10/1993

SEARCHED ON : 17/09/2014 AT : 13:58:07 EDITION : 5 CLIENT REF BURNS AVE

REGISTERED PROPRIETORS IN FEE SIMPLE

GREGORY NEIL SHEEHY AND CAROLYN ANNE SHEEHY BOTH OF 10 BURNS AVENUE KIDMAN PARK SA 5025 AS JOINT TENANTS

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

ALLOTMENT 188 DEPOSITED PLAN 9866 IN THE AREA NANED KIDMAN PARK HUNDRED OF YATALA

EASEMENTS

SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT FOR SEWERAGE PURPOSES AS PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 223 ig (1) OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACT 1886 OVER THE LAND MARKED EASEMENT A

SCHEDULE OF ENDORSEMENTS

3903414 ENCUMBRANCE TO N.L. STOKES PTY. LTD. (SINGLE COPY ONLY)

9190473 MORTGAGE TO COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

NOTATIONS

DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THIS TITLE

NIL

REGISTRAR—GENERAL'S NOTES

NIL

END OF TEXT.

Pagelof 2

The Restrar-Geiierai certifies that this Title Register search displays the reôords . mairstairted iri the Register Book arid d.'her notations at the time of searchings RegistrarGenere 4

LANDS TITLES OFFICE ADELAIDE SOUTHAUSTRAL-IA

DIAGRAM FOR CERTIFICATE OF TITLE VOLUME 5151 FOLIO 38.

SEARCH DATE' 17/09/2014 TIME: 13:58:07

-LNOIj IVd 00 ,99

(D z. z

0 Li)

0

0 N)

0

Page2of2 5

29 October 2014 II small

%4M II., urban i planninginitiatives

City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road Woodville SA 5011

To whom it may concern,

Re: Proposed Carport Forward of Dwelling at 10 Burns Avenue Kidman Park

I am writing in support of an application at 10 Burns Avenue Kidman Park, for the construction of a carport forward of the existing dwelling on the land. I have visited the site and the locality and considered the proposed carport against the requirements of the Charles Sturt Development Plan consolidated 25 September 2014.

1. Background.

The owner of the subject site wishes to construct a double width carport forward of the dwelling for the purposes of protecting vehicles parked on the driveway. The proposed carport will be constructed to match the existing dwelling and has been designed as an extension of the existing roof, with a dutch gable design. The proposed carport will match the existing dwelling through use of timber posts, roof tiles and colours.

The proposed carport is consistent with other structures in the locality, with a nearly identical carport located at 19 Kimberley Court, and numerous examples of garages and carports built forward of dwellings. The proposed carport is to be open, allowing access by any vehicles visiting the site and maintain the feeling of open landscaped area at the front of the site. The site currently only contains one covered car parking space within the existing garage, and has no other opportunity for the provision of additional covered car parking spaces, with the exception of extending out over the driveway.

2. Subject Site & Locality

The site is located on the northern side of Burns Avenue, and is directly adjacent Kimberly Close. It is a regular shaped allotment and contains a detached dwelling and ancillary domestic structures.

The locality is characterised by various detached dwellings on moderately sized allotments of varying shapes. The dwellings vary in style and with varying setbacks from, the street. There are a number of examples, of garages or carports that have

Page 1 of 5

on

Urban Planning Initiatives

been built forward of their assoc iated: dwellings,: with the majority of these built to match the existing dwelling and form part of the existing dwellings roof. The proposed carport is considered to be consistent with and complimentary to the locality.

3. Proposal & Procedural Matters

The owners. of the subject site wish to construct an open carport forward of the existing dwelling. The carport will be attached to the existing eave overhang, extending out from the eave five metres towards the front property boundary and finishing 6.8 metres from the Burns Avenue kerb. The carport has been designed so that it will have a dutch gable that will be tied back into the main roof. The design of the carport and use of materials, to match the existing dwelling, means that the proposed carport will appear as part of the existing dwellings design.

The construction of a carport forward of the dwelling is not listed as a 'Complying' or 'Non-Complying' form of development, and is therefore considered to be a 'Merit' application.

The Development Plan does not assign carports to a specific category for the purposes of assessment and public consultation. Under Schedule 9 Part 1, 2d(ii) a carport constructed closer to a street frontage than the facade of the existing dwelling cannot be classified as a Category 1 form of Development. The proposed carport is therefore considered to be a Category 2 form of development pursuant to Schedule 9 Part 2, 20. The application will therefore be subject to Category 2 public consultation.

4. Development Plan

The subject site is boated within the Residential Zone as depicted in Zone Map ChSt/18 in Council's Development Plan consolidated 25 September 2014. The subject land is also located within Policy Area 16 of the Residential Zone.

