development assessment panel meeting agenda · 2015. 7. 28. · development assessment panel...

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 04 August 2015 at 6pm

Council Chambers, 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

Members: Bill Chandler (Presiding Member)

Donald Donaldson, Graeme Brown, Ross Bateup, Peter Ford, Helga Lemon and Mark Osterstock

1 APOLOGIES

Nil

2 KAURNA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Presiding Member will take the opportunity to acknowledge the Kuarna people.

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 07 July 2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

4 APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

Nil

5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – PERSONS WISH TO BE HEARD (A) NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING)

Report Number: 5697.1

Page: 1

Application Number: 180\0271\15

Applicant: Kaw Consulting Pty Ltd

Location: 60 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

Mount Osmond Golf Course

Proposal: Non-complying -Transmitting Station - Installation of telecommunication facility to include 1x monopole and 3x prefabricated equipment shelters

Recommendation: Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Plan Consent be granted

Representors: 45 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

94 Mount Barker Road, Leawood Gardens

13A Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

7 Seaview Road, Mount Osmond

34 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

6 Mountainview Place, Mount Osmond

62 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond





Development Assessment Panel Agenda 04 August 2014












17 Oceanview Crescent, Mount Osmond







2 Birkdale Crescent, Mount Osmond








78 Gordon Road, Prospect








66 Balcombe Avenue, Findon




















Applicant: Unit 13, 82-86 Minnie St, Southport QLD 4215


Page: 16


Applicant: Lucy Homes

Location: 247 The Parade Beulah Park

Proposal: Non-complying - Construction of three (3) two-storey dwellings including garages, porches, alfrescos and balconies


Representors: 6 Union Street, Beulah Park

247 The Parade, Beulah Park

239 The Parade, Norwood

2 Union Street, Beulah Park

1/61 Queen Street, Norwood

5 Dimboola Street, Beulah Park

245 The Parade, Norwood

16 Phillip Street, Kensington

1 Dimboola Street, Beulah Park

Applicant: 23 Shelter Row Craigburn Farm, SA 5051

(B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING)


Page: 31


Applicant: M Cutone and P L Cutone

Location: 2 Gordon Terrace, Rosslyn Park

Proposal: Single storey dwelling including swimming pool, outbuilding, earthworks and retaining walls.

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

Representors: 4 Gordon Terrace, Rosslyn Park

Applicant: 2 Gordon Terrace, Rosslyn Park


(C) CATEGORY 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING) Recommendation: As the opportunity to make a verbal presentation for Category 2 applications is at the Panel’s discretion, that the Panel provide an opportunity to be heard.


Page: 45


Applicant: Scott Salisbury Homes

Location: 13 Seaton Avenue , Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including incidental earthworks, retaining walls and fencing.


Representors: Unit 3/11 Seaton Avenue

Applicant: 474b Anzac Hwy, Camden Park SA 5043


Page: 58


Applicant: Medallion Homes

Location: 10 Keyes Street, Linden Park

Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including double garage, portico, rear verandah and rear balcony.


Representors: 8 Keyes Street, Linden Park

8 Keyes Street, Linden Park

12 Keyes Street, Linden Park

Applicant: 251 Glen Osmond Rd, Frewville SA 5063

6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – NO PERSONS TO BE HEARD

(A) NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)


Page: 72


Applicant: John C Bested & Associates Pty Ltd

Location: 27 Coach Road, Rosslyn Park & 29 Coach Road, Wattle Park

Proposal: Non-complying boundary re-alignment

Recommendation: Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Approval be granted


(B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)


Page: 80

Application Number: 180/1075/14

Applicant: Rinaldi & Co

Location: 5 Anglesey Avenue, St Georges

Proposal: A two storey residential flat building comprising two dwellings including garages, alfresco, porch, balcony and earthworks (fill) and retaining walls


(C) CATEGORY 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)


Page: 87


Applicant: Technical Officer Arboriculture - City Of Burnside

Location: 9 Swaine Avenue Rose Park

Proposal: Regulated Council verge tree removal (Willow Myrtle) adjacent 9 Swaine Avenue Rose Park including retrospective pruning

Recommendation: Development Approval be granted

7 CATEGORY 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – NO PERSONS TO BE HEARD


Page: 93



Location: 41 Grandview Grove, Toorak Gardens

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and shed


8 OTHER BUSINESS

Nil

9 ORDER FOR EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE MEETING TO DEBATE CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

That, pursuant to Section 56A(12) of the Development Act, 1993, the public be excluded from this part of the meeting of the City of Burnside Development Assessment Panel dated Tuesday 04 August 2014 (with the exception of members of Council staff who are hereby permitted to remain), to enable the Panel to receive, discuss or consider legal advice, or advice from a person who is providing specialist professional advice.

10 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil

Development Assessment Panel Agenda

NOTES FOR THE READER

Purpose

The purpose of each report prepared for the Development Assessment Panel is to assist the applicant, those assessing the application and members of the public alike, to understand all of the relevant factors and considerations involved in the assessment of each particular development application.

Development Plan Assessment

Development in South Australia is regulated under the Development Act, 1993 and the Development Regulations, 2008.

This legislation requires Council, which is a relevant planning authority under this legislation, to assess most applications for development against the provisions of Council’s “Development Plan”.

The Development Plan is a policy document. The policy is formulated by the Council. It uses some “planning language” but is intended to form a useful and practical guide for the public and those responsible for the assessment of development. It is a practical policy document which the planning authority must apply to development assessment in a practical way.

When assessing development, the relevant provisions within the Development Plan are identified. The planning authority will then usually be required to consider whether those provisions speak for or against a proposed development. Quite often the assessment task will require the planning authority to weigh the “pros and cons” of a proposed development by reference to the relevant policies within the Development Plan.

The process involved in the assessment of each development application is contained within the above legislation. Depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the development and the Zone within which it is proposed, applications may be classified as “complying”, “non-complying” or “merit” development. The classification of the application will determine the procedure to be followed under the legislation. Classification will also determine the public notification protocol, that is, whether the planning authority is able to provide public notification and if so, the extent of the public notification.

Representations

Representors will usually be provided with an opportunity to address the planning authority at its relevant meeting if they wish to be heard. In this case the relevant planning authority will hear and consider the representations prior to making its decision. It is the role of the planning authority to act as a mediator or arbitrator between representor(s) and applicant.

The reports prepared by the Council’s staff will not separately address the content of each representation, but rather will deal with relevant town planning issues raised in any representation, together with all other relevant considerations involved in the assessment of a proposed development.

this page is left intentionally blank

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 04 August 2015 Report Number: PR 5697.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION


Applicant: Kaw Consulting Pty Ltd

Location: 60 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

Mount Osmond Golf Course

Proposal: Non-complying -Transmitting Station - Installation of telecommunication facility to include 1x monopole and 3x prefabricated equipment shelters

Zone/Policy Area: Hills Face Zone

Development Plan consolidated 30 January 2014

Kind of Assessment: Non-complying

Public Notification: Category 3

Sixty-four (64) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Third party only, no Applicant appeal rights

Referrals – Statutory: N/A

Referrals – Non Statutory: Local Heritage Consultant

Country Fire Service

Delegations Policy: Non-complying development


Recommending Officer: James Moss

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report: - Appendix 1 – Aerial Locality Map - Appendix 2 – Detailed Planning Assessment

Please note that due to Federal Copyright Law restrictions, attachments associated with the proposed development are not made available to the public.

Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Statement in Support Report to proceed with an assessment Statement of Effect Representations received Photographs

1


1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks development plan consent for the installation of a transmitting station adjacent the northeast boundary of the Mount Osmond Golf Club, comprising of one monopole, three equipment shelters, safety fencing, landscaping, retaining walls and associated earthworks. The development will also require the removal of two large Monterey Cypress trees, each with a trunk circumference greater than 3 metres. Approval is not required under the Development Act 1993 to remove these trees as they are on the exempt species list (Monterey Cypress).

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0271\15 was lodged on 24 March 2015 by KAW Consulting Pty Ltd on behalf of Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd, following which the proposal was determined to be a non-complying kind of development pursuant to Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 27, which states:

“The following kings of development are non-complying in the Hills Face Zone: Transmitting Station”

Pursuant to Council’s instrument of development delegations (60.1.2) the Team Leader Planning determined to proceed with an assessment of the proposal on 21 April 2015 and a Statement of Effect was obtained from the applicant on 12 May 2015. The proposal was categorised as a category 3 form of development for the purposes of public notification and placed on notice towards the end of May 2015. During the notification period sixty-four (64) written submissions were received from owners and occupiers of adjacent residential properties, as well as others within the community. Copies of all written submissions were forwarded to the applicant for comment, who has opted not to respond. During the course of assessment Council sought advice from external parties on matters of heritage impact, bushfire safety and planning law. Numerous site inspections were also conducted to view the subject land, adjacent walking trails and residential streets. An assessment against the relevant provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan has now been completed and the application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as a non-complying development with a supportive staff recommendation, subject to conditions. Should the Panel resolve to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal, concurrence will then be sought from the Development Assessment Commission before any decision can be issued.

3. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY ATTRIBUTES

3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is an irregular shaped allotment measuring approximately 412,617 square metres in area, with substantial frontage to Mount Osmond Road. The land is owned and operated by the Mount Osmond Golf Club with the ‘Mount Osmond Golf Club Building’ being listed as a Local Heritage Place under Table Bur/2 of the Development Plan.

2


3.2. Locality

The locality is comprised of the subject land and surrounding properties with frontage to Mount Osmond Road, Gleneagles Road and nearby streets, as well as large undeveloped properties adjacent the Old Bullock Track to the east of the subject land. The locality is situated wholly within the Hills Face Zone of the City of Burnside and is identified as a High Bushfire Risk area. The locality is characterised by the variety of residential, recreational and rural land uses each within proximity of one another, and by the topographical nature and natural characteristics of the Mount Lofty Ranges. The subject land is bordered to the north, west and south by residential properties containing a wide variety of dwelling styles and configurations. Notable features of the locality include its proximity to the South Eastern Freeway to the south, large rural properties in all directions, its elevated siting above the Adelaide Plains and varying degrees of vegetation coverage throughout.

4. KIND OF ASSESSMENT

Kind: Non-complying Reason: Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 27 Applicant Appeal Opportunity: No

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Category: Category 3 Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 38 (2)(c) Representations Received: Wayde & Briony McGlinn – 45 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Denis & Daniel Straga – 94 Mount Barker Road, Leawood

Gardens (do not wish to be heard) Jenny & Trevor Nelson – 13A Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Cynthia & Roger Perry – 7 Seaview Road, Mount Osmond

(wish to be heard) Daryl Emmerson – 34 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

(do not wish to be heard) Carmel Han – 6 Mountainview Place, Mount Osmond (wish to

be heard) Peter & Rosalie Gleeson – 62 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Chris & Karl Soutter – 64 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

(wish to be heard) Ian Peters – 93 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (wish

to be heard) Rebecca Peters – 95 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

(wish to be heard) Stephanie & John Drew – 87 Mount Osmond Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Niall Cleary – 8 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not

wish to be heard) Meral Cleary – 8 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to

be heard)

3


Peter Cleary – 8 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Angela Camens – 10 Seaview Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Rowena Maxwell-Clark – 16 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Norman Maxwell-Clark – 16 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Juan Pineda – 51 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Jason Neave – 61 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Peter Willis – 9 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Judith Ferrante – 59 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Zbigniew Jankowski – 66 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Jason Waldron – 17 Oceanview Crescent, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Marianne & Terry Plane – 2 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Stephanie & Anthony Wiles – 63 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Anuschka von Czarnecki & Russell Ailion – 20 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Shaowen Qin – 81 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Greg Kessell - 81 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard)

Fred & Michele Butcher – 107 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Peter & Marlene Rohrsheim – 2 Birkdale Crescent, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

David Monceaux – 58 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Dorothy Anne Monceaux – 58 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Sharon & Armin Apold – 78 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Amy Apold – 78 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Nicola Apold – 78 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

S, D & M Taylor – 97 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Sri Sivanathan & Renuka Sri Dushyanta – 72 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Lorraine McMahon – 78 Gordon Road, Prospect (wish to be heard)

S & F Pritchard – 5 Seaview Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Peter Alan Humble – 30 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be heard)

Felicity Ferris – 70 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to

4


be heard) Rhonda & James McNamara – 32 Mount Osmond Road,

Mount Osmond (wish to be heard) Joanne Sziller – 70 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish

to be heard) Rob Ferris – 70 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to

be heard) Kent Alexander McFarlane – 34 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Celeste Caruso – 66 Balcombe Avenue, Findon (do not wish

to be heard) Dean & Maureen Lello – 12 Mount Osmond Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Richard Darroch & Beth Lang – 77 Mount Osmond Road,

Mount Osmond (wish to be heard) Peter & Karen Noonan – 22 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Mary & Dennis Bawden – 1 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Sara Giuliani & Michael Dowling – 24 Gleneagles Road,

Mount Osmond (wish to be heard) Craig Parsonage – 14 Mount Osmond Road, Mount Osmond

(do not wish to be heard) Trevor & Hazel Wasley – 60 Gleneagles Road, Mount

Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Susan Leah Steward – 91 Mount Osmond Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Simon & Judy Brown – 40 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

(do not wish to be heard) Richard Bullough – 14 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

(wish to be heard) Virginia Ellis – 9 Seaview Road, Mount Osmond (wish to be

heard) Anna & Colin Hackett – 109 Mount Osmond Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Aleksander Fursenko – 74 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond

(wish to be heard) Dr Rosemary Allen – 89 Mount Osmond Road, Mount

Osmond (wish to be heard) Richard McMahon & Yuka McMahon – 42 Gleneagles Road,

Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Tim, Millie, Amanda & Daisy Campion – 39 Mount Osmond

Road, Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Timothy Cox – 32 Gleneagles Road, Mount Osmond (wish to

be heard) Andrew & Maria Macdonald – 61 Mount Osmond Road,

Mount Osmond (do not wish to be heard) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: Yes

Representations received are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

6. AGENCY REFERRALS

Internal agency referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

5


7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7.1. Land Use

The Burnside (City) Development Plan recognises that telecommunications facilities are an essential form of infrastructure that are required to meet the rapidly increasing community demand for communications technologies. In order to meet this demand it is also recognised there will be a need for new telecommunications facilities to be constructed, and that new facility development will be unavoidable in more sensitive areas in order to achieve coverage for users of communications technologies. Rather than creating an additional facility, the proposal seeks to relocate and replace an existing transmitting station from a large rural allotment at 94-100 Mount Barker Road to an adjoining property at 60 Mount Osmond Road, approximately 650 metres to the north. The land on which the facility is to be located is owned and operated by the Mount Osmond Golf Club, and is situated wholly within the Hills Face Zone. Although the provisions of the Hills Face Zone place an emphasis on preserving the natural character and minimising the visual presence of buildings and structures from the Adelaide Plains and local roads, the presence of communication towers within the zone is both acknowledged and accepted (PDC 18). As for the existing use of the subject land, the proposed facility will be located at the outer edge of the golf course adjacent existing infrastructure and will not interfere with the continued activities of the club. The proposal is therefore considered to be an appropriate outcome from a land use perspective and therefore not at serious variance with the Development Plan.

