district council of robe notice of meeting agenda … · form of assessment: merit ... (da...

DAP AGENDA 17 JANUARY 2012 DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

Reference: 3.14.1

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that the following meeting will be held in the

Council Chambers, Smillie Street, Robe on Tuesday 17 January 2012 at 4.00 pm Development Assessment Panel

Bill Hender CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

***************************************


Reference: 3.14.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. WELCOME 2. PRESENT 3. APOLOGIES 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

4.1 DAP Meeting held 13 December 2011 Recommendation: _____________ moved that the minutes of the DAP meeting held on 13 December 2011 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. Seconded ______________

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 6. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

6.1 Application No. 822/077/11 Applicant JS & JT Thomas Owner ‘as above’ Subject Land Lot 102 Evans Cave Road Zone Rural Living Proposal Tourist Accommodation 6.2 Application No. 822/D008/11 Applicant I Regnier Owner I & C Regnier Subject Land 19 Lake Road Zone Residential Proposal Land Division

6.3 Application No. 822/D004/11 Applicant A Goldsworthy Owner ‘as above’ Subject Land Section 121 & 124 Waterhouse Hundred Zone Primary Production Proposal Land Division

6.4 Application No. 822/029/10 Applicant Blackbird Industries Owner LT & JM Wilson Subject Land 18 Lakeside Terrace Zone Residential Proposal Shed


Reference: 3.14.1

6.5 Application No. 822/064/11 Applicant Concept Design Group Owner T & M Bull Subject Land 3 Grice Court Zone Residential Proposal Extension to Existing Dwelling

6.6 Application No. 822/C006/11 Applicant T & J Edwards C/- Sawley Lock Owner Abbey Road (NT) P/L & J Edwards Subject Land 2 Wrattonbully Road Zone Residential Proposal Community Division

8. INFORMATION REPORTS 9. NOTICE OF MOTION 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. CLOSURE


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.1 822/077/11 JS & JT Thomas Application No: 822/077/11 Applicant: J S & J T Thomas Subject Land: Lot 102 Evans Cave Road Ward: Rural – Evans Cave Road Policy Area – Medium

Bushfire Risk Proposal: Tourist Accommodation Zone: Rural Living – Evans Cave Road Policy Area Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: Category 2 Representations: Nil Persons to be heard: N/A Agency Consultation: N/A Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: Tourist Accommodation RECOMMENDATION: Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is recommended that the proposed development involving tourist accommodation at Lot 102 Evans Cave Road development application numbered 822/077/11 is not seriously at variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- 1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by

the conditions imposed on this consent, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the approved plans.

2. A maximum of 8 people shall be accommodated within the tourist accommodation cabins at any one time.

3. Prior to the issue of Development Approval the applicant shall enter into a Land Management Agreement with Council, to ensure the building is only used for tourist accommodation purposes prior to the issue of Development Approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and costs associated with the Land Management Agreement.

4. All site works shall be carried out to the satisfaction of Council at all times during the construction and demolition process.

5. Full details and plans of the onsite effluent disposal system for the cabins shall be provided to Council and approved prior to the issue of Development Approval.

6. Have a dedicated water supply available at all times for fire fighting which: 6.1. is sited adjacent to the building or in another convenient location on the allotment

accessible to fire fighting vehicles 6.2. comprises minimum of 10 000 litres

7. Provide rainwater tank for domestic use that shall be plumbed into the building for use for the flushing of toilets as a minimum.


Reference: 3.14.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Panels is referred to report attached below prepared by Tom Hateley of Access Planning (SA) Pty Ltd dated 04/01/2012, Council’s consultant planners for further details. Also attached for Panel’s information is correspondence received from the applicant expressing the applicants view on the consultant’s assessment.


Reference: 3.14.1 4 January 2012 Ref. 5576 DAP report (DA 822/077/11)

The Chief Executive Officer District Council of Robe PO Box 1 ROBE, SA 5276 ATTENTION: Ms. Michelle Gibbs Dear Michelle, RE: PROPOSED TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AT LOT 102 EVAN CAVE ROAD, ROBE

DA: 822/077/11 As instructed, the following is a general planning assessment of the abovementioned development application. In preparing this report I have reviewed the council file on the application and familiarised myself with the subject land and locality and relevant provisions of Council’s Development Plan. 1.0 DEVELOPMENT DETAILS Proposed Development: Tourist Accommodation Development Application Number: 822/077/11 Applicant: Joel & Jodie Thomas PO Box 533 ROBE SA 5234 Owner: As above Property Address: Lot 102 Evans Cave Road, Robe Certificate of Title: Volume 5998 Folio 439 Land Use: Residential Zone: Rural Living Zone Public Notification: Category 1- Merit Authorised Development Plan: Robe (DC), Consolidated 10 February 2011 2.0 BACKGROUND The applicant lodged and application for tourist accommodation on 22 August 2011. The original proposal consisted of one cabin comprising three bedrooms, open plan kitchen, living and dining area, bathroom and laundry. Whilst the Development Application nominated the development as being for tourist accommodation it was considered that the proposal was more appropriately classified as a dwelling. Legal advice received supported this opinion and the proposal was assessed as a second dwelling on the land which was considered to be at odds with the intent of the zone.


Reference: 3.14.1 The application was to be considered at the November DAP meeting; however the applicant withdrew the application prior to the November meeting, in order to address the concern in regards to the classification of the development. The applicant has since submitted amended plans (lodged on the 6th of December 2011) and the proposal has now been determined to be tourist accommodation and will be assessed as such. 3.0 SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY The subject land is an irregular shaped allotment with an area of approximately 1.6 hectares and is more particularly described as Allotment 102 in DP 75182, within Certificate of Title Volume 5998 Folio 439. The land has a frontage to Evans Caves Road of 134.92 metres to the north. The subject land contains a detached dwelling setback approximately 90 metres from Evans Cave Road and an associated outbuilding sited forward of the dwelling and adjacent the western property boundary. There is an easement for the purposes of underground electricity infrastructure over the land which runs parallel to the western boundary. The subject land is adjoined by rural living development to the east and west, a large tract of native vegetation within the Conservation Zone to the south and industrial development to the north. The rural living allotments in the locality primarily contain detached dwellings and associated outbuildings.