The following Objectives and Principles of Development Plan are considered to be relevant to the assessment of the carport:

Residential Zone

PDC-1

Policy Areal6

Desired Character Statement

Objective - I Council Wide

Design & Appearance

Objective - I

PDC- 1,22,23,24

Residential Development

Objective - I

PDC-6,8

Page 2 of 5

7


5. Assessment

The Development Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the amenity of the locality through good design and setbacks; Generally the Development Plan seeks that carports are setback behind the main face of the dwelling, with Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 8 stating that carports should be setback:

"(a) .....at least 5.5 metres or 0.5 metres behind the main face of the associated dwelling, whichever is the greater distance from the primary frontage

(b) no closer than any part of its associated dwelling and in any case, be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres

outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling

The proposed carport does not meet these numerical requirements of the Development Plan. However despite not meeting these numerical requirements, the character of the locality consists of numerous examples of garages and carports that have been built forward of the dwelling, with examples on both Burns Avenue and Kimberly Close. These examples showcase both good and poor examples of structures forward of the main face of the dwelling. In considering the intent of the numerical requirements above, it is worth noting that the setback of 5.5 metres as a minimum, is intended to facilitate space on the drivewayfor onsite parking of a visitor vehicle. The proposed carport is considered to meet this intent, in that it will maintain the existing garage and will provide two additional covered car parks, that while being covered, are open and available for use by a visitor to the site. The proposal therefore maintains three onsite car parking spaces, one in the garage and two on the driveway.

It is also worth noting that Principle of Development Control 8 differentiates between carports and outbuildings when stating that "outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling", with this further emphasis limited to outbuildings only, and not open carports which are considered to not dominate the streetscape.

The proposed carport meets all of the other numerical requirements of Principle of Development Control 8, and is therefore considered to on balance meet the intent of Principle of Development Control 8.

It is important to read the supporting text at the start of Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 8 to understand the context and outcomes sought by the numerical requirements. In this case the supporting text states "carports should not dominate the streetscape and be designed within the following parameters...... " . The proposed carport has been designed such that it will not dominate the streetscape with a dutch gabled roof, and the carport to remain open allowing views of the entire facade of the dwelling. Given the design of the existing dwelling extending across nearly the entire width of the allotment, the proposed carport will only sit in front of a very small portion of the dwelling, that being the existing garage and one bay-window. The proposed carport is therefore considered to meet the intent of Principle of Development Control 8 in that it will NOT dominate the streetscape.

Page 3 of 5

ro

rban lanning Initiatives

While the proposed carport does not meet the numerical requirements of the Development Plan as stated above, it has been designed such that it meets many of the other requirements of the Development Plan. Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 6 states that carports "should have a roof form and pitch, building materials and detailing that complement the associated dwelling". The proposed carport has been designed to match or compliment the existing dwelling with a dutch gable that is to be tied back into the existing roof, with the same roof pitch and using identical materials, finishes and colours.

The Desired Character Statement for Policy Area 16 states:

"dwellings be designed to complement and enhance the high quality pre and post World War Two building styles and incorporating setback, siting, materials, roof forms and features consistent with and enhancing the established characters'.

While the proposal is not for a new dwelling, but for an addition to the existing dwelling by way of a carport, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the Desired Character Statement in that the materials used, roof form and features of the proposed carport, match or is complimentary to the existing dwelling. While the setback of the proposed garage is not consistent with the adjoining dwellings, it is consistent with the established character of the locality as a whole, with numerous examples of garages or carports forward of dwellings. Given the design of the proposed carport being tied back into the main roof of the dwelling and using matching materials, as well as being open on all sides, the proposed carport is considered to not be detrimental to the attainment of the Desired Character for the Zone and that it is considered to be, on balance, consistent with the Desired Character.

A clear example of how the proposed carport will appear and its minimal impact on the streetscape can be seen through viewing an existing example at 19 Kimberley Close, which has a dutch gable forward of the existing dwelling, as seen in the picture below.

Google Street View image capture March 2013 ©Google

As can be seen from the photo above, a dutch gabled carport that is open does not dominate the streetscape, provides views of the existing dwelling behind and does not have an over dominating roof form. The proposed carport will be even more

Page 4 of 5


appealing than the existing example at 19 Kimberley Close, as the existing dwelling does not have any gable ends or roof features that address the street, thereby not having the same clutter and competing styles as is displayed in the photo above.

On balance the proposed carport is considered to be consistent with the character of the locality, will not dominate or negatively impact on the amenity of the streetscape, will provide views of and maintains the dwelling as the primary built form and visual feature, and is generally consistent with the intent of the Development Plans requirements for carports.