7.2. Character and Amenity

Due to the nature of the proposal, the tower will undoubtedly be visible from various locations within the locality. The subject land is located wholly within the Hills Face Zone, which, contrary to common belief, is not a residential zone. Instead, the Development Plan describes a zone in which low-intensity agricultural activities and public/private open space is the desired land use, and that existing dwellings are tolerated but not encouraged. The question of location is further explored through Council Wide Principle of Development Control 122, which states that where technically feasible, co-location of telecommunications facilities should primarily occur in industrial, commercial, business, office, centre, urban corridor and rural zones. The Hills Face Zone is the only rural zone within the City of Burnside. Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 18 acknowledges the presence of telecommunications facilities, and states that communication towers and masts should be sited and designed in such a way so as to minimise their visual impact. The Development Plan envisages a zone in which the natural character is preserved and enhanced, or in which a natural character is re-established in order to provide a natural backdrop to the Adelaide Plains and a contrast to the urban area, where the term “natural character” is defined as:

6


“…the natural topography, native vegetation and colours, such as greens and browns of non-reflective earthen tones, normally associated with a natural landscape.”

The Courts have determined that such facilities are to be constructed in a manner which ensures coverage, but also in a manner which minimises, rather than prevents or avoids, the visual impact of those facilities on the amenity of the local environment. In isolation, the proposed facility is considered to be a marked improvement on the visual appearance of the existing station on the adjacent property despite being slightly taller. A monopole painted in neutral colours is considered to be less visually intrusive than the steel lattice type tower structure. The proposed facility will also include select landscaping around the perimeter to screen the base of the tower, equipment sheds and fencing. The existing facility (to be replaced) sits proud of a line of trees bordering the Old Bullock Track, on a widely exposed hill that is clearly visible when driving up the South Eastern Freeway. In addition to views from the freeway, the facility itself is also visible from numerous locations along Gleneagles Road and Old Mount Barker Road to the south. In contrast, the proposed facility will be visible mainly from within the subject land itself, and to a lesser extent along sections of the Old Bullock Track and select residential properties backing onto the golf course at the end of Gleneagles Road. Visual impacts resulting from the new facility are somewhat softened by several large trees about the eastern boundary of the subject land, as well as the local topography of the Mount Osmond area, which places considerable obstacles between the site of the facility and surrounding locality.

7.3. Public Notification

The application was placed on category 3 public notification pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) of the Development Act 1993. During the notification period Council received 64 written submissions expressing views on the proposed development. Of the 64 written submissions, the overwhelming majority expressed an opposition to the development. Primary concerns raised included visual impacts, health impacts, devaluation of property and inconsistency with the Development Plan zoning principles. Less common concerns included impacts on the heritage value of the clubhouse, possible interference with emergency services aerial vehicles and noise. Being a Category 3 development, any person or persons who lodged a written representation in relation to the proposal has an automatic right of appeal to the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court should they feel aggrieved by Council’s decision. Copies of all written submissions were forwarded to the applicant, who was then provided the opportunity to respond. The applicant has reviewed the submissions but has determined not to provide a response in this instance. Nonetheless, Council is satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993. With regard to health impacts arising from electromagnetic energy (EME), the Courts have determined that where evidence is provided demonstrating that prescribed safety

7


standards will be met, it is to be assumed that no health risks will arise from the development proposed. In this instance the applicant has provided a report of the calculated EME levels around the facility demonstrating that the maximum EME level calculated for the proposed system will equate to 1.12% of the public exposure limit set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), an agency of the Commonwealth Government. It is also worth noting that the proposed facility will be almost 180 metres from the nearest residential property. Throughout the City of Burnside, even where telecommunications towers are located within non-residential areas they will generally still be closer than one third of that distance from established residential areas. By contrast, 180 metres is a substantial minimum distance. With regard to property values, the Courts have determined there is no relevant basis in the Development Plan provisions for an assessment of the possible effect of a proposal on land value, and as such it has been generally accepted that this is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in the planning assessment and decision-making.

7.4. Agency Referrals

Although no formal referrals were required under Section 37 of the Development Act 1993, Council sought informal feedback from the Country Fire Service (CFS) in response to a concern raised about the potential interference with aerial bushfire fighting vehicles and equipment in the instance of a bushfire. Specifically, a submission received during the public notification process indicated that CFS helicopters sometimes draw water from a nearby dam for bushfire fighting purposes, and suggested that a light may need to be fitted to the tower for identification in poor weather conditions. Council contacted the CFS and was advised that the proximity of the tower to the water source would not pose any insurmountable operational issues for firefighting aircraft and pilots, and that lighting would not be required. The proposal was also referred to Council’s local heritage consultant, Ms Andreea Jeleascu, to assess the potential impacts associated with locating a telecommunications tower on the site of a Local Heritage Place, the Mount Osmond Golf Club Building. Ms Jeleascu advised that the tower would have no tangible impact on the two storey 1930s club house due to the overwhelming physical and visual separation between the two (approximately 850 metres).

7.5. Conclusion

Having regard to all of the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with, and is generally in accordance with, the policies of the Development Plan.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Panel resolve that:

1. The proposed development is not seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan; and

8


2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\0271\15, by Kaw Consulting Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Plan Consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 The landscaping delineated on the stamped and approved plans shall be planted within three (3) months of the substantial completion of the development and thereafter maintained in good health and condition at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. Reason: To provide amenity for the occupants of buildings and those of adjacent buildings through the provision of landscaping as part of the development.

3 In accordance with the applicant's email correspondence dated 23 July 2015, the applicant must remove the existing transmitting station from the land known as 94-100 Old Mount Barker Road in its entirety, and return the land to its previous state to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. This action shall be completed within a period of no more than 4 metres form the substantial completion of the approved transmitting station at 60 Mount Osmond Road. Reason: To ensure the development is completed in accordance with the plans and details provided to the Council and to minimise impacts on local amenity.

RECOMMENDING OFFICER

James Moss Development Officer – Planning

9


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

Representor’s Land

10


APPENDIX 2

DETAILED PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Summary of Hills Face Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Hills Face Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone in which the natural character is preserved and enhanced or in which a natural character is re-established in order to: (a) provide a natural backdrop to the Adelaide Plains and a contrast to the urban area; (b) preserve and develop native vegetation and fauna habitats close to metropolitan Adelaide; (c) provide for passive recreation in an area of natural character close to the metropolitan area; (d) provide a part of the buffer area between metropolitan districts and prevent the urban area extending into

the western slopes of the ranges; and (e) ensure that the community is not required to bear the cost of providing services to land within the zone.

Objective 2: A zone accommodating low-intensity agricultural activities and public/private open space and one where structures are located and designed in such a way as to: (a) preserve and enhance the natural character or assist in the re-establishment of a natural character in the

zone; (b) limit the visual intrusion of development in the zone, particularly when viewed from roads within the zone or

from the Adelaide Plains; (c) not create, either in themselves, or in association with other developments, a potential demand for the

provision of services at a cost to the community; and (d) prevent the loss of life and property resulting from bushfires. The western slopes of the Mount Lofty Ranges in metropolitan Adelaide are an important natural asset to both the population of the urban area and the tourism industry. Development which is undertaken in this zone should not only preserve but should also enhance the natural character of the zone or assist in the re-establishment of a natural character. The term "natural character" refers to the natural topography, native vegetation and colours, such as greens and browns of non-reflective earthen tones, normally associated with a natural landscape. Additionally, natural character refers to the open character of the land in those areas of the zone where open grazing currently predominates. Thus, existing buildings should not be seen as setting a precedent when assessing the impact of a proposed development. Each development should be assessed on the extent to which it preserves and enhances the natural character or, more importantly, assists in the re-establishment of a natural character, rather than on the basis of a comparison with existing development in its locality. In those parts of the zone where, prior to 1975, concentrations of smaller than average allotments were created, special attention needs to be paid to the scale, design and landscaping of development because there are fewer locational options for development on these allotments. The extent of native vegetation and open grassland, the steep slopes and the difficulty of access combine to make this zone a high fire risk area. It is important that developments incorporate fire protection measures in order to minimise the fire risk. While vegetation management is an important part of minimising the fire risk, the destruction of existing native vegetation and the failure to provide landscaping in such a way as to screen buildings and improve the amenity of the zone are not considered acceptable fire protection measures. The Hills Face Zone is not a residential zone and so the services provided in an urban area will not be provided in this zone. Accordingly, development should not be undertaken if it is likely, in itself or in association with other development, to create a potential demand for such services. Activities and projects by State and local agencies which are considered necessary in this zone should be located, sited, constructed and maintained in such a way as to promote the objectives for the zone and complement the principles of development control relating to this zone. Tourist facilities are appropriate provided

11


they are of a low-scale and are located unobtrusively. Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1-2

Satisfied. The Hills Face Zone is not a residential zone. The proposal is not associated with a low-intensity agricultural

activity, a public open space area or single storey detached dwelling.

The proposal does not compromise the existing and established use of the land, which shall remain in operation as a privately owned golf course.

The development involves minimal disruption to the natural topography or native vegetation, and replaces an existing lattice tower with a slim-line monopole painted in a non-reflective earthen tone (pale eucalypt).

The development also maintains the natural character because in its proposed location it will not be visible from the Adelaide Plains and will have minimal visual presence when viewed from roads within the zone.

Design for Topography PDC 2

Satisfied. The proposal requires minimal excavation to provide a flat platform

for the construction of the transmitting station. Given the modest total area dedicated to the development (108

square metres), and the fact that the applicant seeks to cut into the land rather than fill to create the platform, the changes to the natural topography are considered reasonable in the open context of the site.

Viewed from within the subject land, the excavation works will not be readily visible as the site of development is on the eastern edge of the golf course and screened by the natural slope of the hill.

External views of the change in land form (such as that from the Old Bullock Track) will be minimised by the transparent nature of the proposed chainlink security fencing and vegetation screening.

Operation and Management PDC 3

Satisfied.

Building Design and Location PDC 7–14

Satisfied. The proposed facility will be located on the downward slope of the

eastern edge of the golf course in a manner that reduces the visual prominence and overall height at ground level.

The development will not be visible against the skyline when viewed from the Adelaide Plains, but could be partially visible from certain roads within the zone and from the Old Bullock Track.

The existing structure is clearly visible from Gleneagles Road, the South Eastern Freeway, the Old Bullock Track and Old Mount Barker Road.

The facility is to be sited on an excavated rather than a filled site, which reduces the vertical profile of the equipment buildings and fencing structures.

The development does not require the removal of native vegetation and shares no direct relationship with any watercourse in proximity to the site.

The facility will be painted in a non-reflective earthen tone (pale

12


eucalypt) so as to blend with a natural rural landscape. Communications Towers PDC 18

Satisfied. The proposal replaces an existing lattice type structure with a slim-

line monopole, which is considered to be less visually intrusive in nature.

The design provides an opportunity for multiple carrier co-location, in which multiple carriers are able to share the same facility, rather than construct additional towers.

13


Summary of Council Wide Objectives and Principles

Primary Infrastructure Objectives and Principles:

Objective 37: Telecommunications facilities provided to meet the needs of the community.

Objective 38: Telecommunications facilities located and designed to minimise visual impact on the amenity of the local environment.

Principle of Development Control 121: Telecommunications facilities should: (a) be located and designed to meet the communication needs of the community; (b) utilise materials and finishes that minimise visual impact; (c) have antennae located as close as practical to the support structure; (d) primarily be located in industrial, commercial, business, office, centre, urban corridor and rural zones; (e) incorporate landscaping to screen the development, in particular equipment shelters and huts; and (f) be designed and sited to minimise the visual impact on the character and amenity of the local environment, in particular visually prominent areas, main focal points or significant vistas. Principle of Development Control 122: Where technically feasible, co-location of telecommunications facilities should primarily occur in industrial, commercial, business, office, centre, urban corridor and rural zones.

Principle of Development Control 123: Telecommunications facilities in areas of high visitation and community use should utilise, where possible, innovative design techniques, such as sculpture and art, where the facilities would contribute to the character of the area.

Principle of Development Control 124: Telecommunications facilities should only be located in residential zones if sited and designed so as to minimise visual impact by: (a) utilising screening by existing buildings and vegetation; (b) where possible being incorporated into, and designed to suit the characteristics of an existing structure that may serve another purpose; and (c) taking into account existing size, scale, context and characteristics of existing structures, land forms and vegetation so as to complement the local environment.

Principle of Development Control 125: Telecommunications facilities should not detrimentally affect the character or amenity of Historic Conservation Zones or Policy Areas, Local Heritage Places, State Heritage Places, or State Heritage Areas.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 37–38 Satisfied.

The proposal seeks approval for the relocation of a transmitting station due to the anticipated termination of a lease agreement involving an existing facility on an adjoining property.

The absence of this facility will likely create a “black spot” in service throughout Mount Osmond, Leawood Gardens, Beaumont and Glen Osmond.

Amenity O11, 20–22 PDC 14–18, 52-69, 170-173

Satisfied.

The proposed facility will be located approximately 180 metres from the nearest residential property and will be at least partially obscured by generous mature vegetation bordering the subject land.

14


Visibility is further minimised by the siting of the facility part way along the downward slope of the eastern edge of the land, which serves to reduce the overall height of the structure relative to the adjacent golf course.

Similar facilities are spread out throughout the City of Burnside, in almost every single instance at distances that are far closer to residential properties than that proposed. The visual impact is considered acceptable by comparison.

Fences and Retaining Walls PDC 190–194 Satisfied.

Proposed retaining walls needed to establish a stable platform for the development are limited in height and scale and will be screened from view by strategic landscape plantings around the perimeter of the facility.

Proposed chainlink security fencing is of an appropriate scale and visually permeable in nature. As with the retaining walls, visibility will be substantially diminished by landscaping.

Due to the location of the facility the proposed fencing will only be visible from a section of the Old Bullock Track directly adjacent the site, and to a lesser extent from within the subject land.

Hazards O 41 PDC 131

Satisfied.

The subject land is located within a High Bushfire Risk area.

Mobile phone coverage is considered to be an essential asset to assist in the instance of bushfire events.

The CFS has confirmed the tower poses no concern to their ability to use helicopters in the case of a bushfire event.

Trees and Other Vegetation O 24-28 PDC 77-92

Satisfied.