The subject land and locality is further depicted below in figures 1 and 2. 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal seeks to construct a building for the purposes of tourist accommodation on the subject land. The facility consists of a single storey building, comprising two cabins. Each cabin consists of two bedrooms, kitchen, living area and bathroom. The cabins will be separated by a common multi purposes room and an outdoor patio and barbeque area.


Reference: 3.14.1 Figure 1: Subject site and locality

Source: Nature Maps (www.naturemaps.sa.gov.au) The proposed building has an internal floor area of 121m2 and the patio and barbeque area consists of an area of 33m2, thus the building has a total site coverage of 154m2. The building has an overall height of 4.5 metres. The proposed building will be sited 25 metres from Evans Cave Road, 45 metres from the eastern property boundary and 48 metres from the existing dwelling on the allotment. The walls of the building are to be rendered grey and the roof is to be clad with grey zinc corrugated sheeting to match existing dwelling on the property. The building will be connected to mains water and a 10,000 litre rainwater tank is proposed to capture roof runoff. Each cabin is provided with 2 carparking spaces. Access to the site provided via all weather compacted rubble driveway from Evans Cave Road. 5.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Principle 22 of the Rural Living zone designates a Tourist Accommodation for a maximum of twelve persons as Category 2 development. No submissions were received during the consultation period.

Subject Land


Reference: 3.14.1 6.0 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT The subject site is located in the Rural Living Zone and Evans Cave Road Policy Area as illustrated on Map Ro/12 and Map Ro/17 respectively of Council’s Development Plan, Consolidated 10 February 2011. In assessing the development proposal, I have had regard to the relevant Rural Living Zone and Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and my assessment of them are as follows: RURAL LIVING ZONE Objective: 1 Principles: 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 Evans Cave Road Policy Area Objectives: 1, 2 & 3 Principles: 1, 2 & 3 COUNCIL WIDE Appearance of Land and Buildings Objectives: 23 Principles: 173, 174 & 178 Bushfire Protection Objectives: 29 & 30 Principles: 179, 180, 182 Tourism Development Objectives: 73 & 75 Principles: 188, 190, 193 & 195 General Principles: 1, 4, 7 & 11 Movement of People and Goods Principles: 73, 74, 77 & 78 6.1 Rural Living Zone

Objective 1: A zone for rural living purposes. Principles of Development Control 1 Development should consist primarily of detached dwellings on allotments ranging from 2.0 to 4.0 hectares in area. 2 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone. 10 Buildings and structures should be setback a minimum of 20 metres from any public road. 11 Dwellings and other buildings intended for human habitation should be:


Reference: 3.14.1 (a) equipped with an adequate and reliable on-site water supply which has a storage capacity equivalent to at least 15 000 litres per bedroom; and (b) should utilise an aerobic wastewater or similar environmentally sensitive effluent disposal system. 12 Buildings and structures should be of a high standard of design with particular emphasis on their external appearance and choice of materials, colours and siting, to ensure that they blend with the character and amenity of the locality. 13 Buildings and structures should be designed and sited in such a way and be of such a scale as to be unobtrusive, and in particular: (a) the profile of dwellings and other buildings sited on ridgelines, in areas of native vegetation should be low; (b) the mass of buildings should be minimised by variations in wall and roof lines and by floor plans which complement the contours of the land; (c) be designed and sited in sympathy with the slope of the site to reduce the extent of cut and fill; and (d) incorporate landscaping that softens the appearance of buildings, structures, and driveways and excavations associated with these works. 18 Small-scale tourist accommodation may be appropriate in the form of bed and breakfast accommodation, an eco-tourism lodge or holiday units. Any tourism accommodation should maintain the character and amenity of the locality and: (a) be developed in association with an existing dwelling; (b) retain and carefully conserve areas of native vegetation; and (c) not detract from the amenity of the locality by reason of: (i) excessive noise; (ii) excessive traffic volumes; (iii) the size, number and appearance of advertisements; and (iv) the size, number and appearance of buildings and structures. Evans Cave Road Policy Area Objective 1: Low density residential development. Objective 2: Development that is unobtrusive and compatible with the adjoining conservation areas. Objective 3: Development that promotes the natural character of the area, particularly through revegetation. Principles of Development Control 1 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone and policy area. 2 Development in the Evans Cave Road Policy Area should be undertaken in accordance with the Concept Plan, Fig RuL/3. 3 There should be no more than one dwelling per allotment. Small scale tourist accommodation is envisaged in the Rural Living zone as outlined in zone Principle 18. The proposed development generally complies with Principle 18 as the cabins will be used as holiday units, be developed in association with an existing dwelling and will not result in the clearance of native vegetation.


Reference: 3.14.1 There is concern whether the facility is ‘small-scale’ as desired by Principle 18 as the building has of a floor area of 154m2 (including the patio and barbeque area) which is considered to be akin to the size of a normal 3 bedroom dwelling. I note however zone principle 18 refers to tourist development in the nature of “an eco-tourism lodge or holiday units” and the building is consistent with the form and scale of those types of development. Notwithstanding the above, the likely impact of the development will be negligible outside of the site as the facility will only accommodate a maximum of 8 people and the proposed design and siting of the building and landscaping will assist in minimising the visual impact of the building from the adjoining land. Whilst the development is likely to give rise to additional traffic and noise impacts in the locality, it is to be noted that the resident on the land is the closest sensitive use to the development and will thus have good reason to ensure that noise impacts are kept to a minimum. Similarly, traffic movements will be low and akin to the volume of traffic associated with two similar sized dwellings on the land, or about 12 traffic movements per day for each dwelling, a volume of traffic more than able to be accommodated within the existing road network, and, given the nature of land uses in the locality, unlikely to affect the amenity of any nearby land uses. Thus the proposal will be unlikely to adversely detract from the amenity of the locality in accordance with zone Principle 18(c). Having regard to the above the proposal is considered to be appropriate for the subject land and consistent with the relevant Rural Living zone provisions. Whilst the application is assessed as tourist accommodation only the management of the property will determine if it is used as short stay tourist accommodation or a more permanent residence. The common concern with development of this nature is in the future the building could be used as dwelling. It is noted that a second dwelling on the land is inconsistent with the intent of the zone and Evan Caves Road Policy Area Principle 3. It is acknowledged that it would be difficult if not impossible to frame and enforce a condition to ensure the building is used for tourist accommodation purposes and not a second dwelling for longer term occupancy. To address the above concern the applicant has offered to enter into a Land Management Agreement (LMA) with Council to ensure the building is only used for tourist accommodation purposes. The use of the LMA is supported and should the Panel be of the mind to support the application it is recommended that an appropriate condition of consent be included that requires an LMA be approved by Council prior to the issue of Development Approval. 6.2 Council Wide Appearance of Land and Buildings Objective 23: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects. Principles of Development Control 173 Development should not detract from the scenic amenity and rural character of land within the district. 174 Development should exhibit a high standard of design with regard to external appearance, building materials, colours, siting and landscaping so as to preserve and enhance the character of the locality.


