5 2014€¦ · Author Kate Stringer ... 'Thomasii" (New Zealand Christmas Bush), ... then confuses the story and misrepresents its value

City of Charles Sturt 71. DAP Report 5/03/14

TO: Development Assessment Panel

FROM: Manager Planning and Development

DATE: 5 March 2014

HINDMARSH WARD

ITEM 3.16 35 HODGEMAN ROAD PENNINGTON

Applicant Mrs M Cushway

Application No 252/2907/13

Proposal Demolition of contributory listed dwelling and

associated outbuildings

Owner of land Estate of William David Lowie

Zone Residential Character Zone Precinct 71 Pre-World War One

Form of assessment Merit

Public notification category Category 2

Representations Nil

Agency consultations N/A

Author Kate Stringer - Development Officer, Planning

Attachments a. Development Plan Provisions Table

b. Application documents

C. Notification Map

Development Plan 14 November 2013

Recommendation Approval with Conditions


Report

Background

The proposed dwelling is listed as a contributory place in the. Residential Character Zone and

is a good example of an Edwardian house, with pressed-metal wall cladding. Demolition of

the building is sought due to the structural condition of the dwelling being considered

unsound and beyond reasonable repair.

The removal of all existing vegetation including the significant tree - Metrosideros Collina

'Thomasii" (New Zealand Christmas Bush), will occur in the next few weeks regardless of the

outcome of this application. It is noted that the tree is within lOm of the dwelling and no

approval is required for its removal (not development).

Proposal

The applicant seeks to demolish the existing Contributory Dwelling and associated

outbuildings on the site, citing the dangerous condition of the building and the structural

condition of the place is seriously unsound and cannot be reasonably rehabilitated. The application does not include a replacement building and no indication is given as to the

nature of future development on the site.

Site/Locality

The site is located on the northern side of Hodgeman Road being rectangular in shape and

has an area of approximately 880m 2 .

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling listed as a Contributory Place. The

dwelling itself is positioned towards the front of the site. Residential properties of varying

style and type adjoin the site on either side and across the road.

The dwelling on the site has timber floors, metal clad walls and roof and lathe and plaster

framed internal walls and ceilings. The dwelling consists of a central corridor and 4 main

rooms, two to either side of the corridor, with kitchen and dining area to the rear. There are three masonry chimneys which service fire places in the building. There is also a shed to the

rear of the dwelling, an enclosed verandah to the rear of the dwelling with a

laundry/bathroom addition and a toilet outbuilding.


S

Locality Plan

. •:• .- '1' '-

iTRIJ,Fh

IMP

-- .1 .p

J AL 19 lie

'I •.•

L .1 __)

y

? i * -- • 9 t

a.1 - . '* '. 1•.

'!

l fr:

_r!i:< -

1 I •-j4----i'

-

"•••' ..i

I. -

Subject Site shown in blue and Locality in red


Summary of Representations and Applicants Response

The proposal underwent the Category 2 Public Notification process from which no

representations were received.

Internal Consultation

Department/Staff Response

John Mazzarolo The house is in a poor state of repair and is

Structural Engineer/Building Surveyor currently uninhabitable. Most of the house

Planning and Development is constructed of lathe and plasterinternal

linings, and a mini orb type sheeting on the

outside. There is some masonry present

around the perimeter at the base of the

walls, and the rear shed has been

constructed of a masonry type product, probably using ash as a cement agent.

There are masonry chimneys also. Some of the mortar in the chimneys has

disappeared, rendering them structurally

unsound. All the masonry has deteriorated,

mainly from salt damp and weathering. Some of the masonry outbuildings are on

the verge of collapse.

I had no access to the roof space, so I don't know the condition of the roof. However,

the internal walls have been damaged by termite action in a few areas, and it is not

known how much damage has been caused

by the termites to the timber framed walls

as these are not visible. The floors have

also been extensively damaged by both

termites and general wear and tear. Some

parts of the floors have collapsed. The

previous owner has made an attempt to

patch them up. The floors are structurally

unsound and will need to be replaced in

their entirety.