S. Conclussion

The proposed carport is consider to NOT be seriously at variance with the Development Plan. On assessing the proposed carport against the existing character of the locality and the requirements of the Development Plan, the proposal is considered to be, on balance, consistent with the character of the locality and the requirements of the Development Plan. In assessing the application it is not important for the proposed development to exactly meet all of the requirements of the Development, but that on balance it is found to be broadly consistent with the Development Plan and more importantly the intent behind the requirements of the Development Plan that facilitates good outcomes.

In regards to the proposed carport, the intent of the Development Plan is to maintain the existing dwelling as the prominent built form feature of the site, not dominate or reduce the amenity of the streetscape and maintain the open landscaped character of the locality. Given the proposed carport is to be designed so that it is tied back into the main roof of the dwelling, will match the existing dwelling in its use of colours and materials, is an open structure and will only sit in front of the existing garage and one window of the existing dwelling, the proposed carport is considered to be acceptable and on balance meet the requirements and intent of the Development Plan.

The proposed carport will maintain views of the existing dwelling, retain the existing dwelling as the main built form and bulk of built form to the streetscape, will retain the open landscaped feel of the front yard, and will retain the existing car parking arrangements on the site. For these reasons and the existing character of the locality, it is my opinion that the proposed carport broadly meets the requirements of the Development Plan, is not detrimental to the attainment of the Desired Character for the Policy Area and therefore warrants the issuing of Development Plan Consent. I therefore urge Councilto support the proposal subject to any conditions it sees fit.

I can be contacted on 0410 438, 648 or by email [email protected] , should you have any questions pertaining to any of the above.

Yours sincerely

Tim Pride - BURP Principle Planner Urban Planning Initiatives

Page 5 of 5

10

15 January 2015 I, LI

urban planning initiatives

City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road Woodville SA 5011

Dear Samantha,

Re: DA 252/2319/14 Proposed Carport Forward of Dwelling at 10 Burns Avenue Kidman Park

I am writing in response to the detailed assessment undertaken on the above mentioned application. This additional supporting letter will outline some additional points and clarify assessment considerations.

Locality.

The locality has been discussed in my previous supporting statement, but appears to require further clarification. As part of any planning assessment, the locality needs to be defined and clearly outlined. The idea of a locality has been considered in numerous Environmental Resource and Development Court cases with the following being determined:

Amenity of locality must be judged by reference to locality as a whole rather than by reference to houses located closest.....(Lanzilli Holdings Pty Ltd v Corporation of the City of Campbelltown(1982) 32 SARSR 85)

larger area provide better indication of policy area's character (Barossa Projects Pty Ltd v The Barossa Council [2008] SAERDC 8 at [9])

Locality has been defined as:

In the context of consideration of a carport application, it was held in Jeifries v City of Charles Sturt [2009] SARERDC 7 (at[151 that; "it is well-established that the relevant locality is that within which the subject proposal can be viewed. Reference to streets which cannot be viewed contemporaneously with a view of the subject land are not relevant to the assessment".

Based on the above legal determinations on locality, the locality of the proposed development is considered to be clear and definable as land from which the carport can be viewed. This would therefore include most of Burns Avenue, all of Kimberley Close, and a small portion of Fairmont Avenue. From this locality the character can be considered, with carports and garages forward of the dwelling and visible from the subject site contributing to the existing character as it stands today.

Page 1 of 9

11


In Council's feedback on the proposed development the term 'broader locality' has been used to justify why some structures within the 'locality' are not as relevant in the assessment as others, giving rise to the notion of 'immediate locality'. This is not necessarily a correct argument when one considers the definitions of locality. The Environmental Resource and Development Court however has considered the notion of 'immediate locality' in Villaplex Pty Ltd v Norwood, Payneham and St Peters CC [2000] SAERDC 10, where it held that, "It has been held that what constitutes. "immediate locality" extends beyond the lands adjoining and immediately opposite the subject land. It is conceivable that there will be a part of what is normally considered as the locality of the subject land in which the factor or factors which establish a locality generally are likely to be very obvious or to have a direct bearing on the way that a proposed development is perceived or interpreted in its setting. It is such context that the concept of "immediate locality" is applicable."

In this instance the impacts of a carport are limited to visual and relationship to the subject site, and therefore do not extend beyond what would ordinarily be defined as the locality. The notion of immediate locality and broader locality therefore are somewhat irrelevant in the assessment of this application due to the locality being limited to that area where the structure can be viewed from.

It is therefore held that any structures within the 'locality' are directly relevant to the consideration of the 'character' of the locality, which is clearly definable. Despite their age or associated reasons pertaining to their original approval, they still contribute to what the visual character of the locality is and the context for which the proposed carport will be viewed. Will the proposed carport look out of place or context within the locality? This is the questions that existing structures and the localities character is used for, with an argument on age of structures within the locality therefore irrelevant.