Reference: 3.14.1 178 Development should be landscaped so as to: (a) screen undesirable elements such as outdoor storage, car parks and utility infrastructure; (b) enhance privacy; (c) provide shade and soften the effect of large paved areas; (d) create a buffer between incompatible development; and (e) enhance the appearance of buildings. The visual impact of the proposed development is reduced by the proposed setbacks from the road and property boundaries and proposed on site landscaping. As a result, the proposal has been appropriately designed and sited to address the aforementioned provisions. Bushfire Protection Objective 29: Development should minimise the threat and impact of bushfires on life and property while protecting the natural and rural character. Objective 30: Buildings and the intensification of non-rural land uses directed away from areas of high bushfire risk. Principles of Development Control 179 Buildings and structures should be located away from areas that pose an unacceptable bushfire risk as a result of one or more of the following: (a) vegetation cover comprising trees and/or shrubs; (b) poor access; (c) rugged terrain; (d) inability to provide an adequate building protection zone; or (e) inability to provide an adequate supply of water for fire-fighting purposes. 180 Residential, tourist accommodation and other habitable buildings should: (a) be sited on the flatter portion of allotments and avoid steep slopes, especially upper slopes, narrow ridge crests and the tops of narrow gullies, and slopes with a northerly or westerly aspect; (b) be sited in areas with low bushfire hazard vegetation and set back at least 20 metres from existing hazardous vegetation; (c) have a dedicated water supply available at all times for fire fighting which: (i) is located adjacent to the building or in another convenient location on the allotment accessible to fire fighting vehicles, (ii) comprises a minimum of 10 000 litres in areas shown as General or Medium Bushfire Risk on Bushfire Protection Area figures; or (iii) comprises a minimum of 22 000 litres in areas shown as High Bushfire Risk on Bushfire Protection Area figures. 182 Buildings and structures should be designed and configured to reduce the impact of bushfire through using simple designs that reduce the potential for trapping burning debris against the building or structure, or between the ground and building floor level in the case of transportable buildings. The subject land is located within a General Bushfire Risk area; however, the land does not pose an unacceptable risk as the subject land is gently undulating, has good road access, and is not covered in hazardous vegetation. The proposal includes a 10,000 litre rainwater tank which addresses the requirements of Principle 180(c)(ii).


Reference: 3.14.1 With regard to the above it is considered that the building has been appropriately designed and sited to satisfy the relevant Bushfire Protection provisions. General Principles of Development Control 1 Buildings and structures should be sited to minimise any adverse effects on neighbouring development and traffic safety. 4 Development which is liable to be prejudicial to the effective development and ongoing use of other land in the locality should not be undertaken. 7 Development liable to create a nuisance to land owners within the locality due to the creation of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, lighting spill or other offensive emissions should not be undertaken. 11 Development should maintain and enhance residential amenity and should not create a nuisance by overcrowding development on a site, overshadowing, increasing traffic volumes, restricting natural light or altering adversely the character of the locality. The proposed building consists of a residential form and scale, and as discussed above the development will unlikely impact on the existing character of the locality. The proposed development is a use that will not create any nuisances outlined in Principle 7 within the locality. Movement of People and Goods Principles of Development Control 77 Development of a kind described in Table Ro/1 should provide car parking spaces on the site, or on a site nearby approved by the relevant authority, at a rate not less than that described in Table Ro/1, excluding development within the core of the Historic (Conservation) Zone located on Victoria Street, that utilises public and on-street car parking. Table Ro/1 requires tourist accommodation to provide one parking space per quest room. Each cabin consists of two bedrooms and each cabin is provided with two parking spaces. Thus the proposal meets the relevant car parking requirement. 7.0 CONCLUSION Having regard to the above assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Robe (DC) Development Plan, I consider that the proposal represents an appropriate form of development, for the following reasons:

The proposed development seeks to construct tourist accommodation on the land which is consistent with the form of tourist accommodation envisaged in the zone;

The proposal will not adversely impact on the existing low density character of development in the locality.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is recommended: That development application 822/0077/11 for the construction of a tourist accommodation cabin at lot 102 Evans Cave Road, Robe is not seriously at variance with Council’s Development Plan.


Reference: 3.14.1 That Development Plan Consent for Tourist Accommodation at lot 102 Evans Cave Road, Robe; Development Number 822/0077/11 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by the conditions imposed on this consent, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the approved plans. 2. A maximum of 8 people shall be accommodated within the tourist accommodation cabins at any one time. 3. Prior to the issue of Development Approval the applicant shall enter into a Land Management Agreement with Council, to ensure the building is only used for tourist accommodation purposes prior to the issue of Development Approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and costs associated with the Land Management Agreement. 4. All site works shall be carried out to the satisfaction of Council at all times during the construction and demolition process. 5. Full details and plans of the onsite effluent disposal system for the cabins shall be

provided to Council and approved prior to the issue of Development Approval. 6. The rainwater tank shall be plumbed into the building for use for the flushing of toilets as a minimum. Should you wish to discuss any aspects of this report please do not hesitate to contact me on 8364 1956. Yours Sincerely,

Tom Hateley ACCESS PLANNING (SA) PTY LTD


Reference: 3.14.1


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.2 822/D008/11 I Regnier (I & C Regnier) Application No: 822/D008/11 Applicant: Ian Regnier Subject Land: Lot 201 (19) Lake Road Ward: Town Proposal: Land Division Zone: Rersidential Form of Assessment: Merit Agency Consultation: DAC Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: Allotment Area Size

RECOMMENDATION Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is recommended that the proposed development involving land division at Lot 201 (19) Lake Road development application numbered 822/D008/11 is not seriously at variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- CONDITIONS OF COUNCIL LAND DIVISION CONSENT:

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and details approved with DA 822/D008/11 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation.

2. When land is subdivided into individual allotments or units the Developer at his/her cost will pay to Council upon approval of land division a levy of $3000.00 for each newly created allotment or unit that needs access to the existing STEDS Scheme. Such payment to be made before Council can issue approval for the issue of title.