In particular, the footings have seriously

deteriorated. Footings consist largely of

masonry piers and stumps, some of the

former having no mortar to bind them

together. Salt damp has also caused severe

damage to some of the masonry piers. An

attempt has been made to support the

existing bearers with new bricks, but no

mortar or any other positive fixing has been

used. This is structurally unsound in the event of a high wind load, or a very mild

earthquake, as the whole building could be

displaced laterally and suffer extensive

damage. The timber stumps have also

deteriorated, probably due to dry rot and moisture ingress. The whole footing system

is structurally unsound.

All of the claddings, linings, door and

window frames, gutters and downpipes have seriously deteriorated, mainly due to corrosion and weathering. Downpipes and

some of the gutters have disappeared

altogether.

I don't think it is practicable to restore this

house to its original state. None of the

existing materials can be re used, and all

the footings will need to be replaced to

comply with current structural codes. The floor must be replaced. Depending on the

level of termite damage in the walls, these

will need to be replaced also. All the

external and internal cladding, windows

and doors all need replacing.

In effect, to fix the house up, it will first

need to be demolished! It is structurally

unsound, uninhabitable and from a

structural perspective not worth spending

any money on it.

I recommend the house be demolished.



Pippa Buckberry I do have concerns about the demolition of Flightpath Architects this contributory heritage place and am not

City of Charles Sturt Heritage Advisor supportive from a heritage perspective.

I understand that the applicants consultant

and Council's Structural Engineer have

agreed on a number of items that are not up to scratch, but from my inspection of

the site (and I haven't been inside the property) the items identified could be

rectified without demolition of the property namely;

1. the chimney repointing - which is no

worse than others on the street, or others

we have given grants to in the past, and is not structurally undermining the dwelling.

2. the stumps - new supports could be

installed without demolition 3. 'a few areast have been effected by termites, but the full

extent has not been quantified

I note that the fundamental structural

elements (roof, walls) have not been able

to be inspected. And from my visual

inspection from the outside indicates the walls and roof are straight and true,

indicating a good level of stability in the

structure behind them).

I would be supportive of partial demolition

of the later addition lean-to and ancillary

structures, where most of the damage and

problems appear to be located, as well as

the removal of internal linings to determine

if they are indeed sound, but the main

house, in my opinion could be

rehabilitated.

It is probably also worth noting to the

applicant that any new dwelling on the site

would be required to "reflect the

traditional character elements of the area"

in order to fit with the streetscape and

historic conservation policy area.


Development Assessment

The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The

Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant

provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.

Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered

relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in further detail below.

Land Use

The current Application does not include a replacement building; however any such future

application for a replacement dwelling will be assesses on its merits and would be required to be in keeping with the prevailing character of the locality.

Heritage

There are several provisions in the Development Plan aimed at the conservation and

enhancement of buildings identified as Contributory Places however there is only one provision which relates directly to the conditions required to be met to enable demolition as follows.

The elements of a contributory item (including afence or outbuilding or structure) that contribute to the historic character of the locality should not be demolished or removed unless one of the following applies:

(a) the integrity or prominence of the contributory item (when viewed from a pub/ic street or place) would not be affected

(b) their condition is seriously unsound and cannot reasonably be rehabilitated (emphasis mine)

(c) a replacement development can be erected which does not diminish the level of contribution to the historic character of the locality and the replacement has been approved, or is concurrently approved, by the planning authority.

The Oxford dictionary defines reasonably as 'being within the bounds of common sense' and

Rehabilitation as 'return (something, especially a building or environmental feature) to its former condition.' Therefore reasonable can include financial reasonability and within reasonable time.

Therefore the question in relation to this dwelling is whether it is reasonable to expect the

applicant to restore the dwelling back to its original condition.