2. Assessment Under The Development Plan

In Council's correspondence outlining their detailed assessment of the application, it is noted that the only justification given for the suggested recommendation of refusal of the application, was that the proposed carport was forward of the existing dwelling and thereby conflicted with one numerical requirement of Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control (PDC) 8. The proposed carport however meets all of the rest of the numerical requirements that are relevant under this PDC. It is not appropriate to consider PDC 8 in the context of just one of its numerical requirements, but this must be balanced with an assessment against the whole Principle of Development Control and the existing character within the locality.

PDC 8 states:

Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 8:

Garages, carports and residential outbuildings should not dominate the streetscape and be designed with the following parameters:

Parameter

Value Maximum floor area

60 square metres Maximum wa/I height

3 metres Maximum building height

5 metres

Page 2 of 9

12


Minimum setback from a primary road frontage Garages and carports setback in accordance with the following: (a) within the Residential Zone 'or Residential Character Zone - at least 5.5 metres or 0.5 metres behind the main face of the associated dwelling, whichever is the greater distance from the primary frontage (b) no closer than any part of its associated dwelling and in any other case, be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres

Outbuildings should not protrude fo,ward of any part of its associated dwelling

Minimum setback from a secondary road frontage 0.9 metres or in-line with the existing dwelling Minimum setback from a rear or side vehicle 0 metres access way Maximum length along the boundary

Maximum frontage width of garage or carport with an opening facing a rear access lane Maximum frontage width of garage or carport with an opening facing the street

8 metres or 50 per cent of the length along that boundary (which ever is the lesser) No maximum

Less than 50 per cent of the allotment frontage provided the width does not exceed 6 metres within the Residential Zone or Residential Character Zone

The proposed carport meets all of the above requirements with the exception of being setback behind the main face of the dwelling or in any case 5.5 metres. This provision is designed to minimise the visual impact of structures and more importantly garages on the streetscape and amenity of the locality. The 5.5 metre setback requirement I would argue is not for visual amenity reasons, but for the provision of visitor car parking on site. The proposed carport will not remove the ability for visitors to park on the site as it is an open structure and accessible at any time.

This principle is about dominance of the streetscape, and with the proposed carport being an open structure that allows views of the dwelling, there is an argument that it will not dominate the streetscape. It is also noted that the locality has a character that includes carports and garages forward of the dwelling. Council's correspondences tries to diminish the importance of these structures in the assessment of the application claiming that these structures are anomalies that occurred prior to the enforcement of PDC 8. This is not an appropriate assessment, with the character of the area very important to the assessment as outlined in many decisions handed down by the Environment Resource and Development Court.

In the case Dimitrious v City of Mitcham [2013] SAERDC 18 Commissioner Nolan of the Environment Resources and Development Court states,

"There exists a general planning concept that garages and carports are structures which can dominate a streetscape and that Development Plans generally suggest that such structures should generally be sited behind the main face of any associated dwelling. However, whilst this is a sound planning principle, the circumstances of the subject land and locality and the design of the proposal itself must be considered which lead to the conclusion that exceptions to the principle should be permitted.

Page 3 of 9

13


In the above appeal decision, Commissioner Nolan has given very clear guidance as to the assessment criteria for a carport forward of a dwelling, with the following forming part of a balanced assessment:

- circumstances of the subject land

- locality

- and the design of the proposal.

I will now consider these three assessment criteria in detail below.

Circumstances of the Subject Land:

The subject site has an existing detached dwelling that contains one garage under the main roof of the dwelling. The existing house basically extends across the width of the allotment allowing for no vehicular access either side of the dwelling. The main entertaining area is directly behind the existing garage with a swimming pool located on eastern side of the rear yard also. Due to the historic development of the site, especially the age of the dwelling, it only has provision for one covered car parking space and with no opportunity for the provision of an additional covered parking space, except in the front yard.

So the circumstances of the site are such that the provision of an additional covered car parking space is limited to within front of the dwelling. In this current day and age, people have higher incomes, work further from home and also utilise services such as schooling beyond the local area. This has create the need and also the financial resources for most families to own at least two vehicles. My clients have a need to provide shade and shelter for an additional vehicle, which is not an unreasonable request, with most people requiring parking for more than one vehicle. The subject site only allows for the provision of this additional covered parking area forward of the dwelling. It is my opinion that it is these very circumstances that Commissioner Nolan was referring to, with the fact that the site only has one covered car parking space and that there is no other opportunity on the site, needing to have some weight within the assessment of the application.

The subject site enjoys a wide verge, meaning the carport will have a reasonable setback from the street.