The proposal involves the removal of two large Monterey Cypress trees to facilitate the establishment of the transmitting station.

Both trees have trunk circumferences exceeding 3 metres, an approximate height of 15 metres and canopy spread of 20 metres, however are not regulated or significant trees under the Development Regulations 2008 on account of their species.

Heritage O23 PDC 125

Satisfied.

Council’s Local Heritage Consultant, Ms Andreea Jeleascu, has reviewed the proposal and determined that there will be no adverse impact on the heritage value of the Local Heritage Place due to the substantial spatial and visual separation provided.

15




Applicant: Lucy Homes

Location: 247 The Parade Beulah Park

Proposal: Non-complying - Construction of three (3) two-storey dwellings including garages, porches, alfrescos and balconies

Zone/Policy Area: Local Business Zone

Residential Policy Area 1 – Greater Beulah Park




Ten (10) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Third party only, no Applicant appeal rights


Referrals – Non Statutory: Engineering Services




REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report: - Appendix 1 – Aerial Locality Map - Appendix 2 – Detailed Planning Assessment - Appendix 3 – Development Data Table


Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Internal agency referral reports Representations received Applicant’s response to representations Photographs

16



The applicant seeks development plan consent for the construction of three two storey dwellings on land straddling the Local Business Zone and Residential Zone at the intersection of The Parade and Amery Lane, Beulah Park. Dwelling 1 (Unit 1) faces The Parade and features three bedrooms, double garage, open plan living areas, front porch and balcony and rear verandah/alfresco. Vehicle access is gained via an existing driveway to The Parade. Dwelling 2 (Unit 2) and Dwelling 3 (Unit 3) both face Amery Lane and feature three bedrooms, double garage, open plan living areas, front porch and rear verandah/alfresco. Vehicle access for both dwellings is gained via Amery Lane.

2. BACKGROUND

In December 2010 an application was made on behalf of the current owner for the construction of four two storey dwellings, together with fencing and solar panels (DA 180\1380\10). This application was formally withdrawn in September 2011 over the issue of access via Amery Lane, which, at the time was not a public road under Council control. At the time, the issue of access was considered fatal to the merits of the proposal and rendered the assessment as hypothetical. The applicant then engaged with Council’s Engineering Services Department to commence the process of converting Amery Lane to a public Road. In August 2014 the laneway was declared a public road in the South Australian Government Gazette. The current proposal (DA 180\0742\14) was lodged on 15 July 2014 and processed on merit as a category 2 development. The application was later reclassified following the detection of non-complying components and processed as category 3 non-complying based on Local Business Zone Principle of Development Control 6 which states: “The following kinds of development are non-complying within the Local Business Zone:

Building containing a floor area exceeding 250 square metres” The application was placed on category 3 notification in March 2015, during which time Council received ten written submissions, one of which was determined to be invalid as the submission did not meet the information requirements of the Development Act 1993. The applicant has since responded to the matters raised during the public consultation process and has provided supporting planning evidence prepared by Masterplan Town and Country Consultants. During assessment, the proposal was also referred to Council’s Engineering Services Department to assess matters of stormwater and traffic management associated with the proposal. In accordance with the requirements of Engineering Services the applicant has confirmed a willingness to transfer a portion of land at the southern end of Amery Lane to the Council in order to secure the necessary vehicle access servicing Dwellings 2 and 3. The matter is now presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) with a staff recommendation of approval, subject to conditions and reserved matters.

17


SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY ATTRIBUTES

2.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises two contiguous rectangular shaped allotments on the northern side of The Parade totalling 830 square metres (approx) with a 14 metre frontage to The Parade and 61.57 metres frontage to Amery Lane. The land straddles both the Local Business Zone and the Residential Zone (Residential Policy Area 1). The land is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling constructed in 1910 and sited close to the southern boundary abutting The Parade. The existing dwelling has been constructed in the Villa style with a return verandah/carport extending along a portion of the western side boundary for an approximate distance of 18 metres. Various domestic outbuildings and structures are located within the rear yard. Vehicle access is gained via an existing single width crossover on the western side of the primary frontage. Minimal vegetation exists across the site and a significant portion of the land remains vacant to the rear. Boundary fencing is comprised of a solid masonry wall across the front boundary, returning along a portion of the eastern boundary abutting Amery Lane, corrugated iron sheeting of compromised appearance and 2.1 metres high good neighbour fencing along the western boundary.

2.2. Locality

The locality includes properties on both sides of The Parade extending to Portrush Road in the west and Duke Street in the east, as well as a number of residential properties fronting Union Street and Dimboola Street to the north. The locality is fragmented by several different land use zones across the City of Burnside and the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters; the Local Business Zone along the northern side of The Parade, the Residential Zone to the northwest and the Historic Conservation Zone to the north, as well as the Business Zone, Mixed Use Historic (Conservation) and Residential Historic (Conservation) zones to the south. Built form varies across the locality, with commercial buildings of varying styles and heights along The Parade and low scale medium density residential streetscapes of historic merit to the north.


Kind: Non-complying Reason: Local Business Zone, PDC 6 - Building containing a floor area

exceeding 250 square metres Applicant Appeal Opportunity: No


Category: Category 3 Reason: Development Regulations 2008, Section 38, (2), (c) Representations Received: 6 Union Street, Beulah Park (do not wish to be heard)

247 The Parade, Beulah Park (wish to be heard) 239 The Parade, Norwood (do not wish to be heard) 2 Union Street, Beulah Park (do not wish to be heard) 1/61 Queen Street, Norwood (do not wish to be heard)

18


5 Dimboola Street, Beulah Park (do not wish to be heard) 245 The Parade, Norwood (wish to be heard) 16 Phillip Street, Kensington (do not wish to be heard) 1 Dimboola Street, Beulah Park (do not wish to be heard)

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: Yes


Applicant’s response(s) to representations are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

5. AGENCY REFERRALS



6.1. Land Use

The applicant seeks approval for the construction of three dwellings on land that straddles the Local Business Zone and the Residential Zone. Although a non-complying application, the Development Plan identifies dwellings as an appropriate land use for both zones and accordingly the proposal is deemed appropriate from a land use perspective.


The character of the locality is heavily influenced by its proximity to The Parade, a main arterial road comprising a range of commercial, residential and community land uses. The locality is also characterised by the presence of low scale, medium density residential housing stock to the north. The proposed development is sufficiently compatible with the existing and desired local character, given that it will reinvigorate a poorly maintained residential property of minimal visual appeal, while providing higher density housing accommodations in a strategically relevant location and incorporating a contemporary design of suitable quality. The two storey form and siting is also envisaged under the Local Business Zone guidelines. The proposal fails to satisfy a number of key quantitative built form guidelines, such as set-backs, site coverage and boundary development. This does not necessarily translate to an undesirable or unreasonable planning outcome when viewed in context with the surrounding buildings and land uses in proximity to The Parade. Visual impacts typically associated with reduced set-backs, high site coverage and considerable boundary development are deemed acceptable from the west in light of the nature and configuration of the two storey commercial building on the adjoining property, of which a substantial portion is used solely for car parking. Impacts to commercial and residential properties to the east are off-set by the spatial distance provided by Amery Lane, which adds an additional 4.5 metres to the siting of Dwellings 1 and 2, and 3 metres to the siting of Dwelling 3. Some of this is also further off-set by presence of another car park at the rear of the commercial property to the east of the subject land fronting The Parade. Additional factors contributing to this determination also include: The proposal is not anticipated to compromise sunlight access for any nearby

residential properties;

19


Sufficient privacy treatments have been incorporated into the design to restrict overlooking from first floor windows or from private open space areas at ground level;

Through the use of modest external wall heights and a low-profile roofing the development exhibits some degree of restraint and an attempt to integrate with the scale of existing (albeit single storey) buildings;

The upper level side set-back for Dwelling 3 exceeds the guideline of the Development Plan and facilitates an acceptable built form transition to the adjacent single storey residence to the north;

The quantitative deficiencies to not take into account the strip of land being gifted to Council in order to widen the southern entrance of Amery Lane; and

Each dwelling utilises a mix of external materials and façade articulation to break up the visual mass of the building and provide visual interest.

6.3. Site Functionality/Agency Referrals

No external referrals were required under Section 37 of the Development Act 1993, however input was sought from Council’s Engineering Services Department with regard to matters of traffic, manoeuvrability and stormwater management. Of primary concern was the matter of access to Dwellings 2 and 3 via the recently acquired Amery Lane, a narrow service road extending from The Parade to Glyde Street and providing rear vehicle access to residential properties fronting Union Street and Dimboola Street. In consultation with Council’s traffic engineers, the Senior Engineer has advised that access to Dwellings 2 and 3 is achievable only if Amery Lane is widened to a breadth of 6 metres for the first 6 metres in from The Parade, then 1.5 metres to the site of Dwelling 3 to provide space for a modest footpath. The applicant has considered Council’s requirements and amended the proposal to reflect the desired road widening to Amery Lane. The applicant has also provided vehicle turning circle diagrams to demonstrate cars are able to enter and exit each site in a forward motion, thus ensuring safe and orderly movement of vehicles. Also of concern was how the applicant intended to deal with the release of stormwater from the land given the current absence of stormwater infrastructure on the northern side of The Parade. In accordance with Council’s wishes the applicant has secured confirmation from Norwood Payneham and St Peters that all stormwater runoff from the land will be directed to that council’s catchment infrastructure on southern side of The Parade. There will therefore be no additional stress placed on City of Burnside infrastructure and this should also resolve any existing stormwater management problems highlighted by one of the representors. The development is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site, despite various quantitative departures from the built form guidelines of the Development Plan, and Council is satisfied that the proposal constitutes a workable planning outcome for the subject land and wider locality.

20



Council received ten written submissions during the public consultation process, one of which has been determined to be invalid on account of lack of sufficient detail provided. Of the remaining nine submissions, six indicated they were in favour of the proposal and three were opposed. Primary issues raised included (but were not be limited to) vehicle parking and access, privacy, stormwater management, building set-backs and character and general amenity considerations. Council is satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development and the changes detailed through the applicant’s response, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.

6.5. Conclusion


7. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\0742\14, by Lucy Homes, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions and reserved matters:

Conditions


2 The 1.6 metre high fixed obscured glazing as shown on the plans granted development plan consent must be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

21


Reserved Matters

1 That pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the applicant shall submit detailed proposals for the following reserved matters requiring further assessment by the City of Burnside, prior to Development Approval of the application: 1.1 The developer shall cause the portion of land delineated in blue on the site plan

labelled “Sheet No. A108” dated 19 May 2014 to vest in Council as road reserve for nil consideration. Until such time as Council receives satisfactory evidence that the vesting of land has been irrevocably committed, Development Approval shall not be given.

All associated costs associated with the widening of the lane, driveway cross-

over/apron and pole relocation, changes to CT etc. is to be borne by the developer. Reserved Conditions

1 Pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993 the DAP reserves its decision on the form and substance of any further conditions of Development Plan Consent that it considers appropriate to impose in respect of the reserved matters, and this is delegated to the Manager of City Development & Safety.

Engineering Requirements

The existing Stobie pole located east of Amery lane belonging to SA Power Networks, need to be relocated to achieve required access driveway width at Amery Lane and The Parade intersection;

Excess stormwater from the development is to be connected to the underground stormwater pipe located western side of The Parade per requirement of City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters; and

Existing footpath levels, grades, etc. should not be altered as a result of new development works.



22


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


* Not shown: 239 The Parade, Norwood, 1/61 Queen Street, Norwood, 16 Phillip Street, Kensington

23


APPENDIX 2


Summary of Local Business Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Local Business Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone which accommodates small-scale offices, consulting rooms and other business functions suited to small business servicing the needs of the local community.

Objective 2: Dwellings developed either independently or in association with business development.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1–8 PDC 1

Satisfied.

Development of Dwellings PDC 2

The site of each dwelling comfortably exceeds the 200 square metre guideline.

Each dwelling is accompanied with an outdoor area of more than the prescribed 35 square metre provisions. Each area of private open space is directly accessible from main living areas and provides reasonable access to sunlight.

Although Dwelling 1 features two secure off-street car parks, the limited street set-back excludes the provision of an unobstructed visitor park.

The total number of off-street parks for Dwelling 1 is consistent with PDC 2(c), and there is no reason to believe traffic would be obstructed if a visitor pulls off the road before acquiring access to the secure parking facilities.

Streetscape Character PDC 3–4

Satisfied.

The proposal replaces an existing dwelling of poor overall appearance with three new dwellings of suitable architectural merit.

The main bulk of Dwelling 1 will be set back 3.7 metres from The Parade, thereby achieving the desired 3 metre set-back and providing space for future landscaping.

Each building includes an upper level that is used solely for residential purposes.

None of the proposed dwellings will incorporate basement car parking

24


Summary of Policy Area Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Policy Area 1 Objectives:

Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of a residential character that is derived particularly from low scale, low-to-medium density dwellings, varied in style, including significant groups of relatively small nineteenth century villas and cottages on narrow streets which create attractive and intimate streetscapes.

Acknowledged variations from the predominant, desired character, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) within localities adjacent to the Historic (Conservation) Zone and other localities where nineteenth century

cottages and villas, generally sited close to the street frontage with ornate facades and verandas, and shallow, open front gardens, are a significant feature of streetscapes;

(b) on land with frontage to the western part of Oban Street, including the grounds of the large, historic two-storeyed dwelling at 230 Portrush Road and the nearby electricity sub-station;

(c) on land with frontage to Magill Road and to Portrush Road; and (d) in the interfaces with the Local Business Zone, the Local Centre Zone, the Community Zone and the

Historic (Conservation) Zone. Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1

Satisfied.

Local Compatibility PDC 1-2

Satisfied.

Site Areas and Frontages PDC 3–5

The development does not meet site area requirements for detached dwellings as expressed by the policy area guidelines. It does however exceed those of the Local Business Zone, of which the land is partially situated within.

Council notes a large number of existing allotments within the policy area and adjacent Historic Conservation Zone also do not satisfy the site area guidelines for RPA 1.

Each allotment comfortably achieves street frontage guidelines for detached dwellings.

Building Height PDC 6

The proposal involves the construction of three two storey dwellings and therefore does not accord with a single storey building height, nor does it accord with the in-roof design envisaged by PDC 6.

The height and area of each first floor component is relatively modest and viewed as compatible with surrounding single storey dwellings to the north and east. Each dwelling exhibits modest external wall heights and a low scale roof design, which, when combined serve to reduce overall height.

The northernmost dwelling will have an upper level side set-back of 5.3 metres to the northern boundary. This distance exceeds the minimum requirement for two storey developments and is likely to assist in minimising visual impacts associated with the two storey form.

Building Set-backs PDC 7

Dwelling 1 achieves the minimum 3 metre set-back to The Parade with the exception of the entry portico, which is a modest feature of limited visual bulk and presence.