Both Mr. John Mazzarolo, Council's Structural Engineer and the applicants building surveyor

have stated that the house is structurally unsound and have listed the extent of damage to

the building and given the extent of works required to return the building to a safe state it

would be unreasonable to expect the building to be rehabilitated. Mr. Mazzarolo has

indicated that the building would essentially need to be demolished and rebuilt with very

few of the original materials being able to be reused.

Councils Heritage advisor disagrees with this view, instead arguing that the building is

capable of being restored without demolition thus retaining the elements of the building that identify it as Contributory.

Council's Heritage Advisor, Pippa Buckberry has stated that:

'I would be supportive of partial demolition of the later addition lean-to and ancillary structures, where most of the damage and problems appear to be located, as well as the removal of internal linings to determine if they are indeed sound, but the main house, in my opinion could be rehabilitated'.

It is my opinion that the house could indeed be rehabilitated however the question is

whether it is reasonable. To this end, Ms Buckberry has not confirmed whether it is

reasonable and this is the very test in determining whether the building should be

demolished. Ms Buckberry has indicated that she has not entered the building whereas the Council's Structural Engineer has viewed the structure from within.

It is considered that as a contributory place in the Residential Character Zone, its value is

also in its contribution to the historic character of the locality which is a result of its original

construction and materials. Therefore reconstructing it with new materials would result in a

significant and irreversible loss and will achieve nothing other than a faux heritage which

then confuses the story and misrepresents its value. Therefore given the extensive works needed to restore the dwelling to structural stability, restoration is not considered to be

reasonable in this instance therefore the removal of this item is supported.

Council will have a further opportunity to determine the style of the replacement building

built on the land when an application is lodged for a replacement dwelling that conforms to

the provisions of the Development Plan for the Residential Character Zone.

rnnrIiicnn

Whilst the building is a good example of 1920's architecture, its demolition is supported by

the relevant principle in the Development Plan, Historic Conservation Area Principle of

Development Control 4. This principle requires two simple tests to be met: whether the

structural condition of the place is seriously unsound and whether it can be reasonably

rehabilitated.

Councils Heritage advisor does not agree with demolition and advocates for the buildings

retention based on her observation that the building could be repaired.


However, on the matter of the structural integrity of the building, Council must refer to an

expert on the matter. On this score the applicant has provided a report from a qualified

Building Surveyor who has demonstrated that the building is unsound. The matter was then

referred to Councils Structural Engineer, Mr John Mazzarolo who arrived at the same conclusion.

It is unfortunate that such a building will be lost through demolition, however, based on the

unsound nature of the building the application for demolition of the dwelling warrants Consent.

Recommendation

A. Reason for Decision

The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer -

Planning dated 5 March 2014 and agrees with the assessment outlined in that report.

B. That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is not seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Sturt (City)

Development Plan consolidated 14 November 2013.

C. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Application Number 252/2907/13 be GRANTED Development Plan Consent subject to the

following conditions:

1. Develop in accordance with the approved plans

That the proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and approved plans stamped by Council except where varied by the conditions herein and shall be

completed prior to occupation of the proposed development.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner

Notes

1. Stamped documentation pertaining to this Development Plan Consent has been

enclosed. Please ensure that this documentation including the above conditions, if

any, are sighted by whoever is preparing the working drawings for the Development

Approval. This will ensure that there is consistency between the documentation

submitted for both Planning and Building Consents, and will avoid delays in obtaining

Development Approval.


2. The approval for this development does NOT imply approval to alter, shift or remove

any street tree, side entry pit, stobie pole, bus stop, fire hydrant or other gas,

electricity, water, telecommunications or other similar infrastructure. Approval to

alter any of these or similar infrastructure needs to be obtained from the relevant government department, private organisation or Council. Any costs associated with

such alteration are the responsibility of the applicant.