3. That the Developer shall provide at their expense a separate connection point to the District Council of Robe Community Wastewater Management Scheme (Formerly STEDS) with an inspection opening raised to the surface level for each newly created allotment. Connections must not be installed until plans have been submitted and approved by Council.

CONDITIONS OF DAC LAND DIVISION CONSENT:

1. The financial and augmentation requirements of the SA Water Corporation shall be met for the provision of water supply. (SA Water 06011/07)

2. Payment of $8274 into Planning and Development fund (3 allotments @ 2758/allotment). Cheques to be made payable and marked “Not Negotiable” to the Development Assessment Commission and payment made at Level 5, 136 North Terrace, Adelaide, or sent to GPO Box 1815, or via the internet at www.edala.sa.gov.au .


Reference: 3.14.1 3. Two copies of a certified survey plan being lodged with the Development

Assessment Commission for Certificate purposes. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY The land is triangular in shape bound by Christine Street to the west, Lake Road to the east and its shortest frontage onto Moorkayne frontage to the south. The land slopes from the north to the south with a relatively flat land to the south of the allotment bound by the three streets. There is some vegetation on the vacant part of the allotment consisting mainly of the low level shrubs. There is an existing dwelling on the northern part allotment and the remainder of the land is vacant. As mentioned above, the land is bound by three streets and all of the proposed allotments will have a minimum of two road frontages and the proposed corner allotment will have frontage to three roads. Maps of block (use google earth) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development consists of a single allotment with total area of 2413 square metres that is proposed to be divided into four allotments, allotment 20, the corner allotment of 500 square metres, allotments 21 and 22 of 420 square metres and allotment 23 the remainder of the land with area of 1073 square metres (copy of the plan for the proposed land division is attached below). The existing dwelling is on the proposed allotment 23. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT In assessing the development proposal regard is given to the Residential zone and the Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan, consolidated 10 November 2011. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and the assessment of them are as follows:- COUNCIL WIDE

OBJECTIVES 1 Land division that occurs in an orderly sequence allowing efficient provision of new infrastructure and facilities and making optimum use of existing under utilised infrastructure and facilities.


Reference: 3.14.1 The proposed land division can be considered as orderly. The existing allotment is far too large for a single dwelling for the location. There is existing infrastructure in the vicinity of he proposed land division that may be utilized by the proposed allotments.

2 Land division that creates allotments appropriate for the intended use. The land is in residential Zone and is of adequate size for residential use.

3 Land division layout that is optimal for energy efficient building orientation The orientation of the allotment is not ideal for the optimum energy efficient building orientation. The ideal orientation would be allotments facing North, however, the orientation of the allotments will maximize the benefit of panoramic views over lake butler.

4 Land division that is integrated with site features, including landscape and environmental features, adjacent land uses, the existing transport network and the availability of infrastructure.

The proposed retaining walls will create allotments that are stepped and suitable for residential development while maximizing the views of the existing landscape.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 When land is divided: (a) stormwater should be capable of being drained safely and efficiently from each proposed allotment and disposed of from the land in an environmentally sensitive manner (b) a sufficient water supply should be made available for each allotment (c) provision should be made for the disposal of wastewater, sewage and other effluent from each allotment without risk to health

The land is higher then the Council’s storm water table, being the existing roadway, thus the storm water wof future development will be able to drain onto the road. There is reticulated water supply by SA Water adjacent to the proposed allotments. Proposed allotments are of adequate size to be developed and provide sufficient space for installation of a septic tank system that will be required to connect to the existing Waster Water management Scheme (formally STES). RESIDENTIAL ZONE

Land Division 14 Land division should not create a vacant allotment with an area less than 450 square metres.

As mentioned above, two of the allotments are 420 square metres which is less then that recommended in the above principle. However, the Panel should note that the previous Development Plan recommended minimum allotment size of 400 square metres within residential Zone. Somehow this recommendation was overlooked when converting the previous Development Plan to current Better Development Plan format.


Reference: 3.14.1 RECOMMENDATION:

4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and details approved with DA 822/D008/11 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation.

5. When land is subdivided into individual allotments or units the Developer at his/her cost will pay to Council upon approval of land division a levy of $3000.00 for each newly created allotment or unit that needs access to the existing STEDS Scheme. Such payment to be made before Council can issue approval for the issue of title.

6. That the Developer shall provide at their expense a separate connection point to the District Council of Robe Community Wastewater Management Scheme (Formerly STEDS) with an inspection opening raised to the surface level and finished off in accordance with Australian standard AS3500 for each newly created allotment. Connections must not be installed until plans have been submitted and approved by Council.

CONDITIONS OF DAC LAND DIVISION CONSENT:

4. The financial and augmentation requirements of the SA Water Corporation shall be met for the provision of water supply. (SA Water 06011/07)

5. Payment of $8274 into Planning and Development fund (3 allotments @ 2758/allotment). Cheques to be made payable and marked “Not Negotiable” to the Development Assessment Commission and payment made at Level 5, 136 North Terrace, Adelaide, or sent to GPO Box 1815, or via the internet at www.edala.sa.gov.au .

6. Two copies of a certified survey plan being lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for Certificate purposes.


Reference: 3.14.1


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.3 822/D004/11 A Goldsworthy Application No: 822/D004/11 Applicant: A Goldsworthy Subject Land: Section 121 & 124 Hd Bray Ward: Rural Proposal: Land Division Zone: Primary Industry Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: N/A Representations: N/A Persons to be heard: N/A Agency Consultation: DAC Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: Fragmentation of Primary Industry Land

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the report on the Development Application 822/*D004/11 be received. 2. That the Panel advice the ERD Court that it is not prepared to approve the

compromise plan put forward as a possible resolution to the Panel’s refusal of application 822/D004/11 for the division of Section 121 & 124, Hundred of Bray.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Panel is referred to the report prepared by Council’s consultant planner David Hutchison of Access Planning (SA) Pty Ltd dated 12/01/2012 for further details.