A number of buildings have been observed within the localities which also do not achieve a 3 metre set-back to The Parade.

25


Private Open Space PDC 8

Each dwelling is accompanied with an external area of private open space that is largely consistent with the dimensions expressed by PDC 8.

26


Summary of Residential Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone primarily for residential use with a range of dwelling types in appropriate policy areas to accommodate varied socio-economic needs.

Objective 2: Protection and enhancement of the amenity of residential areas, with particular reference to the objectives for the relevant policy area.

Objective 3: Residential densities varied having regard to topography, the objectives for the relevant policy area, and proximity to centres and major transport routes.

Objective 4: Provision of residential and community facilities and services for the aged community.

Objective 5: Enhancement of the attractive qualities of streetscapes and particularly areas of cohesive character or visual sensitivity, through good design.

Objective 6: A zone accommodating non-residential activities which are small in scale, benign in external impact, and serve the needs of the local community.

Objective 7: Reduction of the impact of established non-residential uses on the amenity of residential areas.

Objective 8: Use of design, management and other techniques to improve all aspects of the environmental performance of development.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 Satisfied.

27



Primary Residential Development Objectives:

Objective 11: Development of a high design standard and appearance that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

Objective 52: A compact metropolitan area.

Objective 53: A variety and choice of dwelling types to meet the needs and preferences of all sections of the community.

Objective 54: Containment of housing costs through the encouragement of a full range of design and development techniques.

Objective 55: Safe, pleasant, accessible and convenient residential areas.

Objective 56: Residential development which moderates adverse climatic conditions, takes advantage of solar energy, does not unreasonably overshadow adjacent development, and protects the natural environment.

Objective 57: Medium and high density residential development in areas close to activity centres, public and community transport and public open spaces.

Objective 58: The revitalisation of residential areas to support the viability of community services and infrastructure.

Objective 59: Affordable housing, student housing and housing for aged persons provided in appropriate locations.

Objective 60: Increased affordable housing opportunities through land division and the conversion of buildings to a residential use.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 52–60

Satisfied.

Design and Appearance O 11 PDC 14–18, 23-28

Satisfied.

Building Set-backs PDC 161–163

Front Set-backs Not achieved. Side Set-backs Not achieved. Rear Set-backs Not achieved.

Building Height PDC 164

Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165

The building footprint and total floor area of each dwelling exceeds site coverage guidelines for residential development, in some cases by a substantial degree.

Excesses in site coverage can have implications for the overall visual mass of a building, as well as functional consequences such as mismanagement of stormwater runoff.

28


Private Open Space PDC 166, 169 Satisfied.

Amenity O11, 20–22 PDC 14–18, 52-69, 170-173

Satisfied.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176 With the exception of the south-facing windows of Dwelling 1 and the

void areas for Dwelling 2 and 3, all upper level windows will be fitted with fixed and obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level.

The proposed 1.6 metre high privacy treatments are consistent with Development Plan guidelines and considered sufficient to restrict unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Access and On-Site Car Parking PDC 177–182

Satisfied.

Access to Sunlight PDC 21, 183–186 Satisfied.


Safety and Security PDC 195–198 Satisfied.

Water Conservation PDC 200–201 Satisfied.

Energy Conservation PDC 31-32 Satisfied.

29


APPENDIX 3

DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE

Site Characteristics Dwelling 1 Dwelling 2 Dwelling 3 Guideline

Site Area 251m2 257m2 290m2 200m2 (LBU) 350m2 (RPA1)

Street Frontage 11m 20.4m 20.4m n/a (LBU) 9m (RPA1)

Design Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Coverage - Buildings only 58% 65.3%

57.9%

40%

- Total floor area 101.67% 97.5% 85.8% 50% Building Height

- storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys 2 storey Set-backs

Lower Level - front boundary 1.6m 0m 1.2m 3m - side boundary 0m (e)

0m (w) 3.7m (n) 0m (s)

3.7m (n) 0m (s)

2m

- rear boundary 4.6m 0m 0m 4m Upper Level - front boundary 5.2m 1.9m 1.9m 3m - side boundary 2.5m (w)

1.5m (e) 5.2m (n) 4.3m (s)

5.3m (n) 4.3m (s)

4m

- rear boundary 4.1m 1m 1m 8m Boundary Wall

- length 12m 16.6m 16.6m 8m - height 3m 3.4m 3.4m 3m

Private Open Space - percentage 60.5m2 53.3m2 54.7m2 35m2 (LBU)

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 2 4 4 2 - width of driveway 4.2m 6.5m 6.5m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 43.6% 22.5% 22.5% 33%

30




Applicant: M Cutone and P L Cutone

Location: 2 Gordon Terrace, Rosslyn Park

Proposal: Single storey dwelling including swimming pool, outbuilding, earthworks and retaining walls.

Zone/Policy Area: Residential Zone

Residential Policy Area 8 - Rosslyn Park


Kind of Assessment: Merit


One (1) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant and third party appeal rights

Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer / Tree Management Officer / Arborist Consultant

Delegations Policy: Unresolved representations


Recommending Officer: Theresa James

REPORT CONTENTS




31



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Construction of a single storey detached dwelling with cellar; New swimming pool and associated outbuilding in rear yard; Retaining walls and fencing to north and south side boundaries; and Incidental cut and fill.

2. BACKGROUND

The subject development application was lodged with Council on 29 September 2014. On 02 October 2014 Council requested additional information from the applicant (including fees to allow for a thorough assessment to be made. The applicant requested an assessment against the “Residential Code”, however Council advised the applicant that the proposal failed to meet all relevant criteria expressed within Schedule 4, the Development Regulations 2008, and as such could not be assessed as such. On 23 October 2014 the applicant supplied Council with the previously requested additional information. At this time the applicant was forwarded a copy of a report from Council’s independently commissioned Arborist, outlining additional concerns with the application and its impact on a tree (Atlas Cedar - Cedrus atlantica) that is subject to protection through a Court Order. In December 2014 the applicant supplied amended drawings. These drawings did not address the concerns previously raised regarding impacts to the Atlas cedar tree on the land. Furthermore, public notification fees were still outstanding. Throughout January, February and March 2015 Council liaised with the applicant, attempting to clarify the issues contained within the independent Arborist report (namely that no changes had been made, and as such Council remained concerned with the impacts to the tree). In March 2015 the Application was placed on Category 3 public notification pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) The Development Act, 1993, due to the extent of fill forming part of the application, together with resultant retaining walls. During the public notification period one (1) written representation was received in relation to the proposal. This representation is in favour of the proposal but has some concerns regarding the moisture on the Representors garage boundary wall, clarity on works required for the retaining wall and swimming pool, and restriction of natural light. During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Senior Engineer and Tree Management Officer to assess the suitability of access arrangements on the Council verge and existing street trees. The applicant was advised that Council did not support the removal of a mature street tree required to facilitate the proposed new access point. More recently, the applicant engaged an Arborist to provide recommendations regarding the proposed development. This resulted in amended drawings being provided, which increased the set-back of the proposed dwelling from the western front boundary and the Atlas Cedar tree, and decreased the level of fill and need for retaining walls due to its deeper set-back. In addition, the existing vehicle access point will be used, removing the need to remove a mature Council street-tree.

32


Pursuant to Council’s Delegation policy, the application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as a Category 3 development with an unresolved representation who has indicated they wish to be heard by the Panel.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises a large, rectangular shaped allotment located on the eastern side of Gordon Terrace. The allotment has an area of 1151.53m² and a single frontage to Gordon Terrace measuring 18.89m. The subject land is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 8 – Rosslyn Park. The subject land, including the locality, is located within a Residential Code Area and contains a wide variety of dwelling styles. The land rises towards the eastern rear boundary, which is consistent with the topography of adjoining land with frontage to the eastern side of Gordon Terrace. Currently the land is vacant, with a large Atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica) tree located in the front yard, towards the north-western corner.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Gordon Terrace, where it meets The Parade to the north, and Park Avenue to the south. The immediate locality comprises of residential land uses. Dwellings within this locality are generally single storey in form and of a low density. Gordon Terrace comprises a wide road, and the large grassed Council verges contribute to the open nature of the locality. Allotments are modestly vegetated, however large tree canopies in the background contribute to the attractive streetscape.


Kind: Merit Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 35(5) Applicant Appeal Opportunity: Yes


Category: Category 3 Reason: Section 38 (2)(c) the Development Act, 1993 Cut / Fill: The initial design lodged with Council included a high degree of

fill beneath the dwelling footprint, which also resulted in high retaining walls. As such, the application required Category 3 public notification.

Representations Received: Con and Eleni Tsiaros – 4 Gordon Terrace, Rosslyn Park (wish to be heard)

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: Yes



33


6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The development involves the construction of a single dwelling on an existing

residential allotment within the Residential Zone; The nature of the proposed built form (detached dwelling) is consistent with the low

density residential character envisaged for the Policy Area; The existing allotment is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate a

detached dwelling in general accordance with the Policy Area and Council Wide guidelines;

The proposed dwelling replaces a dwelling that historically occupied the site, and as such will not alter land use density;

The proposed development is not identified as a non-complying kind of development in the Burnside (City) Development Plan; and

If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected.

The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.


The proposed development involves the construction of a single storey detached dwelling on an allotment that historically contained a detached dwelling built in the late 1950’s. Council is satisfied that the dwelling has been designed to contribute to and be consistent with the primary objective for the Policy Area. The proposed dwelling is substantially set-back from the front western boundary, illustrating a 16.1m set-back measurement to the front porch and a 17.3m set-back to the façade of the garage associated with the dwelling. Together with the presence of an existing large Atlas cedar tree located in the front yard, the proposed set-back will result in an inconspicuous dwelling on the site. Furthermore, the forward location of buildings located on adjoining land will further limit the presence of the dwelling on the subject land, as viewed from Gordon Terrace. The overall height of the proposed building is consistent with development within the locality. Use of rendered square edges to the building façade, tiled roofing material and high level of fenestration and articulation to the front elevation of the dwelling will result in a high quality and well-articulated building on the site. The proposed contemporary style of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be in conflict with the varied styles of dwellings throughout the locality, and will enhance the appearance of the land. In addition to the above, the dwelling has been designed to protect the existing Atlas cedar tree on the land. The proposal’s ability to retain and protect this visibly prominent and notable tree is considered a positive aspect of this development as a whole.

34



The proposal was determined to be a Category 3 type of development pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) The Development Act 1993, as the proposal involved fill that was not considered to be ‘minor’. During the notification period Council received one (1) written submission from owners/occupiers of adjoining land. The primary issues raised during public notification are as follows: Concerns regarding the impact to an existing garage wall located on the common

boundary; Clarity regarding retaining walls and swimming pool; and Concerns regarding the restriction of natural light to north facing windows on the

adjoining property. On behalf of the applicant, a response to the representation was prepared by Town

Planning Advisors who addressed the comments made by the Representor. The response states that the development will be constructed in accordance with building specifications and engineering plans, such that no damage will occur to the existing garage forming part of the common boundary. Due to the east-west orientation of allotments with frontage to Gordon Terrace some level of overshadowing to north facing windows is expected. The response by the applicant notes that the single storey nature of the proposal, together with the roof form and pitch will minimise the loss of winter sunlight to the adjoining dwelling. No shadow diagrams were supplied by the applicant, and as such the level of overshadowing to the adjoining land is speculative. Notwithstanding this, the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling, except for the garage building on the common boundary, illustrates a 1.5m and 5.8m set-back to the southern side boundary. These set-backs, together with the low pitched roof and minimal level of fill beneath this portion of the dwelling, are considered reasonable design aspects to limit significant overshadowing. It is worth noting that due to the location of the locality within the Residential Code Area, a two-storey dwelling with a set-back of only 1.9m to the southern side boundary, could be expected at this location.


Council’s Senior Engineer has reviewed the application, and its amended form, and is satisfied with the drainage plan previously supplied. Due to the retention of the existing crossover and driveway, the development does not require the removal of a mature street tree. As such, Council’s Tree Management Officer is satisfied with the proposed access arrangements.

7.5. Conclusion


35


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\1024\14, by M Cutone and P L Cutone is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 The tree Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) located in the front yard of the subject land shall have a Tree Protection Zone of 10.2m as a radius from the centre of the trunk.

A temporary fence of 1.8m shall be erected around the Tree Protection Zone, within the boundaries of the subject land, prior to any work commencing on the site and shall be maintained in place until all work has been finalised. This fencing shall be constructed using the typical portable concrete block and mesh fencing around the site and label the fence "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out".

All construction vehicles and workers shall be kept off the root zone as designated for the Tree Protection Zone.

No equipment/debris/building rubble or material shall be discarded/stored within the Tree Protection Zone for the full period of construction work.

The entire Tree Protection Zone shall be laid with a 100mm deep layer of well-composted mulch that must be maintained throughout the construction period.

Note: All contractors working on the site should be made specifically aware of the above conditions. Reason: To ensure the health of the subject tree is not unreasonably impacted by the proposed development.

3 The proposed driveway delineated on the stamped and approved plans shall be constructed with permeable paving. Reason: To ensure the proposed development minimises stormwater run-off in accordance with sound environmental principles.

4 The existing Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) tree located on the subject land (as referred to in report prepared by Lee Anderson) and indicated as being retained on the stamped and approved plans shall be retained and maintained in good condition at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. The development shall occur in accordance with the recommendations contained with the report by TreeTechniques - Lee Anderson.

36


Reason: To ensure the health of the subject tree is not unreasonably impacted by the proposed development.


Theresa James Development Officer – Planning

37


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


38


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) primarily low density, single-storeyed, detached dwellings in a variety of architectural styles (mainly from the

post-war period, but with some from the inter-war period in the west); and (b) open front gardens, moderate to deep building set-backs, mature vegetation (particularly significant

eucalypts in the south west and along Edgcumbe Terrace) and extensive grassed verges.

Principle of Development Control 1: Development should: (a) conserve and enhance the character of the Policy Area, described in Objective 1, and significant trees

therein; and (b) complement the scale, bulk, siting and positive elements of existing dwellings where a distinctive and attractive streetscape character exists. Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 Satisfied.

The proposed development will maintain the residential use of the land, which is consistent with its past use, and the desired use for the locality.

Local Compatibility PDC 1 Satisfied.

The proposed dwelling maintains the single storey built form that common throughout the immediate locality. It includes a high level of full-pane windows to the front elevation, a modest roof pitch and recessed detailing to the façade resulting in a high quality product.


Satisfied.

39







Objective 4: Provision of residential and community facilities and services for the aged community.


Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4

Satisfied. Council is satisfied that the development has been designed to be consisted with, and contribute to, achievement of the primary objectives for residential development within the Zone. This application includes a very deep set-back to the front boundary to ensure protection of a Court Ordered protected tree. As such, the proposed building is sited behind the building lines of those buildings located on adjoining land, facing Gordon Terrace, resulting in minimal intrusion into the existing streetscape character.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6 Satisfied.

Originally the application included over 1.3m of fill beneath the dwelling footprint at its highest location. The amended design, whereby the building has been shifted substantially east to reduce building work within the Tree Protection Zone associated with the Cedar in the front yard, has resulted in a reduced amount of fill and resultant retaining walls.

The majority of the proposed development is on excavated land, particularly towards the rear of the site, rather than filled land. This is the preferred option as impacts to adjoining residents is reduced. It is common throughout this locality that fill is located beneath the western portion of land associated with those dwellings on the eastern side of Gordon Terrace, whereby dwellings are located noticeably above road level.

40










Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:



Satisfied.

The dwelling has been designed with a high level of articulation to its façade. Due to the topography of the site, together with the finished ground levels, pedestrian steps are included towards the front entry creating a grand entrance central to the frontage. The façade includes numerous openings and varying materials to ensure an attractive presentation to the streetscape, despite its limited visibility due to its deep set-back.

Building Set-backs PDC 161–163 Front Set-backs

Satisfied.

Side Set-backs The proposed development has been designed with a 0.9m set-back to its northern side boundary and a 1.5m and 5.8m set-back to the southern side boundary. Whilst the northern side boundary set-back is numerically less than Development Plan guidelines, it should be recognised that this boundary abuts the rear boundaries associated with dwellings located on adjoining land. Furthermore, the presence of a garage built on the common boundary of the subject land and adjoining land at 518 The Parade restricts the noticeability of spacing between the proposed dwelling and allotments to the north. The garage associated with the proposed dwelling is located on the boundary such that it abuts a portion of the garage associated with the dwelling on the adjoining land to the south. Whilst a portion of the proposed garage will extend beyond the eastern portion of the garage associated with 4 Gordon Terrace to the south, it comprises a relative

41


short span and as such is not expected to result in significant impacts to adjoining residents, particularly as the portion of the dwelling immediately east of the garage includes an increased set-back of 5.8m.

Rear Set-backs Satisfied.

Building Height PDC 164 Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165 Whilst the development exceeds site coverage guidelines expressed

within the Development Plan, the excess is trifling and does not manifest itself in any other shortfalls, in terms of landscaping opportunities, availability of private open space or bulk and scale.

Private Open Space PDC 166, 169 Satisfied.

Amenity O11, 20–22 PDC 14–18, 52-69, 170-173

Satisfied.

Given the low overall building height displayed by the development it is unlikely to result in any significant amenity impacts to adjoining residents. Whilst the development includes fill beneath the dwelling footprint, it is relatively minor beneath the rear portion of the dwelling, and in any event new 1.8m high fencing atop respective retaining walls will ensure privacy of adjoining residents is maintained.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176 Satisfied.


Satisfied.


Domestic Outbuildings PDC 187–189 Satisfied.

The development includes a modest sized outbuilding located in the rear south-east corner of the land accommodating pool pump equipment and a small bathroom.


The development includes retaining walls and new fencing on both the north and south side boundaries. Fort the most part, the height of the combined structure above natural ground level is comparable to boundary fencing found within the locality. A small portion of the structure includes both retaining wall and fencing above natural ground level (northern elevation – ‘left elevation’), however given its adjacency to the rear boundary of the adjoining allotment, together with its relatively short span along the neighbouring allotments’ southern boundary, it is not expected to result in significant impacts.

Trees and Other Vegetation O 24-28 PDC 77-92

Satisfied.

Council referred the application to an independent Arborist, who initially raised concerns with the proximity of the dwelling, together with underground services and the excavation required for the new driveway.

These issues were forwarded to the Applicant, who then engaged the services of an Arborist. That Arborist made several recommendations, one of which included that the dwelling be set-back additionally from the western boundary. The applicant amended the design to reflect the recommendations of the Arborist.

42


The amended design was forwarded to Council’s independent Arborist who, provided conditions regarding the establishment of a Tree Protection Zone were included on the decision, supports the amended design.

Council is satisfied that the Court Ordered protected tree will be suitably protected as a result of the proposed development.

43


APPENDIX 3


Site Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Area 1151.53m2 550m2

Street Frontage 18.89m 15m


Site Coverage - Buildings only 42.5% 40% - Buildings and driveways 51% 50%

Building Height - storeys 1 storey 2 storeys - metres 7.8m 9m

Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 16.1m 6m - side boundary 0.9m (north)

1.5m and 5.8m (south) 1.5m/2m

- rear boundary 7m 4m Boundary Wall (outbuilding)

- length 3m (east) & 6.2m (south) 8m - height 2.7m 3m

Private Open Space - percentage 53% 50% - dimensions 10m x 15m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 6 2 - width of driveway 4m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 28.5% 33%

44




Applicant: Scott Salisbury Homes

Location: 13 Seaton Avenue , Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including incidental earthworks, retaining walls and fencing.


Residential Policy Area 22



Public Notification: Category Two

One (1) representation received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights

Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer / Tree Management Officer




REPORT CONTENTS




45



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Construction of a two-storey dwelling; and Small retaining walls (up to 200mm in height) to side boundaries.

2. BACKGROUND

In April 2015 the subject development application was lodged with Council. This application was considered a merit type application pursuant to Section 35(5) the Development Act, 1993. In April 2015 Council requested additional information from the applicant, which was received in May 2015. Once this information was received, the application was placed on Category 2 public notification pursuant to Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(a). The public notification commenced on 18 May 2015, and concluded at close of business on 01 June 2015. During the public notification period all adjacent land owners/ residents were notified of the development and were provided with an opportunity to lodge a written representation to Council. The public notification generated a response from one (1) adjacent land owner/ resident, who has indicated they wish to be heard by the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel). As such the application is now presented to the Panel for a decision. Council planning staff also liaised with the applicant seeking a reduction in the amount of fill beneath the front half of the dwelling and consequential retaining walls heights. This resulted in amendments to the final finished floor level of the dwelling, with maximum retaining wall heights of 200mm above natural ground level.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises a moderately sized, rectangular shaped allotment, located on the northern side of Seaforth Avenue, Hazelwood Park. The land is located within Residential Zone, Policy Area 22 – Beaumont Common. The land has an overall area of 727.53m² and a frontage to Seaforth Avenue measuring 16.46m. Existing on the site is a single storey Conventional style dwelling built in the 1950s, with vehicular access located on the eastern side frontage to Seaforth Avenue. The land is generally flat, with a slight rise to the rear of less than 1m from the front of the land. Currently a low, stone fence exists on the front boundary of the land, with an opening to allow for vehicle entry on the eastern side.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Seaton Avenue where it meets Lerwick Avenue to the east and Kintore Avenue to the west. Dwelling styles vary within this locality, with its character comprising an assortment of architectural styles that are set-back moderately from front property boundaries.

46


There is no consistent pattern of subdivision, with some triangular shaped allotments skewing the average frontages displayed by land within the immediate locality. Whilst dwellings are generally single storey in building height, there is an example of a two-storey dwelling within this immediate locality, with a greater level interspersed throughout the wider locality. The narrow road and grassed road reserves with mature street tree plantings contribute to the intimate character of the locality, providing a consistent theme within the streetscape.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(a) Cut / Fill: Although a degree of fill is to be introduced to the site… Representations Received: Karen Hockley – Unit 3/11 Seaton Avenue (wish to be heard) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No



6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for residential development in the Residential Zone; The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the relevant policy

area provisions of the Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no

unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.


The policy area envisages a low scale, low density residential character derived from both one and two-storeyed buildings. The proposed building envelope displays the overall form and appearance envisaged by the Development Plan. Whilst the proposed dwelling is located slightly forward of dwellings located on adjoining land either side, the development satisfies the relevant front set-back guidelines expressed within the Development Plan and as such is acceptable. Furthermore, the front portion of the dwelling, comprising only

47


the single storey portion of the building, has a low overall height of 6.2m with the two-storey portion set-back 14.5m from the front boundary of the land. The proposed dwelling includes set-backs to all boundaries of the site, including the side boundaries, such that separation exists between the dwelling and adjoining buildings. As the adjoining land to the west includes three group dwellings with driveway access along its’ eastern side boundary, separation between the subject dwelling and those dwellings at 11 Seaforth Avenue is greater than what could be expected. The proposed dwelling façade includes a range of materials, including stone vaneer to its façade, a timber front entrance door and garage door, as well as large full length windows facing the street. Together with the tiled roofing, the development is proposed to have varying and soft materials enhancing its appearance within the streetscape.


During the public notification period the application generated a response from one neighbour related to unit 3 on the adjoining land to the west at 11 Seaforth Avenue. This Representor is opposed to the development and raised the following concerns:

Bulk and scale is excessive; Access to sunlight; Side boundary set-back shortfall; Location of water heater; Future fencing material; The development spans boundary to boundary with garage dominance; Patterns of space between buildings; and Excessive site coverage.

The applicant provided a written statement responding to the issues raised by the Representor. The response reinforced the design of the dwelling, with its minimal upper level and compatible building height to the several Tudor style dwellings located within the immediate locality. Furthermore, due to its design the dwelling appears as a single storey building when viewed from the street. The applicant also provided shadow diagrams that illustrate acceptable overshadowing from the proposed development, which accords with Development Plan guidelines.


The application was referred to Council’s Engineer and Arboriculture Officer to ensure the proposed access arrangement satisfies Council’s requirements. Comments from Council’s engineer have been included as advisory notes and a separate condition relating to the rate and release of stormwater is also included. Although the street tree located on the adjacent Council road reserve is not a regulated tree, Council’s arborist requests the new crossover to have a 3m set-back to the trunk of that tree. This information was passed on to the applicant, who amended the design such that the crossover is set-back 2.5m from the tree. This set-back distance satisfies the relevant Development Plan provisions, whereby a driveway should be set-back 1.5m to a street-tree. In any event, the applicant will be required to obtain Section 221 authorisation prior to constructing the driveway, at which time negotiations regarding the exact location of the crossover can be made.

48


7.5. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0323\15, by Scott Salisbury Homes, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 The approved works may not commence until such time as the applicant has secured written authorisation for the construction of the new driveway crossover from the Council pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999. Reason: To ensure the applicant has secured all relevant consents/authorisations required prior to the commencement of development.

3 Stormwater retention /detention volumes and rate of stormwater discharge to the street water table are to be designed to meet below criteria:

The volume of any detention device shall be equal to the volume of water generated on the site with an impervious (Cp = 0.9) site coverage of 75% and pervious (Cp = 0.1) area of 25%, during a 1 in 20 year flood event for a 10 minute duration;

The maximum rate of discharge from the site shall be equal to the rate of water generated on the site with impervious (Cp = 0.9) site coverage of 40% and pervious (Cp = 0.1) area of 25% of the site, during a 1 in 5 year event for a 10 minute storm duration.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for the connection of stormwater.

4 All side and rear upper level windows as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with fixed and obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level.

49


The fixed and obscured glazing shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

Advisory Notes


The width of the proposed driveway access within the road verge to be limited to maximum 4.5m and to be constructed per Council Standards;

Obsolete driveway crossover is to be closed and reinstated with upright kerbs to match surrounding area;

Existing footpath levels, grades should not be altered as a result of new development works;

Stormwater pipe across the road verge should be terminated at an approved galvanised steel kerb adaptor;

If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, then steel pipe housing to be used per Council standard;

Excess stormwater runoff from the roof catchment to be discharged to the street water table through a sealed system to the satisfaction of the Council;

Developer is encouraged to use permeable paving in the development to minimise stormwater runoff to the public system; and

The developer should be notified that Council 1:100yr flood map indicates that this property is under the risk of 1:100yr flood. Hence, habitable floor level should be designed providing at least 500mm freeboard.

Street-tree Clearance Requirements The street tree located on the Council road reserve adjacent the subject land is a mature and established specimen and its root zone requires protection. Based on the tree’s size and the principles of Councils Urban Tree Strategy, this means that the proposed crossover needs to be setback minimum 3m from the closest face of the trunk.



50


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


51


APPENDIX 2



Primary Residential Policy Area 22 Policies:

Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) one-storeyed, detached dwellings, predominantly from the post-war period, in a variety of styles, with more

recently built dwellings, of one or two storeys, on rising ground towards the south-eastern corner; (b) streetscapes enhanced by open, well-established, front gardens, grassed verges, and views of public open

space; (c) the existence of Beaumont Common and stands of indigenous trees throughout much of the eastern part of

the Policy Area.

Principle of Development Control 1: Development should: (a) conserve and enhance the character of the Policy Area, described in Objective 1, and significant trees

therein; and (b) complement the scale, bulk, siting and positive elements of existing dwellings where a distinctive and

attractive streetscape character exists.

Principles of Development Control 4 and 6(b): The site area per dwelling of any type, other than a detached dwelling, (averaged for group dwellings or dwellings in a residential flat building) should be not less than 425 square metres. A site for the development of a dwelling or dwellings should have a frontage to a public road of not less than15 metres for group dwellings and residential flat buildings, to allow vehicular access to dwellings towards the rear of the site.

Principle of Development Control 7: Buildings should be set-back not less than eight metres from the boundary of Beaumont Common. Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


The proposed development will maintain the existing residential use of the land.


An eclectic housing stock with varying and moderate building set-backs to road boundaries results in no cohesive built-form character within this locality.

The proposed building presents as a low-scale building to the street, characterised by its deep set-backs associated with the upper level portion of the building, and low-pitched roof.

Building Set-backs PDC 7

Satisfied.

As the subject land is not located on Beaumont Common, the Council Wide front set-back guideline of 6m is relevant, which the proposed development conforms to.

52









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 Siting

The siting of the proposed building footprint is central to the allotment, offering a reasonable set-back to the front boundary and enabling a useable portion of private open space in the rear yard.

Mass and proportion Due to the deep set-back of the upper level portion of the proposed development to the road boundary, it is not conspicuous from the public road. To further soften the appearance of the new building the front elevation of the dwelling includes a high level of fenestration and door openings. In addition, the low-pitched roof results in a low vertical profile such that the building is not dominant or out of character with its locality when viewed from the street.

Ground floor height above natural ground level The proposed ground floor height of the dwelling is similar to existing site levels such that minimal earthworks will be required. The finished floor level of the dwelling results in low retaining walls located on either side boundary.

Roof form and pitch The proposed roof form does not include a gable end to its façade as do the majority of the dwellings within this immediate locality display. However, the contemporary, low-pitched design is inoffensive and enables the dwelling to offer a low vertical profile and low-scale building envelope, as viewed from the public realm.


53


The proposed finished floor level relates well to the existing topography of the site, resulting in minimal earthworks and retaining walls.