3. You are advised that construction or alteration of any footpath, kerb, gutter or

crossover on Council land will require a permit from Council's Engineering and

Construction Department. It is illegal to undertake work on Council land without permission.

4. You are advised that under the Fences Act you are legally required to give notice for

the removal of a fence on the common boundary. Please refer to the Fences Act for the correct procedural requirements.

5. Before proceeding with this proposal, you are required to seek Building Rules Consent

pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act, 1993.

To ensure your development can now proceed without unnecessary delays please ensure the matters outlined below are properly managed.

The following information outlines your obligations in relation to appropriately managing

noise, dust and works effecting adjoining land (both private and public).

Driveway Crossovers . If you are relocating an existing driveway crossover you must remove and reinstate the

old crossover to match the existing kerb profile, footpath and verge. You will require a

permit to work on Council land to construct your new driveway crossover which must be constructed to Council specification. Please contact Council on 8408 1111 or refer

to our website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=7&c=4118 for

relevant specifications.

Council Verges . Please take every precaution necessary to avoid damage to the landscaping and

infrastructure present on Council verges, as you will be required to make good

damage to Council property.

Common boundary

When removing fences that are on the common boundary with your neighbour you

must give your neighbour 28 days notice in writing that you intend to remove the

dividing fence. Where the neighbour has a pool, particular care must be taken to

ensure the pool is not left exposed, if temporary fencing is installed the temporary

fence must comply with AS 1926.1 - Swimming pool safety. We recommend that you

consider the Fences and the Law booklet available on line and follow the processes

outlined in the booklet.


• Where it is intended to erect external walls on the boundary the face of the external

wall must be on the boundary. Further, barge boards, capping tiles or other fixtures

on the boundary wall must not encroach upon the land of the adjoining owner.

Existing fence lines may not be the true legal boundary. To avoid violation of

neighbour's rights, the onus of proof of the boundary line rests with the owner of the

land where the work is undertaken. This will necessitate a survey being carried out by

a licensed surveyor to identify the true location of the boundary and proposed footing

on the ground. You will need the neighbour's written approval to enter their land to carry out any construction.

Neighbours

• Construction within an established neighbourhood can be a stressful time for existing

residents. You are urged to take all necessary precautions •to ensure adjoining

properties are not damaged or residents unreasonably impacted. In the interests of

good neighbourliness you may wish to consider providing your contact details to all

adjoining property owners inviting them to contact you should there be any concerns during the construction process.

Dust

• Airborne dust and sand emissions potentially generated on site must be managed and this can be achieved by wetting down the soil and site during the demolition and

construction process. If you have any concerns or questions in relation to dust you can contact the EPA on 8204 2004.

Asbestos

• If there is asbestos material in or on the building or fencing to be demolished there are specific requirements for the method of removal and disposal of asbestos. The

removal of asbestos over 10 square metres in area must be carried out by a licensed

asbestos removal contractor in accordance with Safe Work SA requirements. For

further information in relation to this please contact Safe Work SA on 1300 365 255.

Use of Public Space

• Should any part of the development process require use of public land (ie, the

footpath, nature strip, road or other reserve), additional permits will be required.

• Examples of such activities include storage of materials, delivery of materials from

public land, placing of temporary fences on public land, blocking of the road, footpath or nature strip for any period of time.

• Where works from public space impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic, you will be

requested to lodge a Traffic Management Plan that adheres to the requirements of the relevant Australian Standards.

• Additional fees and charges may apply, please contact the Council's Compliance Team on 8408 1380 to discuss your projects needs.


Environment Protection Note

The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 requires any person who is undertaking an activity, or is an occupier of land to take all reasonable and practicable

measures to avoid the discharge or deposit of waste from that activity or land into any waters or onto land in a place from which it is likely to enter any waters (including the stormwater system).