Reference: 3.14.1 12th January 2012 Ref. 5638rept2

Chief Executive Officer District Council of Robe PO Box 1 ROBE, SA 5276 ATTENTION: Michelle Gibbs Dear Michelle, RE: PROPOSED LAND DIVISION SECTION 121 & 124 HUNDRED OF BRAY DA 822 / D004 / 11 1.0 BACKGROUND At the Panel meeting in November the Panel refused approval to the above land division which sought to create 7 allotments each of about 40 hectares in the Primary Industry zone. The refusal was premised on the notion that; - The proposed division will result in the indiscriminate fragmentation of primary industry

land - The proposal will not assist the long term sustainability of primary production activities in

the zone. - The division is not orderly or economic; and was thus inconsistent with the following

provisions of the Development Plan. PRIMARY INDUSTRY ZONE Objective 1: A zone primarily for primary production. Objective 2: The long-term sustainability of primary industries. Objective 8: Allotments of a size and configuration which: (a) take account of environmental features, existing development, site constraints and the availability of infrastructure; (b) promote the efficient use of rural land for primary industry; and (c) discourage land uses that are incompatible with primary industry. Form of Development Objective 4: Orderly and economic development. Objective 11: Limited division of agricultural land. A copy of the plan of division that was refused by the Panel follows


Reference: 3.14.1

Figure 1: Plan of Division refused by Council. The applicant has now appealed that decision and has submitted a compromise plan, together with further information about the land, road access and water supply. The compromise plan now proposes 5 more regularly shaped allotments, (lots 25 and 26 are one allotment in 2 pieces) each with much more extensive frontages to the road reserve. Additional information provided by the applicant includes; A report from an agronomist as to the capability of the land to support more intensive

agricultural use, including comments re the transfer of an existing water licence to ensure that each allotment has access to a water supply for more intensive rural use.

Advice from a Real Estate Agent as to the value of the land. (this advice appears to be predicated on the basis that a house can be built on each allotment).

Confirmation that the land has access to a water supply of 521360kL over 2 licences. Confirmation from Council dated 25th August 2003, confirming that Council agree to the

construction of a rubble road over the existing unconstructed road reserve from the road alignment of The Springs Road to the boundary of existing lots 121 and 124 (a distance of approximately 1.2 km, subject to the applicant providing the road making material and surveying the location of the road reserve. (Note: this correspondence does not address the additional 636 metres of road that will need to be constructed to provide access to the proposed new allotments which are located to the east of the boundary of Sections 121 and 124, nor any potential demand for additional road access along the two unconstructed public road reserves along the edge of Lake Hawdon South).


Reference: 3.14.1

Figure 2: Compromise Plan. The following is the description of the subject land and locality taken from the last report to the Panel. 2.0 SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY The subject land comprises two large irregular shaped rural allotments comprising areas of 116 hectares and 191 hectares respectively. The land is situated immediately adjacent to the west of Lake Hawdon South. The site is more particularly identified as Section 121 and 124 Hundred of Bray, contained within Certificate of Title 5819/324 and 5819/325 respectively. The subject land has an extensive frontage to an unmade public road along the entire eastern boundary (along the edge of Lake Hawdon South) and to the unmade public road which divides the two sections that form the site. The land is vacant and largely cleared of vegetation as a result of the historical use of the land for agricultural purposes, however, small clusters of vegetation are scattered throughout both sections.


Reference: 3.14.1 A dam is situation within the southern portion of Section 121 and small quarry is located within the northern section of section 124. I note the plans identify the quarry as a Council gravel pit, however, I understand that Council do not own or have not used this pit for a considerable number of years. The land in the locality is divided into large allotments and mainly used for primary production activities. A vineyard is located approximately 1 kilometre north west of the land. Development is limited to the occasional dwelling and farming building scattered throughout the wider locality. The subject land and locality is detailed in Figure 3 below.

Figure 1: Subject Land and Locality Source: Nature Maps (www.naturemaps.sa.gov.au) 3.0 CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Native Vegetation Council Secretariat Advised the following in relation to the last application: The location of boundaries should avoid passing through areas of remnant vegetation. It is recommended that the boundary between lots 24 and 25 is adjusted slightly to take advantage of existing cleared land. Future development on the allotments, such as buildings and structures,


Reference: 3.14.1 should be located at least 20 metres away from native vegetation. Any native vegetation clearance within the road reserve requires Native Vegetation Council approval. 4.0 DISCUSSION The amended plans go some way to addressing the concerns expressed in relation to the refused development in that the allotments are now much more regular is shape, and thus more conducive to farm practices associated with intensive agriculture, and have more extensive road frontages ranging from about 94 metres to lots 25 and 26, up to 326 metres for lot 21. All of the allotments exceed the 40 Ha provisional minimum allotment size for allotments in the Primary Industry zone. I am still not satisfied that the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to confirm that the land is suitable for and has the capacity for development for more intensive use. In discussion with the agronomist from Elders, he has confirmed that his assessment of the land was undertaken simply by a visual assessment and that the actual assessment of the lands capacity to accommodate more intensive agriculture would need soil depth and sample analysis. Similarly, the demand for water will vary from crop to crop. The applicant has indicated that he would transfer the available water equally to each allotment, but without a detailed assessment of the actual land uses, it is not clear that sufficient water would be available to meet the demand or whether an equitable split in the available water supply relates to the capability of the land as sought generally in zone principle 19(c below. 19 Allotments should be of a size and configuration which: (a) take account of environmental features and site constraints; (b) provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for the siting of buildings, structures and associated services and infrastructure; and (c) can satisfactorily accommodate land use consistent with the site’s land capability and the purpose of the Primary Industry Zone. Having regard to relevant land resource information, which identified generalised soil types and their attributes, it is noted that the land comprises 5 soil types with the main soil types being described as shallow sandy, calcareous or red – brown clays on calcrete. Their limits being described as low water holding capacity and rockiness. There is little doubt that those soils with deeper profiles and better drained are suitable for horticultural use but the lower lying flatter areas are saline and prone to wetting. In regard to the provision of road access to the land, the Council correspondence of 2003 fails to take into account the extra 630 metre length of road that needs to be constructed to provide access to the proposed allotments and gives no consideration to the cost of the assessment of the native vegetation that might need to be cleared for the roads construction, or the cost of offsetting the removal of the vegetation if a removal is approved. (Offset costs might include payment of money to the Native Vegetation Management Authority for re-vegetation of land elsewhere in the locality or the planting of replacement vegetation elsewhere on the land, the cost and amount of revegetation to be determined by the status of the vegetation to be removed).