Locality

As has been outlined above, the locality is deemed to be that within which the structure can be viewed. In that case, the carports and garages that can be viewed from the subject site all contribute to the visual character within the locality. Commissioner Nolan has raised locality as an assessment criteria because an assessment of the locality can lead to a determination on if a carport forward of the dwelling will be an anomaly and appear out of place or if it will appear consistent with other forms of development and thereby not noticeably out of place. In this instance the locality has numerous examples of carports and garages forward of the dwelling, with an exact example located at 6 Kimberley Close Kidman Park, and a very prominent example directly adjacent on the corner of Kimberley Close and Burns Avenue.

The proposed carport will not look out of place, or like and anomaly within the locality and is believed that it will in fact contribute positive to the amenity of the locality. It

Page 4 of 9

14


does not really matter about the age or reason behind the approval of an existing structure when an assessment is being undertaken on the locality. The fact of the matter is that those structures are existing, and that they physically contribute to defining the character. They must form part of the consideration as to if the structure fits within that locality or not. In this instance I would say that the locality supports carports forward of dwellings and that if designed appropriately, do not appear out of place and therefore are not detrimental to the amenity of that locality. Commissioner Nolan has indicated that locality does play apart in determining departures from requirements such as PDC 8.

Design of the Proposed Carport:

The carport has been well designed and specifically designed to complement the existing dwelling. It is not a 'tack on' after thought, but has been designed to appear as if it has always been a part of the existing dwelling. The carport will be tied back into the main roof of the dwelling, utilising a dutch gabled roof form that when tied back into the existing roof structure, will appear as part of the existing dwelling. The materials and colours will all match the existing dwelling, including the decorative trim around the underside of the dwellings eave. The carport will have a tiled roof, with tiles matching the existing roof of the dwelling.

It is argued that having a structure that matches the existing dwelling and is tied back into the roof is not as dominant due to the fact that it appears as part of the existing dwelling itself. Commissioner Nolan notes design of a structure as a consideration for a departure from the requirement to set a carport behind the main face of the dwelling. This is because well designed structures can be visually pleasing and therefore their impact is not as significant as poorly designed structures. The proposed design matching the existing dwelling is definitely a reason why it should be supported and is acceptable as a departure from PDC 8.

The proposed design is therefore considered to support the proposal and is consistent with the following requirements of the Development Plan:

Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 6 -

Garages, carports and residential outbuildings should have a roof form and pitch, building materials and detailing that complement the associated dwelling.

Council Wide Design and Appearance Principle of Development Control I -

Buildings should reflect the desired character of the locality while incorporating contemporary designs that have regard to the following: (a) building height, mass and proportion (b) external materials, patterns, colours and decorative elements (C) roof form and pitch (d) façade articulation and detailing (e) verandas, eaves, parapets and window screens.

Council Wide Design and Appearance Principle of Development Control 3 -

The external walls and roofs of buildings should not incorporate highly reflective materials which will result in glare to neighbouring properties, drivers or cyclists.

Page 5 of 9

15


Council Wide Design and Appearance Principle of Development Control 22 -

Except in areas where a new character is desired, the setback of buildings from public roads should: (a) be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other

buildings in the locality (b) contribute positively to the function, appearance andl or desired character of the

locality


Garages, carports and residential outbuildings should have a roof form and pitch, building materials and detailing that complement the associated dwelling.


While it doesn't meet the requirement of this PDC to be 1 metre behind the main face of the dwelling, it does meet all of the other relevant numerical requirements under this PDC.


Site coverage should be limited to ensure sufficient space is provided for: (a) pedestrian and vehicle access and vehicle parking (b) domestic storage (c) outdoor clothes drying (d) a rainwater tanks (e) private open space and landscaping (t) convenient storage of household garbage and recycling receptacles.

The proposal will not be detrimental to the attainment of the Desired Character for Residential Zone Policy Area 16, and is therefore considered to accord with the Desired Character State and PDC 1.

As demonstrated above, the proposal is more consistent with the Development Plan than it is inconsistent, and it is this broad consistency with the Development Plan that warrants support and issuing of Development Plan Consent.

The Development Plan's intent is to have a high quality of development and design, with the intent of Council Wide Residential Development PDC 8 to ensure that any development forward of the dwelling does not detract from the appearance of land and dwellings located on it. There are good examples of carports forward of dwellings and bad examples, and it is this consideration that Commissioner Nolan makes mention of when suggesting that there will be development that warrants a departure from the requirement of PDC 8 and that warrants approval based on the site characteristics, locality and built form design.

Page 6 of 9

iL

Google Street View


Below is a direct example located to 6 Kimberley Close of what is being proposed.

FM

As can be seen from the photo above, a dutch gabled carport that is open does not dominate the streetscape, the dwelling is still the main feature on the site, with the carport blending into the facade of the dwelling. The subject site has a substantially wider frontage than 6 Kimberley Close above, with the proposed carport therefore being even less dominating because it is a substantially smaller portion of the frontage of the existing dwelling.