The policy also creates offences that can result in on-the-spot fines or legal proceedings. The

following information is provided to assist you to comply with this legislation:

1. Building and construction should follow sediment control principles outlined in the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention - Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (EPA 1999). Specifically, the applicant should ensure:

• During construction no sediment should leave the building and construction

site. Appropriate exclusion devices must be installed at entry points to stormwater systems and waterways.

• A stabilised entry/exit point should be constructed to minimise the tracking of

sand, soil and clay off site. However, should tracking occur, regular clean-ups are advised.

2. Litter from construction sites is an environmental concern. All efforts should be made to keep all litter on site. The applicant should ensure that bins with securely fitted lids,

capable of receiving all waste from building and construction activities, are placed on site.

3. All building and construction wastewaters are listed pollutants under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and as such must be contained on site.

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of the Policy and ensure that all

contractors engaged by you are aware of the obligations arising under it.

For further information please contact the Environment Protection Authority on telephone (08) 8204 2004.


A 1TACHMENT A

[Attachment A consists of 3 pages]

Development Plan Provisions - Consolidated 14 November 2013 Comments Land Use

Residential Character Zone Does not Comply.

Desired Character

The zone embraces areas of historic residential character which have a high level of amenity that produces safe, convenient and distinctive living environments for all residents, along with local community facilities that complement the living environment. It

recognises 15 individual precincts, each having a distinctive historical character formed by the interaction between buildings, spaces, topography, vegetation and landscaping, general street pattern and layout of the area. It is the collective integrity of the

built form that shapes the nature of each precinct.

New development needs to respond to the special attributes of the respective precinct, including views, vistas, existing

vegetation and landmarks. An increase in the density of housing may take place on corner sites or where dwellings replace a

non-complying use or an existing building not listed as a contributory item. Existing industrial or commercial uses in the zone

ought to be replaced with residential uses as development opportunities arise.

It will be important to retain the amenity and character of the area by respecting the existing development pattern of the precincts.

Precinct 71 Pre-World War One Pennington West

This part of the precinct accommodates a mixture of 100s-1920s housing, comprising typically detached single storey

Edwardian/Federation/early Bungalow houses, together with some 1940s-1950s houses on the eastern side. The housing is

characterised by red brick, sandstone and render walling, terracotta tile and corrugated iron roofing and verandas, and hipped,

gable and Dutch-gable roof forms. Some of the villas in this area are particularly fine examples of Edwardian houses, with pressed-

metal wall cladding on the fronts, corrugated iron or small-fluted iron cladding on the sides and corrugated iron roofs.

The housing is of good quality and this, together with the uniform allotment size and street layout, gives the area an interesting

character. Pennington Terrace is the dominant street in the area with the school and church providing key civic focal points.

O - Objective PDC - Principle Development Control

Residential Character Zone 1 01 Preservation of the existing development patterns and built form. Does not Comply.

06 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. Does not Comply.

PDC 7 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone. Does not Comply.

General Section q 1

Heritage

Historic Conservation Area

01 The conservation of areas of historical significance. Does not Comply.

02 Development that promotes, conserves and enhances the cultural significance and historic character of identified places and areas.

Does not Comply.

03 Development that complements the historic significance of the area. Does not Comply.

04 The retention and conservation of places such as land, buildings, structures Does not Comply.

05 Development that contributes to the desired character. Does not Comply.

PDC 1 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the area. Does not Comply.

PDC 4 The elements of a contributory item (including a fence or outbuilding or structure) that contribute to the historic character of the

locality should not be demolished or removed unless one of the following applies:

(a) the integrity or prominence of the contributory item (when viewed from a public street or place) would not be affected

(b) their condition is seriously unsound and cannot reasonably be rehabilitated

(c) a replacement development can be erected which does not diminish the level of contribution to the historic character of the

Complies

O - Objective

PDC— Principle Development Control

locality and the replacement has been approved, or is concurrently approved, by the planning authority.

PDC 5 Development should: Does not Comply.