54









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:



Satisfied.

Side Set-backs The minimum side set-back for a ground level wall envisaged by the Development Plan is 1.5m, and increases to 2m where a side wall either includes a window to habitable room or exceeds a wall height of 3m. The proposed ground level portion of the dwelling is set-back 1.5m and 1.2m to the east and west side boundaries, in lieu of 2m.

Whilst the shortfall is noted, it is not uncharacteristic of building set-backs to side boundaries already established within the locality. Further to this, despite the Development Plan contemplating walls built on side boundaries of land, this proposal includes no boundary development.

The proposed set-backs to the upper level portion of the development exceed Development Plan guidelines, offering greater separation between dwellings on adjoining land.



Site Coverage PDC 165 The proposed site coverage calculation of the development exceeds

Development Plan guidelines. However, whilst the building footprint exceeds the guidelines, it is not uncharacteristic of building footprints on land within the locality. In any event, the excess is minor and a reduction in the floor plan of the proposed dwelling would have minimal, if any, external benefit.

Private Open Space PDC 166 – 169 Satisfied.

The proposed development accords with the private open space provisions contained within the Development Plan. The area designated for private open space associated with this dwelling has optimal

55


northern sunlight access and includes a small alfresco area that can be used during the cooler seasons.

Amenity O11, 20–22 PDC 14–18, 52-69, 170-173

Satisfied.

The appearance of the proposed building is considered to be of a higher design standard and quality than the existing dwelling. It offers a contemporary design within the streetscape.


Due to the low finished ground level of the site in relation to existing site contours, together with the fixed obscure glazing and high setting window sills associated with the upper level windows, the reasonable privacy of adjoining residents will be protected.


Satisfied.

Council’s engineering team have reviewed the proposal and have advised that access at the desired location can be achieved. A condition has been included on this recommendation, should the Panel approve the development, which requires the applicant/owner to obtain the relevant approval under Section 221 of the Local Government Act, 1999 for the new access point.


The allotment is optimally orientated such that the floor plan of the dwelling has been designed with northern sunlight access to the main indoor living areas, as well as the private open space areas in the rear yard.

Due to the central location of the upper level, together with its deep set-back to side boundaries, it is not expected to result in any significant overshadowing to habitable rooms or private open space areas associated with dwellings on adjoining land.



Significant Trees PDC 83 - 92

A significant Willow Myrtle tree is located in the rear north-western corner of the allotment and is to be retained on the land. Whilst the tree qualifies as a significant tree due to its trunk circumference, it is not a particularly notable tree and offers little amenity value.

56


APPENDIX 3






Site Coverage - Buildings only 44.7% 40% - Buildings and driveways 49.5% 50% - Total floor area 55% 50%

Building Height - storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys - metres 8.4m 9m

Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 7.3m 6m - side boundary 1.5m (east)

1.2m (west) 1.5m/2m

- rear boundary 7m 4m Upper Level - front boundary 14.5m 6m - side boundary 6.2m (east)

4.9m (west) 4m

- rear boundary 16.8m 8m Boundary Wall

- length N/A 8m - height N/A 3m

Private Open Space - percentage 59% 50% - dimensions 7m x 16m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 4 2 - width of driveway 4.5m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 33% 33%

57





Location: 10 Keyes Street, Linden Park

Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including double garage, portico, rear verandah and rear balcony.


Residential Policy Area 21




Three (3) representations received



Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer

Tree Management Officer




REPORT CONTENTS




58



The applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including double garage on boundary, entry portico, rear verandah and upstairs rear balcony on an existing residential allotment at 10 Keyes Street, Linden Park. The dwelling will feature five (5) bedrooms, three (3) bathrooms, an upstairs living area and open plan living areas on the ground floor. The building will be clad in a selected render finish with stone veneer across the front façade, panel lift garage door and Colorbond roofing pitched at 25 degrees. Retaining walls are proposed on each side boundary, as well as 1.8 metre high Colorbond fencing along the side and rear boundaries. Plans provided by the applicant also indicate a swimming pool located within the rear yard to the north of the proposed dwelling; however this does not form part of the current application and has not been assessed.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0376\15 was lodged on 24 April 2015 by Medallion Homes on behalf of the registered owners of the land. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. During the notification period Council received three (3) written submission from the owners/occupiers of adjoining land to the north and south expressing an opposition to the development and a desire to address the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) in person. The applicant has responded via planning consultants, Urban and Regional Planning Solutions (URPS), with supporting planning evidence and additional detail of boundary structures, streetscape compatibility and shadow diagrams. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure, and Council’s Technical Officer Arboriculture to assess impacts on street trees as a result of the proposed driveway design. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation Policy, the application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is an existing rectangular shaped residential allotment on the eastern side of Keyes Street, within the suburb of Linden Park. The land has an approximate area of 696.7 square metres and a single frontage to the public road spanning 15.2 metres, as well as a gradual ascending slope towards the rear creating a difference in levels of approximately 2 metres. The land is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling constructed during the 1920s in the interwar style, together more recent additions to the rear and a modest degree of vegetation. Vehicle access is obtained via an existing crossover at the northwest corner of the land.

3.2. Locality

59


The locality comprises properties on both sides of Keyes Street between Torrens Street and Sturdee Street. Also included, but to lesser extent, are those properties fronting Torrens Street in the north and Sturdee Street in the south. The locality is situated wholly within the Residential Zone, specifically Residential Policy Area 21 – Linden Park (RPA 21). Detached dwellings of the interwar and post-war styles are the dominant form, however some semi-detached dwellings, two storey dwellings and more recent architectural styles can also be observed. The subject land backs directly onto a public reserve containing a basketball court and three tennis courts.

Throughout the locality buildings are generally set back from the public road between 4 metres and 12 metres, with well landscaped front yards and a mix of solid and open front fencing. Notable design elements include roof forms associated with the interwar and post-war styles, more recently built dwellings towards the southern end of the street and moderate but well established street trees.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Residential Policy Area 21 Principle of Development Control 12

(a) & (b) Representations Received: Mary, Philomena and Aidan Scrafton and Jonathan Scobie –

8 Keyes Street, Linden Park (do not wish to be heard) Richard and Judith Penalurick - 8 Keyes Street, Linden Park

(do not wish to be heard) Alan and Helen Raftery – 12 Keyes Street, Linden Park (wish

to be heard) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No



6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

The site of development is located within the Residential Zone of the City of Burnside, and has long been used for residential purposes associated with a single storey Bungalow dwelling constructed during the 1920s. The development seeks to maintain and enhance this existing and lawful use by replacing the existing building with a new contemporary two-storey dwelling of a high design

60


standard. The proposal is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance with the policies of the Burnside (City) Development Plan.


The proposed dwelling is considered to be an appropriate addition to the locality based on its general compliance with built form guidelines of the Development Plan and the incorporation of design techniques which serve to break up the building’s mass and add visual interest to the benefit of the street. Although Keyes Street is predominantly (but not exclusively) comprised of single storey dwellings there is no policy area restriction on two storey development, such as can be observed throughout parts of Eastwood, Dulwich, Beulah Park, Magill and Kensington Park. In the absence of such restrictions, the Council Wide guideline of two storeys and 9 metres applies. At 7.9 metres the proposed dwelling sits comfortably within these parameters. In terms of streetscape impacts and compatibility, the proposal contributes to the “wide variety of styles” envisaged for RPA 21 as a new contemporary home of high quality. RPA 21 is a low-to-medium density residential area with a character derived from detached dwellings, in a wide variety of styles, predominantly of the interwar period and the post-war period, with moderate building set-backs to the streets and generally open and well-established front yards. The proposed dwelling is considered appropriate within this context, given the modest proportions of the first floor component as viewed from the street, the incorporation of common yet contemporary materials, the comparable external wall heights and roof form, and high level of design and building appearance.

7.3. Site Functionality

The proposed development is considered to constitute an appropriate planning outcome for the subject land and wider locality. The building largely satisfies site coverage guidelines within the Development Plan, providing open space areas on all sides of the property with an emphasis on the rear yard. Private open space to the rear of the dwelling satisfies the minimum requirements and affords reasonable visual privacy and access to sunlight. The configuration of the floor plan provides main living areas with north-facing windows as well as a generous rear yard so as to maximise exposure to natural sunlight. The orientation and pitch of the roof form also facilitates the possibility of installing roof-mounted solar photovoltaic panels. The design is not reliant on extensive earthworks or large scale boundary retaining walls to achieve the proposed site levels, and achieves a finished floor level that strikes an acceptable balance between those of neighbouring dwellings to the north and south. The proposed development includes off-street parking facilities for as many as three (3) vehicles in accordance with the guidelines for residential development set out in Table Bur/5. Suitable access is achievable at the southwest corner of the site, albeit in a slightly modified form from that which is proposed. Conditions of consent restrict the driveway

61


design so as not to interfere with an existing street tree on the Council verge. The applicant will need to formalise this when applying for approval under Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999.


The application was processed as a Category 2 development due to the two-storey nature of the proposed dwelling and the inclusion of a garage wall constructed along the southern side boundary. During the public consultation process Council received three written submission from the owner and occupiers of adjacent properties to the north (8 Keyes Street) and south (12 Keyes Street) expressing opposition to the development primarily on the grounds of overshadowing, overlooking and streetscape character and amenity. With regard to overshadowing, diagrams provided by the applicant suggest the development will not be able to preserve sunlight access to the southern neighbour pursuant to PDC 184(a). By the neighbour’s own admission, however, this is currently also the case with the existing single storey dwelling, which is often the case with east-west orientated allotments and can partly be attributed to the reduced set-back of the neighbour’s dwelling to the common boundary. The southern neighbour has also raised concerns regarding the overshadowing of solar photovoltaic panels on the roof of their dwelling. According to shadow diagrams, the western grouping of panels will be in shade for a period of time during the morning and to a lesser extent again in the afternoon. This will diminish their output to some degree in winter, but as the summer diagrams demonstrate this will not be the case year round. It is noted that the proposed exceeds the 50% total floor area guideline prescribed by Council Wide Principle of Development Control 165. A reduction in floor area would not necessarily resolve the overshadowing issue with regard to the western grouping of solar panels, but may go some way towards reducing the overall number of panels affected. Ultimately the Development Plan talks about development minimising overshadowing of solar panels, rather than eliminating it altogether.

Due to the arrangements of allotments along Keyes Street and the path of the sun, no overshadowing will occur to the northern neighbour. With regard to overlooking, all first floor windows on the southern façade will either be fixed and obscure or have a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres. This exceeds Development Plan guidelines. All first floor windows on the northern façade will feature high sill windows at 1.7 metres with the exception of a large window at the landing of the stairs and an east-facing living room window, which will be restricted by a solid privacy screen. The rear balcony will also feature solid screening along the northern balustrade, so that views are directed solely to the Council reserve at the rear With regard to the architectural merits of the proposal, Council is satisfied that the development has been designed to be consistent with and contribute to, achievement of the primary objective for Residential Policy Area 21 (RPA 21), having due regard to siting, mass and proportion, materials, floor levels, roof form and pitch, façade articulation and built form features.

62


Council is therefore satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.


No external referrals were required under Section 37 of the Development Act 1993, however, input was sought from Council’s Senior Engineer and Technical Officer Arboriculture with regard to matters of traffic, manoeuvrability and stormwater management and street trees. Planning staff have since been advised that the driveway should be limited to a width of no more than 3.5m at the property boundary to avoid damage to an existing street tree on the Council verge. Such advice will be incorporated as a condition of approval should the Panel see fit to approve the development.

7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0376\15, by Medallion Homes, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 The driveway depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be tapered to a maximum width of 3.5m at the property boundary. Reason: To ensure minimal impacts to Council verge.

3 The approved works may not commence until such time as the applicant has secured written authorisation for the construction of the new driveway crossover from the Council pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999. Reason: To ensure the applicant has secured all relevant consents/authorisations required prior to

63


the commencement of development.

4 All privacy treatments concerning the first floor side windows and rear balcony as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.


The existing driveway crossover is to be reinstated with upright kerbs to match existing surrounding

Existing footpath levels, grades should not be altered as a result of new development works

Stormwater pipe across the road verge should be terminated at an approved galvanised steel kerb adaptor.

If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, then steel pipe housing to be used per Council standard

Excess stormwater runoff from the roof catchment to be discharged to the street water table through a sealed system to the satisfaction of the Council.

Developer is encouraged to use permeable paving in the development to minimise stormwater runoff to the public system.



64


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


65


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale and low-to-medium density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) residential development, including detached dwellings, in a wide variety of styles, predominantly of the interwar period, near Greenhill Road, and the post-war period; (b) limited opportunity for a greater range and increased density of residential development, notwithstanding the proximity of the Policy Area to the District Centre Zone and to public transport services; (c) moderate building set-backs to streets; and

(d) generally open, well-established, front gardens, and grassed verges. Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) on land with frontage to Portrush Road and to Greenhill Road, including the two unbuilt-on and partly landscaped allotments of Council-owned on the corner of those roads; and

(b) in the interface with the Local Centre Zone.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


The proposal involves the construction of a single dwelling on an existing allotment, which is consistent with the existing and desired low-to-medium density land use.

Although not of the interwar or post-war styles, the contemporary design contributes to the “wide variety of styles” present within the policy area.

The dwelling is sited in a manner that conforms to the moderate building set-backs of the policy area (6.6 metres) and facilitates an open and well-landscaped front garden.


The proposed dwelling will be one of the only two storey buildings within the locality, but exhibits appropriate proportions through height and boundary set-backs so as not to dominate its surroundings.

The proposed siting places the greatest mass towards the centre of the allotment to provide visual balance from a streetscape perspective, while the bulk of the façade is adequately broken up by generous fenestration and articulation.

The 6.6 metre minimum front set-back is an acceptable medium between the neighbouring dwellings to the north and south, while the garage, which represents a substantial portion of the building’s mass, sits further back at 8 metres.

The use of a modestly pitched hip roof form with overhanging eaves takes cues from the dominant roof form of the locality.


Satisfied.

66









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4 Satisfied.

The proposed building envelope permits the establishment and long-term health, growth and stability of substantial landscaping on all sides to soften the visual impact of hard surfaces and enhance local amenity.

The proposed building materials are typical of contemporary residential development and are not considered highly reflective or otherwise likely to cause unreasonable nuisance to residents in the locality.

The development is generally sited to maintain the rhythm of the street by achieving the medium of neighbouring dwellings.

The greater proportion of floor space is confined to the ground floor of the building, thereby reinforcing the single storey character of the streetscape.

The proposed ground floor level continues the stepping of sites downward from the south to the north.

The front façade is adequately broken up using a combination of varying set-backs, an open-sided entry portico, a range of building materials and finishes to differentiate the ground floor from the second floor and generous fenestration proportions.