Dominate Definition

To dominate something according to the Oxford Dictionary means:

'To be the most important or noticeable feature of something' 'To be the largest, highest or most obvious thing in a place'

In this case we are considering if an open carport, 6 metres wide will dominate a streetscape if it is forward of the dwelling it is attached to. In considering the definitions above it is my professional opinion that the proposed carport will not be considered to dominate the streetscape for the following reasons:

• The carport is only a very small portion of the width of the frontage thereby the carport is not the largest, most import or obvious thing on the site or within the locality.

• The carports roof will match the existing dwellings roof, features and colours, thereby meaning the carport will not be a noticeable feature, most important, highest or most obvious thing on the site.

• The open form of the carport allows for views of the dwelling behind, which is much larger, takes up the whole width of the allotment; thereby the carport is not considered to be the largest, highest, most obvious, important or noticeable feature.

• The proportion of the dwelling to the proposed carport means that the dwelling is much more important, noticeable, largest, highest and most

Page7of9

...t •1 VA - •I;!., _ .4

4j

17

4

I


obvious feature on the subject site, thereby the dwelling is still considered to be the dominate feature and built form.

Based on the above I believe the carport does not meet the definition of a dominate feature and will not dominate the streetscape and is therefore consistent with the intent of Council Wide Residential Development PDC 8.

The photo above clearly shows that a carport of this form doesn't dominate the streetscape, and that it blends in with the existing dwelling, which retains its dominance. The proposed carport will be even less dominating than the one in the photo above due to the size of the frontage, size of the existing dwelling and existing dwelling have more consistent colours and finishes.

Conclusion

The proposed carport is consider to be an important modern improvement to the existing dwelling and subject site. Case law supports departures from the requirement of a Development Plan to have structures setback behind the main face of the dwelling. Subject site restrictions, locality character and design of the proposed carport all support a decision that allows for a departure from Council Wide Residential Development Principle of Development Control 8 to have a carport behind the main face of the dwelling.

I believe that a refusal of the application is not in keeping with the intent of the Development Plan that seeks to have development setback behind the main face of the dwelling, unless it is of a high quality design that matches the existing dwelling and positively contributes to the locality. The locality itself supports a character of carports forward of dwellings where they are tied back into the roof and appear as an original feature of the dwelling. The differentiation between outbuildings within PDC 8 even goes to show that open structures are considered to not be as dominate on the streetscape, which means it is possible to have instances where an open structure forward of an associated dwelling is appropriate.

The proposed development should be supported and there is no real justification for a refusal of the application, with a blind enforcement of PDC 8 considered to be a

Page 8 of 9

1r


poor outcome and unreasonable restriction on my clients desire to improve their property.

I urge the Council to take a practical view on the assessment of the application and to consider the intent of the Development Plan as seeking a high standard of built form that contributes positive to the streetscape, as opposed to blindly applying the numerical requirements of the Development Plan.

I can be contacted on 0410 438 648 or by email timpride.planninggmaiI.com , should you have any questions pertaining to any of the above.

Yours sincerely

Tim Pride - BURP Principle Planner


Page 9 of 9

19

ifeSt yl e structures

Daniel Leonard ' LifeStyle Structures 22 Southern Averrue Wesi 8each SA 026

Mobile 04 11 885 492 Home Phone/Fax. 08 6356 2653

ErnaiF.daniotIi1ostyIesinjcturoscom.au lifastylesiructutes.comau

Builders Licence BLD 16240 ABN. 21 997 900 585

L2c

A -r

4cUJôJ 6?4 TI.

-4 _LL_L

ce

eStY1e structures

I

__ IA

± 4 .ftiiH±t —H-- - - - - --- - -

i t i 1 1 . - I

Daniel Leonard • LifeStyle Structures 22 Soul hørn Aenue Wosi Booch SA 5024

Mobile 0411 885 492 Home Phono/Fax. 088356 2653

ErTiail.di3ritel~Olifestylestiucltires . cofn.au

tylo

Buikers UcencoBLD 16240 ABN 2997900685

=1

sHD

EZ: LH - T

r I

k&

LL.. +0

0

21

CJ-L

t) (

JliDP

-

rfl€L

-

uZ

i

CO

___

_

-

------E---

• /12

-----

----

-

('SI

('SI

-F

------------

.CZ

cv

OU

[&

-_

-**------

- - 4

- -

T .-\j•

--

-----

I --

_

RAI r:_

Email from Tim Pride dated 18/3/15

Dear Julie,

Thank you for clearly outlining the assessment that has been undertaken and the considerations given to the proposed carport. I would appreciate if you would take the time to consider a few points in regards to the application;