Reference: 3.14.1 The advice from SAL Real Estate notes that the value of the land might be influenced by the ability of people to build homes on the land, ostensibly to manage any rural use of the property. Whilst this application is being assessed under the previous Development Plan, which was the valid plan when the original land division application was lodged, and new applications will have to be assessed against the current Development Plan. In the current Development Plan the land is located in the Primary Production zone in which a dwelling is a non complying form of development. 5.0 CONCLUSION Whilst the amended plan goes some way to addressing the concerns relating to the original plan of division, I am not satisfied that the amended plan adequately responds to those provisions of the Development Plan that speak against the fragmentation of primary industry land, the long term sustainability of primary production activities in the zone and the need for development to be orderly and economic. Moreover, I am not convinced that the land is capable of sustaining more intensive rural use on the basis of the very limited advice that has been provided by the applicant. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION That the Panel advice the ERD Court that it is not prepared to approve the compromise plan put forward as a possible resolution to the Panels refusal of application 822/D004/10 for the division of Section 121 and 124, Hundred of Bray. Should you wish to discuss any aspects of this report please do not hesitate to contact me on 8364 1956. Yours sincerely,

David Hutchison ACCESS PLANNING (SA) Pty Ltd


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.4 822/029/10 Blackbird Industries (LT & JM Wilson) Application No: 822/029/10 Applicant: J M Wilson Subject Land: Lot 3 (18) Lakeside Terrace Ward: Town Proposal: Shed Zone: residential Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: N/A Representations: N/A Persons to be heard: N/A Agency Consultation: N/A Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: ERD Court Appeal

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the report on Development Application 822/029/10 be received. 2. Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is

recommended that the proposed development involving a single storey detached dwelling and shed at Lot 3 (18) Lakeside Terrace development application numbered 822/029/10 is not seriously are variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- 2.1. The development being undertaken in accord with the site plan and

elevations prepared by Blackbird Industries dated 19/12/2011, works to be completed within 3 months of the date of this approval.

2.2. Landscaping of he building works, and all proposed landscaping shall be maintained in good health and condition, with dead or diseased plants being replaced, at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Panel is referred to the report prepared by Council’s consultant planner David Hutchison of Access Planning (SA) Pty Ltd dated 05/01/2012 for further details.


Reference: 3.14.1 5 January 2012 Ref. 5449 DAP report Compplan3

The Chief Executive Officer District Council of Robe PO Box 1 ROBE, SA 5276 ATTENTION: Ms. Michelle Gibbs Dear Michelle, RE: PROPOSED GARAGE AT 18 LAKESIDE TERRACE ROBE

1.0 BACKGROUND On the 31st of May 2010 Council granted Development Approval for a single storey detached dwelling and shed on the subject land (DA 822/029/10). The plans originally lodged with Council showed a shed with a floor area of 90m2, a wall height of 3.6 metres sited 600mm from the northern and western property boundaries. Development Plan Consent was granted to the application subject to a condition requiring the floor area of the shed be reduced from 90m2 to 74m2. The plans submitted for, and granted Development Approval comprised a floor area of 72m2 with a wall height of 4 metres. It is understood that the owners did not intend to construct the dwelling which was approved as part of the original application (DA 822/029/10). The plans for the dwelling being included to avoid falling foul of those parts of the Development Plan that require a shed to be used in association with a dwelling on the same allotment. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed on the development by the Development Approval, the applicants constructed a shed with a floor area of 126m2, which is at variance with the approved plans. The height of the shed walls have also increased from the original (conditionally approved) height of 3.6 metres, with an overall height of 4.24 metres, to an ‘as constructed’ height of 4.0 metres for the walls and 4.7 metres in overall height to the ridge of the roof. As a result of the breach of the approval, the Council issued an enforcement notice pursuant to Section 84 of the Development Act. The applicant then lodged an appeal against the Section 84 notice and a retrospective application for the shed which was refused by the Panel at its meeting of 19th July. In the report on the retrospective application it was noted that;

The proposed shed is not an appropriate scale compared to what is envisaged in the zone

and/or consistent with other outbuildings existing in the locality.


Reference: 3.14.1 The design, siting and elevated nature of the site compared to adjoining land will result in

the shed visually dominating the views to the south from the private open space of the adjacent property to the north, a matter exacerbated by the 18 metre long, 4 metre high solid wall setback 600mm from the northern boundary.

The is no provision for landscape screening of the building from either the street or the

houses to the north and the proposed development, if approved, has the potential to create a precedent for similar large garages, which the Council has expressly sought to manage by the imposition of floor area and height limits on outbuildings.

The report concluded that; The proposal is at variance with several of the Development Plan guidelines (floor area and height significantly so). Notwithstanding the large site area formed by the three allotments or the desire of the applicant to house two cars, boat, caravan, inflatable boat and various other items, the shed is simply too large and out of scale with similar outbuildings in the locality, poorly sited in respect to the adjoining property to the north and as such at odds with the established character of the locality. There is no justification in my view for such a significant departure from the Development Plan requirements for outbuildings for this development to be approved. Having regard to the above assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Robe (DC) Development Plan, I consider that the proposal represents an inappropriate form of development, for the following reasons: The proposed shed exceeds the relevant maximum floor area, wall and building height

requirement for the Residential zone; The proposed development will not maintain and/or enhance the character and amenity of

the locality; The bulk and scale of the building will likely dominate the views from the open space of the

dwelling to the north. The application was refused on the basis that the application was at variance with the following provisions of the Development Plan: Residential zone Principle: 19(c) (d) & (g) Council Wide Objectives: 19 & 23 Principles: 11, 17, 34 (a) 45(a) & 174 The relevant principles are reproduced below. Residential zone 19 Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should: (c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres per allotment; (d) not exceed a side wall height of 3.0 metres, nor exceed an overall height of 4.0 metres to the highest point of the building; (g) not be erected until or unless there exists on the same allotment a dwelling or a valid planning authorisation for the construction of a dwelling. Council wide Objective 19: Improvement to the amenity of all residential areas. Objective 23: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and


Reference: 3.14.1 objects. 11 Development should maintain and enhance residential amenity and should not create a nuisance by overcrowding development on a site, overshadowing, increasing traffic volumes, restricting natural light or altering adversely the character of the locality.