The front entrance is centrally located and clearly apparent from the street.


The land ascends to the rear creating a rise of approximately 2 metres over the 45.7 metre depth.

67


The finished floor level of 101.4 strikes an appropriate balance between both the slope of the land and the siting of neighbouring dwellings either side.

Proposed retaining walls along the north and south side boundaries are of an acceptable scale, considering the topography of the site and locality.









Objective 57: Medium and high density residential development in areas close to activity centres, public and community transport and public open spaces.

Objective 58: The revitalisation of residential areas to support the viability of community services and infrastructure.

Objective 59: Affordable housing, student housing and housing for aged persons provided in appropriate locations.

Objective 60: Increased affordable housing opportunities through land division and the conversion of buildings to a residential use.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:



Satisfied.


Satisfied.

Side Set-backs The ground floor will be set at varying distances between 1.4 metres

and 5.6 metres from the northern boundary, with the majority set back at the latter distance.

The ground floor will also be set back at varying distances between 1.2 metres and 3 metres adjacent the southern side boundary, the

68


former of which does not accord with PDC 162. The portion of the building that fails to accord with PDC 162 is only

2.7 metres in length, does not contain a window to a habitable room and will not be visible from the street.

Several other dwellings within the locality, including the existing dwelling on the subject land and the neighbouring dwellings either side, also do not achieve minimum side set-backs.

The first floor will be set at varying distances between 3.8 metres and 4.7 metres from the northern boundary and between 3.6 metres and 4 metres from the southern boundary.

The proposal includes a 3.2 metre high garage boundary wall along a portion of the southern side boundary for a distance of 6.6 metres. The 200mm departure from the 3 metre height guideline is a minor and acceptable departure.



Site Coverage PDC 165 The proposal comfortably achieves two of the three site coverage

guidelines prescribed by PDC 165.

The proposal exceeds the 50% total floor area guideline by 9%. Private Open Space PDC 166, 169 Satisfied.

Amenity O11, 20–22 PDC 14–18, 52-69, 170-173

The dwelling has been designed to a high standard in respect of its overall appearance and functionality.

Although two-storey in nature, the maximum height of the proposed building will sit comfortably within the Council Wide guideline of 9m.

The upper level has been set in from each side boundary at a distance that is compatible with the guideline distance.

The appropriate use of building set-backs on all sides of the proposed building also enables an opportunity for future landscaping to soften the appearance of the building.



The development features sufficient space for the parking of as many as three (3) vehicles on the land, in excess of the minimum off-street parking guideline.

The proposed access location has been deemed suitable in this case, however Council’s Engineering Services Department has requested that the driveway width be restricted to minimise impacts to street infrastructure.

Access to Sunlight PDC 21, 183–186

Diagrams provided by the applicant suggest the extent of shadow cast over the north facing windows of the adjacent dwelling to the south will not accord with PDC 184(a) on the winter solstice, but do accord with PDC 184(b).

Failure to satisfy PDC 184(a) is common when dealing with east-west orientated allotments such as that of the subject land and its neighbours.

North-facing windows of the southern neighbour are already overshadowed by the existing single storey dwelling, which is set only 1 metre from the side boundary and features a gable end.

The proposed dwelling features north-facing living areas at ground

69


level in accordance with PDC 185. The proposed dwelling features several west-facing windows where

PDC 186 states that this should be minimised. Fences and Retaining Walls PDC 190–194 Satisfied.

Safety and Security PDC 195–198 Satisfied.


70


APPENDIX 3






Site Coverage - Buildings only 36.9% 40% - Buildings and driveways 43% 50% - Total floor area 59.2% 50%

Building Height - storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys - metres 7.9m 9m

Set-backs Lower Level - front boundary 6.6m 6m - side boundary 1.4m – 5.6m (north)

1.2m – 3m (south) 2m

- rear boundary 11.2m 4m Upper Level - front boundary 8.1m 6m - side boundary 3.8m – 4.7m (north)

3.6m – 4m (south) 4m

- rear boundary 15.1m 8m Boundary Wall

- length 6.6m 8m - height 3.2m 3m

Private Open Space - percentage 61.6% 50% - dimensions 11.2m x 15.2m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access - number of parks 3 2 - width of driveway 4.5m 4.5m - width of garage/carport door 31.5% 33%

71




Applicant: John C Bested & Associates Pty Ltd

Location: 27 Coach Road, Rosslyn Park & 29 Coach Road, Wattle Park

Proposal: Non-complying boundary re-alignment

Zone/Policy Area: Residential Zone & Hills Face Zone

Residential Policy Area 9 – Northern Foothills




Appeal Opportunity No appeal rights

Referrals – Statutory: DAC / SA Water / SA Power Networks

Referrals – Non Statutory: None


Recommendation: Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Approval be granted

Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents External agency referral reports Delegated report to proceed to non-complying assessment (06 July 2015) Photographs Council Resolutions (22 October 2013 & 09 December 2014) and Report

72



This application seeks to realign a portion of the common boundary between 27 Coach Road, Rosslyn Park and the Magill Stone Mine 29 Coach Road, Wattle Park. Portions of existing fencing currently encroach onto the Council reserve abutting the eastern side boundary of 27 Coach Road. The applicant seeks Development Approval for the realignment of the common boundary between the two properties in essence to formalise the location of the existing fencing to be recognised as the boundary of the two properties.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180/0518/15 was lodged with the Development Assessment Commission on 21 May 2015, by John Bested and Associates on behalf of the registered owners of 27 Coach Road. As the proposal affects land both in the Residential Zone and the Hills Face Zone, both relevant provisions have been considered. The application was determined to be a non-complying form of development pursuant to Hills Face Zone Principle of Development Control 27 of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, which states: “The following kinds of development are non-complying in the Hills Face Zone:

Land division” The application was processed as a Category 1 development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 1, 3(c) of the Development Regulations 2008 and therefore no public notification was undertaken. No additional external referrals were required due to the minor nature of the development, nor was a Statement of Effect required under Regulation 17(6)(c) of the Development Regulations, 2008. The Planning Team Leader decided to proceed to an assessment of the application on 06 July 2015 and the proposal is now presented to the Panel for consideration. The proposal is a non-complying development with a staff recommendation for approval, subject to the concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission (DAC).


3.1. Subject Land

27 Coach Road is a large, irregular shaped allotment with a total area of 1192 m2. The land gains access from Coach Road, with a frontage of 42.22m. The site contains a dwelling and swimming pool which is situated towards the rear of the allotment. Existing fencing encroaches over the boundary into the reserve. The Council reserve (Magill Stone Mine Reserve) is located adjacent to the subject land on the eastern boundary of 27 Coach Road and is accessed from numerous local roads including Rawson Penfield Drive and Coach Road. The subject land and the Council reserve are located in two separate Zones. 27 Coach Road sits within the Residential Zone, whilst the Magill Stone Mine Reserve sits within the Hills Face Zone.

73


3.2. Locality

The locality displays a residential foothills character. Low density detached dwellings, of one and two-storeys in a variety of architectural styles are typical of the locality. Dwellings in the locality have moderate to deep building setbacks, well vegetated gardens and a natural character. Allotment sizes in the locality are varied but generally large.


Kind: Non-complying Reason: Burnside (City) Development Plan, Hills Face Zone, Principle of

Development Control 27. The boundary realignment involves two properties that are located in two separate Zones. Consequently, the provisions of both Zones (Hills Face Zone and Residential Zone) are relevant to classify the type of development. Case law precedent recognises that if the provisions of either zone categorise the proposed development as non-complying, it must be processed as a non-complying form of development. In view of the above provision of the Burnside (City) Development Plan and case law precedent, the proposed development is identified as a non-complying kind of development for the purposes of this assessment.

Applicant Appeal Opportunity: No


Category: Category 1 Reason: Development Regulations 2008, Schedule 9, Part 1, 3 (c) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

6. AGENCY REFERRALS

External agency referrals are provided as an attachment to the Panel.


7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposed development has no impact on the established use of either the

subject land or the adjoining reserve; Although the proposal is listed as a non-complying type of development, the

proposal does not create an additional allotment within the Hills Face Zone; The proposed development will not affect existing residential density, nor does it

create a demand for the provision of additional services and infrastructure; The proposal is considered reasonable given that proposed allotment boundaries

will formalise the existing fencing location; The subject land has limited or no value in terms of potential horticultural use due to

its size and the residential nature of the locality; and

74


If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected.



The proposal involves minor boundary realignment in an area with no visibility to the public road, as such is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on the amenity of the locality.

7.3. Site Functionality

The proposed boundary re-alignment will have no tangible impact on the functionality of either property as the proposed boundaries follow the position of the established fencing.


The proposed development was classified as a Category 1 type of development and as such the development was not publically notified.


The land division was referred to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC), SA Power Networks and SA Water. The DAC indicated requirements which are imposed as conditions, should the Panel decide, subject to DAC concurrence, to grant Development Approval.

7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\0518\15, by John C Bested & Associates Pty Ltd is granted Development Approval subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Approval shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

75


LAND DIVISION CONDITIONS

1 A final plan complying with the requirements for plans as set out in the Manual of Survey Practice Volume 1 (Plan Presentation and Guidelines) issued by the Registrar General to be lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for Land Division Certificate purposes. Reason: To satisfy the requirements of the Development Assessment Commission.


James Booker Development Officer – Planning

76


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

77


APPENDIX 2


Summary of Hills Face Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Hills Face Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone in which the natural character is preserved and enhanced or in which a natural character is re-established in order to: a) provide a natural backdrop to the Adelaide Plains and a contrast to the urban area; b) preserve and develop native vegetation and fauna habitats close to metropolitan Adelaide; c) provide for passive recreation in an area of natural character close to the metropolitan area; d) provide a part of the buffer area between metropolitan districts and prevent the urban area extending

into the western slopes of the ranges; and e) ensure that the community is not required to bear the cost of providing services to land within the

zone. Objective 2: A zone accommodating low-intensity agricultural activities and public/private open space and one where structures are located and designed in such a way as to: a) preserve and enhance the natural character or assist in the re-establishment of a natural character in

the zone; b) limit the visual intrusion of development in the zone, particularly when viewed from roads within the

zone or from the Adelaide Plains; c) not create, either in themselves, or in association with other developments, a potential demand for the

provision of services at a cost to the community; and d) prevent the loss of life and property resulting from bushfires.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 Satisfied. Both properties will continue to function in accordance with

their respective established land uses. Service Provision PDC 11 Satisfied. The proposal does not create an additional allotment within

the Hills Face Zone, nor does it create a demand for the provision of additional services and infrastructure.

78



Primary Land Division Objectives:

Objective 10:

Land in appropriate locations divided into allotments in an orderly and economic manner.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 8–9, 50–54 PDC 1, 3

Satisfied.

Allotment Configuration PDC 8 Satisfied as this proposal formalises the existing arrangement of the

boundaries on site Bushfire Protection Area PDC 13 Satisfied.

79




Applicant: Rinaldi & Co

Location: 5 Anglesey Avenue, St Georges

Proposal: A two storey residential flat building comprising two dwellings including garages, alfresco, porch, balcony and earthworks (fill) and retaining walls


Residential Policy Area 25 – St Georges



Public Notification: Category Three

Three (3) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant and third party appeal rights

Referrals – Non Statutory: Senior Engineer / Tree Management Officer



Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Amended plans and supporting documents June 2015 DAP minutes, report and attachments

80



The applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of a two storey building comprising two dwellings joined with party walls.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\1075\14 was presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) on 02 June 2015 with a staff recommendation to refuse Development Plan Consent. The application was presented to the Panel as some of the representations received indicated they wish to be heard. At that meeting the Panel heard from a number of the Representors, as well as representatives on behalf of the Applicant. The Panel resolved to defer the matter to allow the applicant the opportunity to consider the recommendation for refusal and the reasons for that recommendation. The reasons for the refusal recommendation are listed below:

1. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 11 in that the development is not of an appearance that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

2. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 14 in that the boundary walls do not minimise the visual impact of the building as viewed from adjoining properties.

3. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 15 in that the development does not reflect the desired character of the locality and incorporate a design that has regard to building height, mass and proposition, or verandahs, eaves and parapets as reflected in the existing built-form character.

4. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 20 in that the appearance of the building will impact the amenity of the locality.

5. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 56 in that the design of the building is not related to adjacent buildings and other features which contribute to streetscape quality.

6. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 57 in that the development does not maintain the harmony of built-form character, which should:

a) seek to maintain the continuity of vistas and existing building set-backs; b) not be set-back a lesser distance than the nearby buildings with frontage to the same road

unless such distance is consistent with the minimum set-back prescribed in the relevant zone and policy area; and

c) be set-back a greater distance if the proposed building is of greater bulk or height than other buildings fronting the same road, unless the taller or bulkier portion of a building is positioned towards the rear of its site, or the building is effectively screened, so that it will not dominate views from the road.

7. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 161 in that the building is not set-back from the boundary of the road to contribute positively to an attractive existing streetscape character or desired streetscape character, and in any event is not set-back a minimum of 6m from the front boundary of the land.

81


8. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 162 in that the outer walls of a building should be of a height and length, and located in relation to the boundaries of its site so that:

a) they do not cause a significant loss of amenity, in terms of their visual impact, overshadowing effect or access to daylight, to occupants of adjoining land and buildings; and

b) the established or desired pattern of space between buildings, as viewed from each road to which the site has frontage, is reinforced.

9. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 165 in that the building exceeds site coverage guidelines.

10. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 189 in that the individual or aggregate width of the garage/carport doors exceeds one third of the width of the site.

11. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 5 in that the finished levels of the development has not been designed to minimise the extent of fill or minimise the need for, and height of, retaining walls.

12. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Policy Area 25 Objective 1 in that the development does not maintain the residential character that is derived from primarily one-storeyed, or split-level, low scale detached dwellings.

The applicant has now responded to the reasons for deferral and the application returns to the Panel for further consideration.

2.1. Discussion

The applicant has responded to the concerns of the Panel in a number of ways which has been outlined in the cover letter supplied by Heynen Planning Consultants. This directly addresses the previous reasons for refusal in the following ways: Built Form The applicant has addressed reasons for refusal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 12 in the following ways:

Increases to the front set-back of the building; Removal of the “boundary to boundary” aspect of the proposal by moving the

garages off the side boundaries; and Reduction of the height of the parapet wall on of the proposed garages.

Setbacks The applicant has addressed reason for refusal 7 in the following ways:

Relocation of stairwell wall increasing side set-back; and Increase of rear upper level set-back.

Carport Width The applicant has addressed reason for refusal 10 in the following ways:

Treatments of the garage doors and relocating the garages off the side boundaries of the site; and

Increased front set-back of garages.