Firstly the current owners have purchased the house in its current form a number of years ago. They have undertaken substantial renovations and improvements to the dwelling and the conversion of a portion of the dwelling that has existed in this way for approximately 35 years back to a garage is not appropriate. While I acknowledge the Development Plans 'minimum' requirements for car parking, this is just that a minimum requirement that relates to dwellings of various sizes, with good planning suggesting minimums are not always good outcomes. I have raised this point in assessing the merits of the application as the subject sites existing situation forms a basis for the merits of a departure from the numerical requirements of the Development Plan. As you have stated there is no other option for providing a carport on the site. This is a relevant consideration in regards to the existing site situation and in is one criteria listed in ERD Court determinations.

Secondly the setback is not as critical for open structures as it is for enclosed structures, hence the reasons General Section, Residential Development, Principle of Development Control 8 clarifies itself by stating "outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling" giving rise to the notion that protrusions forward of the 0.5m façade setback are appropriate but that solid features must stop at the dwellings façade. On top of this PDC 8 only states carports 'should' not dominate the streetscape and leaves the door open a little and also requires an assessment around if the structure will 'dominate' the streetscape. To date non of Council's correspondence has mentioned that in their opinion the carport 'will dominate the streetscape' which is the critical question.

In considering if the structure will dominate the streetscape I have considered the following points;

1) the design of the structure being tied back into the dwelling means it appears as part of the dwelling and small part at that. The structure is open and provides clear views of the dwelling will the roof form blending into the existing built form of the dwelling. Visually I think there is an argument that the structure will not dominate the streetscape.

2) the size of the structure being marginal in width to the frontage of the site in total. The maintaining of open landscaped character of the front yard as well as the expanse of the existing dwelling that covers the width of the allotment, it is difficult for anyone to argue that the proposed carport is the dominate feature of the site.

3) setback of the carport is such that there is still ample room between the structure and the kerb line. Given the bend in Burns Avenue means that the proposed carport

23

appears inline with the dwellings to the west of the site as detailed in the google

maps rendering below

kl,L

'1.

I have discussed the merits of the built form with respected architects, who believe

that from a visual amenity and streetscape consideration the proposed carport will

not look out of place or be a dominate feature in the street. There is scope to

landscape either side of the carport, which would further justify the fact that the

proposal will not dominate the streetscape. One would have to assume that the

proposal therefore while not meeting the numerical requirements of General

Section, Residential Development, Principle of Development Control 8, it will not

offend PDC 8 in that the carport will not dominate the streetscape.

The Desired Character Statement seeks that dwellings be designed to complement

and enhance the high quality pre and post-World War Two building styles and

incorporating setback, siting, materials and roof forms and features consistent with

and enhancing the established character.' I find it hard to see how the proposed

development will be 'detrimental to the attainment of this Desired Character. The

design of the carport uses materials to match the dwelling exactly, has a roof form

that is complimentary of the existing dwelling, is sited in a reasonable location and

does not offend the setbacks to a great degree as the structure is open and as shown

above fits within the streetscape. The proposed carport relatively accords with the

Desired Character Statement, with only really a minor claim to impact due to

setback. Yes the carport will have some impact on the streetscape, but because of its

design, it will not be detrimental. In fact a comment from one architect was that you

will not notice it once it is built, because it forms part of the dwelling. This is clearly

demonstrated in the below example, the carport is not a visually dominate feature of

this dwelling.

24

And with the use of landscaping is really not visually impacting at all

r *

s4 ;rjt' A

vi

I

V

/ .'. I

In regards to the comments that have been raised regarding cul-de-sacs, the

arguments are flawed for the following reason, the whole intent of the Development

Plans requirement to have carports setback behind the main face of the dwelling is

for the very reason outlined in General Section, Residential Development, Principle of Development Control 8, which states that garages and carports should not

dominate the streetscape. With allotments at the head of cul-de-sacs they have odd

shapes with narrow frontages. Therefore any carport forward of the dwelling on one

of these allotments is going to be more dominate and imposing on the streetscape. This therefore offends not just the numerical requirement but the very core of this

PDC. A clear example of this is shown below, how can this property at the end of the

cul-de-sac be argued that it meets the intent of the Development Plan because of

the varying setbacks of the dwellings? It clearly is the most dominating feature in the

street, not because of its setback, but because of its design. It therefore suggests

that design is more important than setback. It is also exacerbated by the reduced

25

frontage caused by cul-de-sac. The reduced frontage of cul-de-sac allotments do not therefore support the development of carports forward of dwellings.