17 Outbuildings associated with dwellings within townships and settlements should be small in scale and carefully sited so as not to detrimentally affect the character and amenity of the surrounding locality. 34 Building appearance should be compatible with the desired future character of the locality in terms of built form elements such as: (a) building mass and proportion; 45 Side boundary walls should be limited in length and height to: (a) minimise the visual impact of buildings from adjoining properties; 174 Development should exhibit a high standard of design with regard to external appearance, building materials, colours, siting and landscaping so as to preserve and enhance the character of the locality. The applicants submitted compromise plans and information which was considered at the Development Assessment Panel meeting on 15th of November 2011. The applicant proposed to leave the shed as is but to include; substantial site landscaping between the shed and street alignment, including landscaping

on the Council road reserve; a 2.1 metre high treated pine timber paling fence to the street alignment; a 3.0 metre high vine covered pergola to the front of the shed and 2.6 metre high x 7.0

metre long vine covered pergola to the front portion of the southern side of the shed. a planter box and trellis to be established along portion of the southern wall of the shed

adjacent to the pa door as additional screening. Relocating the driveway access to allow a greater area of landscaping in front of the shed,

between the shed and the street alignment. Also included in the documents provided to the Council were letters in support of the development from adjoining property owners at 46 McFarlane Street and 1 Woolundry Road. There was no corresponding letter from the adjoining property owner of 44 McFarlane Street, who is the owner most affected by the location and size of the garage. The compromise plan was not accepted at the November meeting as: 1. The proposed shed exceeds the relevant maximum floors area, wall and building height requirements for the Residential Zone. 2. The proposed development will not maintain and/or enhance the character and amenity of the locality 3. The bulk and scale of the building will likely dominate the views from the open space of the dwelling to the north The application was considered to be still at variance with the aforementioned provisions of the Residential zone and Council wide section of the Development Plan.


Reference: 3.14.1 The applicant submitted a second compromise application which was considered at the Development Assessment Panel meeting held on 13th December 2011. The applicant proposed the following amendments:

- Removing one bay of the shed from the western end, thus reducing the floor area by 21 square metres to 105 square metres.

- Installing a planter box along the southern wall towards the PA door, planted with shrubs to soften the wall.

- Painting downpipes to match wall colour. - Erect a 2.1 metre timber fence on the eastern boundary with solid timber gates.

The panel resolved that the compromise was not acceptable and that the decision of the Council to refuse the development stands and that the development be built in accordance with the original approved plans. 2.0 Proposal The applicants have submitted a third compromise application which was received by Council on the 21st of December 2011. Design amendments, with regard to the original proposal, within this application include:

- Reducing the enclosed floor area of the shed from 126 square metres to 63 square metres by removing a bay from the western and the walls of two bays from the eastern end

- Converting the eastern end of the shed to an open side carport - Establish landscaping primarily between the building and road boundary (in accordance

with a submitted landscaping plan). - Painting downpipes to match wall colour. - Erect a 2.1 metre timber fence on the eastern boundary with solid timber gates.

The chief concern with the current design is the visual impact of the shed to the adjoining properties to the north, given the bulk and scale of the building, the elevated nature of the subject land and the proximity of the shed to the common boundary. The proposal consists of a shed (63 square metres) and attached carport (42 square metres) that comprise a total area of 105 square metres. As a result the proposal still exceeds the maximum floor area requirement by 31 square metres or 42%. No changes are proposed to the height of building, thus the shed still exceeds the maximum wall height by 1 metre and overall height by 648mm with respect to Residential Zone Principle 19 (d). It is also note that the proposed shed is erected on a vacant allotment which is at odds with Residential zone Principle 19(g). While the building still exceeds the maximum floor area requirement the carport is largely an open structure which significantly reduces the bulk and scale of the eastern portion of the building. In addition, removing the bay on the western end and the wall panelling of the two eastern bays will reduce the length of solid wall 600mm off the boundary from 18 metres to 9 metres which will considerably reduce the visual impact of the building to the properties to the north, which are the most affected by the development. The applicant proposes substantial site landscaping between the shed and street alignment as part of this compromise submission. The proposed landscaping will assist soften the appearance of the building, particularly, when viewed from Lakeside Terrace.


Reference: 3.14.1 While the proposal is still at odds with quantitative requirements of the Development Plan in relation to height and floor area, the proposed design amendments together with the proposed landscaping will assist minimise the visual impact of the building, to a level that is acceptable to the properties to the north and to the wider locality. Therefore it is considered that the proposal satisfies the qualitative requirements of the Development Plan in relation to maintaining the amenity of the locality. In addition, it is noted that if the land was sold separately and developed for residential purposes, the design and siting of a future dwelling on the land would be restricted by the proposed shed and carport particularly considering site coverage, setback and private open space requirements. However, it is considered that there should be sufficient vacant land available on the site to accommodate an appropriately designed dwelling. 3.0 Conclusion Having regard to the foregoing assessment, while still at variance with the with quantitative requirements of the Development Plan in relation to height and floor area, I consider that the proposed design amendments to the shed and proposed landscaping go a long way to address the issue of the visual dominance of the building from the private open space of the adjoining properties to the north, fronting McFarlane Street and to the locality generally. With regard to the above, on balance, the proposed development sufficiently accords with the Development Plan and on this basis does warrant approval. 4.0 Recommendation The Panel accepts the compromise plans provided by the applicant and advise the ERD Court that it is prepared to approve the development subject to the following conditions, 1 The development being undertaken in accord with the site plan and elevations prepared

Blackbird Industries dated the 19/12/2011, works to be completed within 3 months of the date of this approval.

2 Landscaping shown on the approved plans shall be undertaken immediately on completion

of the building works, and all proposed landscaping shall be maintained in good health and condition, with dead or diseased plants being replaced, at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.

Should you wish to discuss any aspects of this report please do not hesitate to contact me on 8364 1956. Yours Sincerely,

David Hutchison ACCESS PLANNING (SA) PTY LTD


Reference: 3.14.1


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.5 822/064/11 Concept Design Group (T & M Bull) Application No: 822/064/11 Applicant: T & M Bull Subject Land: Lot 78 (3-5) Grice Court Ward: Town Proposal: Extension to Existing Dwelling Zone: Residential – Bushfire Excluded Form of Assessment: Merit Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: Maximum Height of the Building

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the report on the Development Application 822/064/11 be received. 2. Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is

recommended that the proposed development involving dwelling extension at Allotment 78 (3-5) Grice Court development application numbered 822/064/11 is not seriously are variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- 2.1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and details

approved with DA 822/064/11 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation in accordance with the Development Act 1993 s44.