(a) restore and rehabilitate existing places of historic value

(b) incorporate compact extensions to buildings of a scale, bulk and external appearance that are sympathetic and compatible

with the historic character of the places

(c) conserve, enhance and reinforce the historic significance of buildings and streetscapes.

PDC 6 Development of a contributory item should: Does not Comply.

(a) not compromise its value to the historic significance of the area

(b) retain its present integrity or restore its original design features

(c) maintain or enhance the prominence of the original street facade

(d) facilitate or support the continued use or adaptive re use of existing contributory places in a manner that results in a scale, bulk

and external appearance that is sympathetic to and reflective of the existing buildings and the surrounding area.

O - Objective PDC - Principle Development Control


A TTACHMENT B

[Attachment B consists of 18 pages]

0 •.o ':: •GO.G•,• .

I IL 1 Develoomtnt

oo, c• •c •': . .

k.

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

Applications submitted that do not include the prerequisite information listed in the "Planning Requirements Checklist" will be returned for resubmission by the applicant once they are complete.

1 Application Type:

Office Use Only

252/ 29t7 /13 Property Number:

[oL1Ob Date Lodged: -

Received By:

fl Complying Development EJ Building Rules Consent (Building Only)

Development Plan Consent (Planning Only) J Development.Approval (Both includes approval to prune or remove a sign,ficant tree Planning and Building)

2 Location of Proposed Development

No: 3S Street: cA Suburb: PeN\v\ Postcode:SO I

Lot No: DP: Section No: (Full/Part) Hd:

Certificate of Title: Volume: SS4 Folio: 3 1 -1

3 Detailed Description of Proposed Development vc,vv0vcxt I 04 c1v ye'

$ ,

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

-150 4 6 sc Please note: Council may require written justification to verify costs.

5 Details of Parties Sections marked * must be completed.

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

*Applicant

Name (Mc/Mrs/M/Gompany):VV pV\ C,j v'.ic-1 c ç Lotte. Vvt1'.cw.. 'c Qive

Email:

PostalAddress: 3 jsc't cGLAA ctv Oa4 Phone: Mobile: jN

Fax:

DvVckW c

Licence No: SLQ US I 144

• •':•, •G

Email: c'vuI

PostalAddress: SOt' cc'd Phone: Mobile: O414p%r Fax:

*Owner(s)ofSubjectnd:(Mr/Mrs/Ms) c 1r-o

Email:

Postal Address:

Phone: Mobile:

Fax:

City of charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia 50111088408 1111 F 08 8408 1122 www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au

2

6 Has The Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993 Levy Been Yes Lii No

Paid?

7 Does a regulated tree exist on the site or on adjoining land which Yes Lii No El might be affected (including damage to tree roots) by the proposed development?

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

8 Site Declarations - New Dwellings Only:

8.1 Was the allotment created on or afte ejltember 2009? Yes No EI' 8.2 Does the site have connecti9ptcis capable of being connected to Yes LI No

a sewage system or wj&eontrol system which complies with the Public and En9p4'rcgntal Health Act, 1987?

8.3 Was thefitCo the best of your knowledge and belief, subject to Yes No Lt site etamination as a result of a previous use of the land or a

previous activity on the land?

9 Site Declarations - New Dwellings, Dwelling Additions and Ca rports/Ga rages:

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

9.1.1 an existing driveway or authorisedçe ~ oint; or Yes LI No LI 9.1.2 a mountable or ro erb- kf' Yes LI No LI 9.1.3 a driveway access pØfrf1iiustrated as part of an approved Yes LI No LI

land divisionfr'

9.1.4 a drivea'fcess point that is not located within 6 m of an Yes LI No LI intp~ ction or a pedestrian actuated crossing and will not

interfere with a tree, street furniture, or other infrastructure?