26

ki

• :

,.ii

I have also read and considered the determinations of CABSOF v CITY OF CHARLES

STIJRT. I note that Commissioner Nolan made an assessment of the merits of the

land division only, against the requirements of the Development Plan and the

pattern of development was considered in its accordance or otherwise of the

Desired Character Statement. The argument was not tested in relation to built form

outcomes with the judgement stating 'Had the land division appeal been upheld by

this Court, then the Court would have turned its mind to these and other land use

matters in assessing the merits of the application for the proposed five group

dwellings. That assessment is not, however, necessary. "I note that Desired

Character Statements feature very heavily in Commissioner Nolan's judgements on

land divisions, and rightly so, but this should not be taken to be transferable to built

form as Desired Character is the primary assessment tool of pattern of development

and allotment configuration. The existing physical and visual character plays a lot

greater part in built form application assessment than land divisions. Its also

pertinent to note that whole dwellings, especially two-storey dwellings, have the

ability to have substantial impacts on the Desired Character, then those of a much more low scale open carport.

In summary:

The proposed carport complements the existing dwelling, its design and era, and

appears as an original feature of the dwelling. It does not offend the Desired

Character Statement and nor is it detrimental to the attainment of the Desired Character.

The carport will not dominate the streetscape will not look unsightly

will not detract from the amenity of the locality is complimentary of streetscape

27

Will approving the structure lead to other intrusions, unlikely and the argument is

that the proposal was designed to tie back into the dwelling thereby setting a

precedent for design standard and minimum widths of frontage to carport ratio.

As planners I believe you have to turn your mind as to what you are achieving by

refusing the application. There is an argument for the structure meeting the intent

and relatively according with the Development Plan and there is an argument against

it. by refusing the application you retain the status quo, pretty boring open

unappealing landscaped front yard and really unappealing setback pattern. By

approving the application you end up with a relatively minor structure that is open

matches the dwelling, provides some interest, is not offensive and is not a tack on

flat roof carport. The proposal improves the subject site without offending the

streetscape or the Desired Character Statement. As long as the structure iremains

open it is easily argued that it relatively accords with the intent of the Development

Plan, which is that you should be behind the main face of the dwelling unless you

can justify that it will not dominate the streetscape. I believe the justification is there

and to not support the improvement of the site with a well considered open and

low impact structure, is a poor outcome and impact on the owners standard of living

for not real perceived benefit or.outcome.

Sorry it is a little longer than I wanted, but the assessment of this application is not

something I have taken lightly and I have put a lot of thought, research and work

into ensuring my opinion is sound and well balanced.

Thank you again for your time Julie

Kind regards

Tim

Tim Pride

Urban P'anning Initiatives Ph: 0410 438 648

wrol


ATTACHMENT C

[Attachment C consists of 1 pages]

9O/1O/6 iea

(ivawssss 8UUUeId jofev,j J a Peal wej)

TflUJD GOZ pu

t / 62/ZSZoN uo!)p3IIddV2uwdoIaAcJ

UeWSSeSSU!UU8IdJOIBLA1 ipeai weaj paejep

51 3!Tou Al opue uoiuido pns wioj o/qpoq4n

aqo (W8E UO!pS ouensind P!JOU ueaq aAE4 L3!qM

siadod ile jo SJUM0 papimaj pue sJdnJJo aqjoqs dew pqee aqj uo lop pj e 41i.m pew saipadoid aqj

uawdoIaAap Z Ajoaej e iojesodoid

B joaou aAiE opvaq:ijo (t?)sE U0!PS 0UPflSJfld

UO!1eS!JOI44flV UO!UflSUOD PU P°N qfld

( AJoaej) 8€ Uo!paç

E661 IJVIN3VidO13A3

opp-O00O,IeflDoP0VOoD

19 096 PC OP NOV 9flV 963 0993 q0 uOdflpaoaaq oo pflwpoe 6100 OPOP S pSp00SFpg0SI0pP ejep003

io qnv S IOI

ST

01 S 6

: 0 II[.

St E9 Er

91\ r I I •1vr

1 t I I, 1 ItrI

'I

I r o -- \55 LE

I,

iTS 1

Ir-GHt-6H T m LI -T Il a 16h1\ -

- 1E LE

I/N

'II 0 IT I

I'T t 81 I I

I —J

ce 4 I '__---i,

II 18z 9z Vz I sr LV si' Er

uj

FV

I ----- VT

LI

III

1111I16TI1L1115TI15ri1'VT

zT IOT1

8 q I'

LU

LNIISIdD 01

I 2 I

8 LLJ

I -

- E i LIT

., ••+••6•••L.• $o *4• +*4*4+.4•* -. • '.4 4- Cj •'4 . N:.

SI' 101

95 85

SE 101 ./ Y 101 - LE 65

- Ti

11 6

attachment a [attachment a consists of 3 pages] 3... · world war two building styles and...

Documents