2.2. Approval shall be obtained from the District Council of Robe pursuant to the Waste Control regulations for the sanitary plumbing and drainage system prior to commencement of any plumbing work on site.

2.3. Amalgamation of the two allotments must be completed prior to commencement of construction.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT The Panel considered this application at its meeting of 19 July 2011 and resolved following:

The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and details approved with DA 822/064/11 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation in accordance with the Development Act 1993 s44.

The applicant is now seeking variation to approved plans in that the applicant wishes to change the roof line thus effectively increasing the overall height of the building by approximately 1.0m, from 7.5m to 8.5m (copy of the plan showing proposed variation is attached below). The proposal also changes the shape of the roof from the ‘hip’ styled roof to that of a stepped gable roof when viewed from the front.


Reference: 3.14.1 Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and the assessment of them are as follows:- COUNCIL WIDE

42 Buildings should maintain a compatible scale with adjacent development and should not exceed a building height of two storeys or eight metres (whichever is the lesser) unless otherwise specified in the zone provisions and excluding development in the Historic (Conservation) Zone or on the site of a State or local heritage place, where: (a) “building height” is measured from the highest existing ground level (as may be determined by survey prior to any earthworks being undertaken) immediately below the highest point of the building; and (b) “two storeys” is defined as one floor level directly above all or part of another, except where the floor level is used exclusively for vehicle parking and has a floor level a minimum of 1.5 metres below existing ground level

As mentioned above, due to proposed variation to the roof line the overall building height would be 8.5m as measured by principle 42 (a) above. The proposed increase to overall building height is unlikely to have detrimental effect to the streetscape or to the adjoining properties. CONCLUSION Although the proposed variation is significant in comparison to the plans granted development consent, it may be considered as not being significant in this instance to the above principle. The proposed shape of the roof will provide a more interesting aesthetic appearance then the more conventional hip styled roof. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the report on the Development Application 822/064/11 be received. 2. Panel to determine. Possible conditions of approval:

1. The Applicant/Owner be advised that having regard to Development Plan and

all supporting documentation, the proposed development is considered not to be at serious variance with Council’s Development Plan and be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions: 1.1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with plans and details

approved with DA 822/064/11 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation. Reason: Development Act Section 44.

1.2. Approval shall be obtained from the District Council of Robe pursuant to the Waste Control regulations for the sanitary plumbing and drainage system prior to commencement of any plumbing work on site.

1.3. Amalgamation of the two allotments must be completed prior to commencement of construction.


Reference: 3.14.1 Possible conditions of refusal: 1. The Development Plan Consent for roof variation at Lot 79 (3) Grice Court,

Robe; Development Number 822/064/11 be refused, as the proposal is seriously at variance with the Council Wide Principle 42(a) of the Development Plan.


Reference: 3.14.1


Reference: 3.14.1 Item 6.6 822/C006/11 T & J Edwards C/- Sawley Lock (Abbey Road (NT) Pty Lty, J

Edwards Application No: 822/C006/11 Applicant: T & J Edwards; C/- Sawley Lock O’Callaghan Subject Land: Lot 51 (2) Wrattonbully Road Ward: Town Proposal: Community Land Division Zone: Historic (Conservation) Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: N/A Representations: N/A Persons to be heard: N/A Agency Consultation: DAC Responsible Officer: Milan Hodak Main Issues: Nil

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the report on the Development Application 822/C006/11 be received. 2. Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is

recommended that the proposed development involving Community Land Division at Lot 51 (2) Wrattonbully Road development application numbered 822/C006/11 is not seriously are variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- 2.1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant

Acts, or by the conditions imposed on this consent, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the approved plans.

CONDITIONS OF COUNCIL LAND DIVISION:

Where land is divided into community allotments or units the Developer at his/her cost will pay to Council upon approval of land division a levy of $3000.00 per each dwelling of a multi dwelling development which results in more than one dwelling on a single allotment.

CONDITIONS OF DAC LAND DIVISION CONSENT: 8. The financial and augmentation requirements of the SA Water Corporation

shall be met for the provision of water supply. (SA Water 08949/05) 9. Payment of $2758 into the Planning and Development fund (1 lot @ $2758/lot).

Cheques shall be made payable and marked “Not Negotiable” to the Development Assessment Commission and payment made at level 5, 136 North Terrace, Adelaide, or sent to GPO Box 1815, Adelaide, 5001, or via the internet at www.planning.sa.gov.au.

10. Two copies of a certified survy plan being lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for Certificate purposes.


Reference: 3.14.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Panel at its meeting of 19/10/2010 granted Development Plan Consent for two storey residential flat building containing two dwellings at Lot 51 (2) Wrattonbully Road, Robe. The developer now proposes a community land division as per attached plan. The area of the proposed allotment 20 is 358 metres square and allotment 21 is 365 square metres. The proposal also includes multiple rights of way for and over various allotment/s. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and the assessment of them are as follows:- HISTORIC (CONSERVATION) ZONE

35 The site area per dwelling of any type (averaged for group dwellings or dwellings within a residential flat building) should not be less than 400 square metres.

The proposed allotments for each residential flat building are only marginally below that recommended by the above Principle. CONCLUSION Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters, it is recommended that the proposed development involving Community Land Division at Lot 51 (2) Wrattonbully Road development application numbered 822/C006/11 is not seriously at variance with the provisions of the Development Plan and should be granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:- 1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by

the conditions imposed on this consent, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the approved plans.

CONDITIONS OF COUNCIL LAND DIVISION: 1. Where land is divided into community allotments or units the Developer at his/her

cost will pay to Council upon approval of land division a levy of $3 000.00 per each dwelling of a multi dwelling development which results in more than one dwelling on a single allotment.

CONDITIONS OF DAC LAND DIVISION CONSENT: 1. The financial and augmentation requirements of the SA Water Corporation shall be

met for the provision of water supply. (SA Water 08949/05) 2. Payment of $2758 into the Planning and Development fund (1 lot @ $2758/lot).

Cheques shall be made payable and marked “Not Negotiable” to the Development Assessment Commission and payment made at level 5, 136 North Terrace,


Reference: 3.14.1 Adelaide, or sent to GPO Box 1815, Adelaide, 5001, or via the internet at www.planning.sa.gov.au.

3. Two copies of a certified survey plan being lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for Certificate purposes.


Reference: 3.14.1

district council of robe notice of meeting agenda … · form of assessment: merit ... (da...

Documents