82


Earthworks The applicant has addressed reason for refusal 11 in the following ways:

Alterations to the finished floor levels has resulted in reduced retaining walls heights and a reduction of earthworks required.

The proposed amendments sufficiently address the issues of bulk and scale which were raised by the Panel. The increased front set-back, relocation of the garage walls off the side boundaries and the reduction of parapet walls have reduced the visual impact of the dwelling when viewed from the street. This is clearly illustrated by the submitted streetscape elevation.

The applicant has opted not to remove any of the proposed garage doors, as such the proposal still exceeds the 1/3 garage door to frontage ratio by approximately 13%. Amendments however have been made to both the appearance of the garages and the set-back of the garages from the front of the property. The inner garages have been set-back a further 1.1m and have been treated with timber frame and opaque glazed panels while the outer garages have an increase set-back of 1.58m with horizontal groove panel lift doors. These changes to the appearance of the garages, together with the increase set-back have reduced the visual dominance of the garages. Furthermore the locality includes some prominent examples of garage dominance, most notably immediately east of the subject land.

The site works plan has been altered and there have been changes to the finished floor levels of the dwellings. As a result of the changes no retaining wall will be required on the eastern boundary. The reduction of the earthworks further reduces the impact to the adjoining properties.

On balance, the amendments which have been made to the proposal are significant enough to warrant support of the application as a whole.


During the public notification period the application generated a response from three adjoining residents. The following concerns were raised during the public notification period:

Overlooking from the upper level windows that can be opened, despite being frosted;

Overshadowing of habitable rooms; Overshadowing of solar panels; Adverse streetscape impact; and Overall building height in comparison to locality.

The recently submitted amendments make improvement on all concerns which were brought up by representors and the Council alike.

2.3. Conclusion


83


3. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. that Development Application 180\1075\14, by Rinaldi & Co is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 All side and rear upper level windows as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level. If the windows are not fixed, they shall be on restricted winders limiting openings to a maximum of 200mm when measured from the window sill. The obscured glazing shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

3 The approved works may not commence until such time as the applicant has secured written authorisation for the construction of the new driveway crossover from the Council pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999. Reason: To ensure the applicant has secured all relevant consents/authorisations required prior to the commencement of development.


The width of the proposed driveway accesses within the road verge to be limited to maximum 4.5m and to be constructed per Council Standards.

Existing footpath levels, grades etc should not be altered as a result of new development works

Stormwater pipe across the road verge should terminate at an approved galvanised steel kerb adaptor.

84


If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, then steel pipe housing to be used per Council standard

Excess surface stormwater runoff within the development is to be managed within the development.

Since the proposed development add significant impervious area, Stormwater detention to be provided per Council detention guidelines. Proposed stormwater management planning meeting this detention requirement is to be provided for Council approval prior to construction.

Our Council default detention guidelines are:

The volume of any detention device shall be equal to the volume of water generated on the site with an impervious (Cp = 0.9) site coverage of 75% and pervious (Cp = 0.1) area of 25%, during a 1 in 20 year flood event for a 10 minute duration.

The maximum rate of discharge from the site shall be equal to the rate of water generated on the site with impervious (Cp = 0.9) site coverage of 40% and pervious (Cp = 0.1) area of 25% of the site, during a 1 in 5 year event for a 10 minute storm duration.

Developer is encouraged to use permeable paving in the development to minimise stormwater runoff to the public system.


James Booker Development Officer – Planning

85


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


86




Applicant: Technical Officer Arboriculture - City Of Burnside

Location: 9 Swaine Avenue Rose Park

Proposal: Regulated Council verge tree removal (Willow Myrtle) adjacent 9 Swaine Avenue Rose Park including retrospective pruning

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Historic Conservation Policy Area 1 – Rose Park



Public Notification: Category Two

Nil (0) representations received


Delegations Policy: Development Delegations Policy

(removal of Council owned regulated tree)

Recommendation: Development Approval be granted


REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Photographs

87



The Applicant seeks Development Approval for the following: Section 54A tree pruning (retrospective) and removal of a regulated tree (street tree).

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180/0605/15 was lodged with Council on 30 June 2015 by the City of Burnside – Technical Officer Arboriculture seeking the removal of a regulated Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) street tree. The application was furnished with a report prepared by the Applicant with information relating to the condition of the subject tree. The proposal was classified as a Category 2 type of development in accordance with Clause 25, Part 2, Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008. The application was placed on Category 2 public notification for a period of two weeks from 03 July 2015 to 17 July 2015. No representation from adjoining land owners/residents was received. As Council’s development delegations policy requires the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) to determine applications that involve the removal of a regulated or significant tree that is on Council land, the application is presented the Panel for a decision.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject tree is located on a Council road reserve, which spans along the northern side of Swaine Avenue, where it meets Gurney Road to the east and Fullarton Road to the west. This portion of the Council road reserve comprises a thinly paved pedestrian walkway, together with a narrow strip of vegetation.

3.2. Locality

The immediate locality comprises the streetscape of Swaine Avenue, where it meets Scott Street and Nursery Lane towards the east and west on the southern side of Swaine Avenue. The immediate locality is located wholly within the Historic Conservation Zone, with all allotments comprising a residential land use. Most street trees are mature in age, with moderately sized canopies contributing to the attractive streetscape.




Category: Category 2 Reason: Clause 25, Part 2, Schedule 9 the Development Regulations

(2008) Cut / Fill: N/A Representations Received: Nil (0) Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

88



6.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for tree removal in the Historic Conservation Zone in an area which is

dominated by residential development; Regulated tree removal is not listed as non-complying development for the Historic

Conservation Zone provisions within the Development Plan; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development satisfies Council Wide

Principle of Development Control 81 then consent could reasonably be expected.


6.2. Tree Removal Assessment

The subject tree has been identified as an Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) and is located on Council road reserve on the northern side of Swaine Avenue, which contains a number of other street trees and vegetation. Council’s Operation Services Department was prompted to inspect the tree when altered of its condition from a member of the public. At this time, the assessment revealed a high risk rating for stem failure and as such urgent pruning was undertaken to reduce the immediate risk under Section 54A of the Development Act 1993 to make the tree safe. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 81 outlines circumstances where removal of a regulated tree may be acceptable. Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the removal of the subject tree against these provisions and notes that the tree achieves the criteria for removal. It is also worth noting that the tree is not an indigenous species and offers limited amenity given its partial canopy. Council’s Tree Management Officer is of the opinion that the tree has a short life expectancy and the tree poses an unacceptable risk to public safety, with no additional remedial treatments/measures considered to be effective. The tree includes significant internal decay in the trunk that has significantly compromised its structural integrity. The splitting found within the trunk runs into the main union of the primary stems, further compromising the tree and contributing to its unacceptable risk. The proposed regulated tree removal satisfies Council Wide Principle of Development Control 81(a) and (b) referred to above, and as such Development Approval is warranted. Section 42(4) the Development Act (1993) requires Council to impose a replanting condition to replace regulated trees that have been approved for removal. As such a condition has been included requiring the replanting of two (2) trees. The Development Regulations (2008) specify that the replacement trees cannot be an exempt species (specified under regulation 6A(5)(b) and cannot be located within 10m of an existing dwelling or an existing in-ground swimming pool. As such, the replacement trees could be planted in a similar location to the subject tree, as well as other locations throughout the remainder of the Council road reserve. The tree replacement will occur in accordance with Council’s Tree Management Strategy.

89


6.3. Conclusion


7. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0605\15, by Technical Officer Arboriculture - City Of Burnside is granted Development Approval subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Approval shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, except where varied by conditions below. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 Two (2) replacement trees must be planted on site within three months of removal of the regulated tree, and thereafter maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. The replacement trees must not be a species listed in Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the Development Regulations 2008 and must not be planted within 10 metres of any existing dwelling or existing in-ground swimming pool (regardless of whether the dwelling or pool is within the site or on adjacent properties). If you do not wish to plant one or more replacement trees, you may instead, within 28 days from the date of Development Approval pay a contribution of $84 per tree to the Council’s Urban Trees Fund. If payment is received within 28 days from the date of Development Approval, then replacement trees need not be planted. If payment is not received within this timeframe, this will be taken as confirmation that you accept that you are legally obligated to plant and maintain replacement trees as specified above. Reason: To satisfy Section 42(4) of the Development Act 1993.



90


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

91


APPENDIX 2



Primary Council Wide Objectives:

Objective 25: The conservation of regulated trees that provide important aesthetic and/or environmental benefit.

Objective 26: Development in balance with preserving regulated trees that demonstrate one or more of the following attributes: (a) significantly contributes to the character or visual amenity of the locality; (b) indigenous to the locality; (c) a rare or endangered species; (d) an important habitat for native fauna.

Principle of Development Control 81: A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply: (a) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short; (b) the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety; (c) the tree is causing damage to a building; (d) development that is reasonable and expected would not otherwise be possible; (e) the work is required for the removal of dead wood, treatment of disease, or is in the general interests of the health of the tree. Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Regulated Trees O 25 – 26 PDC 80 - 82

The subject tree includes a diminished canopy spread, resulting in poor overall form and presentation within the streetscape. The tree does not possess any of the attributes described in Objective 26, whereby the preservation of regulated trees should be considered.

Criteria for removal PDC 81 The street tree is located within a grassed Council verge area. It has

been assessed and found to be in poor health and also displays a poor structure. Whilst the tree is not diseased, the useful life expectancy of the tree is considered to have passed and the tree poses a material risk to public safety.

92





Location: 41 Grandview Grove, Toorak Gardens

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and shed

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Historic Conservation Policy Area 7 - Toorak Gardens




Appeal Opportunity None

Referrals – Non Statutory: Local Heritage Consultant

Delegations Policy: Council Policy - Development Delegations



REPORT CONTENTS



Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making: Plans and supporting documents Internal agency referral reports Photographs

93



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following: Demolition of existing single storey dwelling, including attached carport; and Demolition of galvanised iron shed.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0611\15 was lodged with Council on 30 June 2015 by Medallion Homes. Development Approval is sought for demolition of the existing dwelling and shed on the land. A separate development application (180\0610\15) was lodged with Council on the same day for the construction of a single storey detached dwelling on the subject land. That application is currently undergoing assessment, and no decision has been issued on that application at this stage. The subject development application was determined to be a Category 1 type of development, to be assessed on merit in accordance with Section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993 (the Act). The application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) as per Council’s Delegations Policy 6.2.1.4.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises of a large rectangular shaped allotment measuring 877.8m² and has a single frontage measuring 19.2m to Grandview Grove. The land is relatively even and includes a modest amount of vegetation. A low masonry fence borders the front boundary, allowing vehicle access through an opening and crossover at the western end. A dwelling constructed in 1926 currently occupies the site, as well as an outbuilding in the rear yard. All structures are proposed to be demolished. No building on the subject land is identified as a Contributory Item within the Development Plan (Fig HCPA/5).

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Grandview Grove where it meets Cudmore Avenue to the east and Warwick Avenue to the west. Detached dwellings are the predominant building form within the locality. Single storey, Bungalow style dwellings are considered to generate the majority of the housing stock, which forms part of the historic streetscape character. Most dwellings within this identified locality are listed as Contributory Items, however, five dwellings, inclusive of the existing dwelling on the subject land, are not considered to contribute to the historic streetscape and are therefore not listed as Contributory Items. Fencing is typically of a low and open nature, providing views to the numerous buildings that contribute to the historic character throughout the street. Streetscape amenity is enhanced by open, well vegetated front gardens, grassed verges and mature street trees.

94





Category: Category 1 Reason: 2(g), Part 1, Schedule 9, the Development Regulations, 2008 Cut / Fill: N/A Representations Received: N/A Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for the demolition of a residential dwelling (non-contributory item)

and structures within the Historic Conservation Zone; The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the Zone provisions of

the Development Plan; Demolition of the dwelling does not extinguish the residential use of the land; and If it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no

unreasonable external impacts, then consent could reasonably be expected. The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

7.2. Planning Assessment

The proposed demolition of the dwelling and ancillary structure is considered acceptable for the following reasons: The removal of the buildings on-site will not adversely affect the streetscape

character described by the Policy Area as the dwelling and outbuilding are not recognised as buildings that contribute to the historic character; and

The proposed demolition is in accordance with Historic Conservation Zone Principle of Development Control 3(b) in that the introduction of a future building should only occur if it will replace a building that does not contribute to the heritage value and historic character of the zone. The demolition of buildings on the subject land will allow for this to occur.

If the Panel grants development plan consent to the application, the proposal will be subject to an assessment against the Building Code of Australia.

95


7.3. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0611\15, by Medallion Homes is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Plan Consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the stamped approved plans, drawings, specifications and other documents submitted to the Council that are relevant to the consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.


Theresa James Development Office – Planning

96


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

97


APPENDIX 2



Primary Historic Conservation Policy Area 7 (Toorak Gardens) Objectives:

Objective 1:

Development that conserves and enhances the Established Historic Character.

Objective 2: Development accommodating detached dwellings on large allotments.

Objective 3: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1 Satisfied. The demolition of the dwelling, which does not contribute to

the historic character of the zone, will make way for a new residential dwelling.

Local Compatibility PDC 1 Any new dwelling for this site will undergo an appropriate assessment

against all the relevant provisions within the Development Plan, including those within the Historic Conservation Zone, which seeks buildings that complement the character of the zone.

98


Summary of Historic Conservation Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Historic Conservation Zone Objectives:

Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 1: The conservation and enhancement of the historic character of the relevant Policy Area.

Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 2: The retention and conservation of land, buildings, outbuildings, structures, and landscape elements that contribute positively to the established historic character of a Policy Area.

Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 5: A zone where the majority of the existing housing stock is maintained through the retention of items which contribute positively to the character of the Policy Areas, and the number of dwellings is increased primarily through: (a) the replacement of dwellings that are not identified as contributory items, and (b) the appropriate development of vacant sites.

Historic (Conservation) Zone Principle of Development Control 19 states: Any new buildings on sites which presently do not contribute to the historic character of the Policy Area should be designed and constructed to complement and reinforce the historic character of the Policy Area.

Historic (Conservation) Zone Principle of Development Control 23 states: Demolition of any building contributing to the character of the zone should not occur unless: (a) The development to replace the item to be demolished is of a scale and character compatible with the scale

and character of development on the site and in the area, and designed to a high functional and architectural standard; and

(b) Replacement development has been given approval; and (c) The approval includes a legal commitment that the approved building will be constructed.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


The proposed demolition of the dwelling is considered appropriate and in accordance with Historic (Conservation) Zone – Objective 5(a) in that the dwelling is not identified as a Contributory Item.

As the buildings located on site do not contribute to the character of the zone, Historic (Conservation) Zone Principle of Development Control 23 does not apply in this instance.

99

development assessment panel meeting agenda · 2015. 7. 28. · development assessment panel...

Documents