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

Name: Email:

Phone: Mobile: Fax:

1/07/2013

3

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

d weA\ct.-

Historic Use of Land

Are there any easements on the land? R Yes L"No

Are there anysignificant trees on the land or adjacent land?

'Yes LII No

Is there a brush fence within 3 metres of the proposed building work?

fl Yes

12 Building classification details

Building classification sought: nt classification(s):

Commercial/Industrial applications:

Number of employees:

Male: Female:

Institutional buildings: umber of persons accommodated:

Assembly buildings:

Number of occupants:

13 Decision Notification Distribution

Decision Notices and associated documentation will be distributed by email if less than 5mb

and the applicants email address is included in the Applicant Details section on page 1 of this

form. When greater than 5mb in size or where an email address is not provided the decision documentation will be distributed on a CD unless a paper copy is specifically requested.

Please send a paper copy of the decision documentation by post.

14 Privacy policy

/ acknowledge that copies of this application and supporting documentation may be provided to interested persons in accordance with the Development Regulations 2008 and Development Act 1993 and where public notification is required may be made available on Council's website. Information included within this application will be publicly available on Council's website within the Development Application Register and On Line Development Application Tracking system.

Details provided by the applicant, written representations and other technical reports form part of the reports attached to Council agendas. The agenda, minutes and accompanying report is made available

on Council's website. Information, including names and addresses recorded in these documents can therefore be searched by the various website search engines.

15 *signed:

D Applicant Ow '

*Dt Ra(

thorised Person

16 Office Use Only:

Date:

Receipt NO:

N. P\ectse vce ;-'

k 4t,

•O 0 o•o•

oo . .'

• ..

.... 0 .

,. . . .

4L1 Demolition..Proposal Form

To submit an application fordemolition, this form must. be,completed and accompanied by a

completed development application form and all required documents as specified in the

requirements checklists for planning and building. For further details refer to the Development

Information Guides available at the City of Charles Sturt Civic Centre and website www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au

1. Location of proposed development:

(either) House No: 3 Street: HOOEVV'ANJ g.OAD Suburb: PEf'Jf (%JTCt\)

(or) Lot No: - DP:_ Section No: (Full/Part) Hd: _____ Volume: 534 Folio: 3 Ii 2. Description of building(s) to be demolished: (eg: single storey brick veneer dwelling with concrete floor &

tiled roof) S

c -i &&cj o cxS. vwA( c44 wc'u\S

c-v" vc 3f ' (ot P ( It2 t 4

3. Demolition method A tc%, veok- tot-'c , k,oxjc 4c

fl Hand demolition LI Demolitio.n by explosives

R4echanical demolition LJother (provide details below)

4. . Describe the dust control method, . .

E"Vorks periodically sprayed with water LI Other (provide details below)

5. Will the demolition directly impact on buildings on adjoining land? (including party walls, fences or council infrastructure) El Yes E910

If yes, what precautions have been taken to protect these structures?

6. Will fencing be provided to prevent entry to the site? Les U No

7. Does the building contain asbestos? . LII Yes U No LIAThsure

City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia 5011 T 088408 1111 F 088408 1122 www.chariessturt.sagoy,au

B. Will the demolition include the removal of any significant trees from the site? Eli Yes No

A significant tree is any tree which: has a trunk with a circumference of 2m or more (measured at im above natural ground level); or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks: has trunks with a total circumference of 2m or more and an average trunk circumference of 625mm or more (measured at 1 m above natural ground level).

II yes, has a development application been lodged? Kryes E No

8. Is the building to be demolished heritage listed?

O State heritage Riocal heritage

Ii "Contributorv place Other (provide details below)

Impact of Demolition on Rates for Your Land If you are planning to demolish a residential property you may need to consider the timing of the demolition and the impact it will have on rates levied on the property.

For rating purposes, the City Of Charles Sturt rates vacant land at a much higher rate than residential land. The intention of this is to encourage development within the city.

For example: In the 2012/13 rating year, a property with a value of $400,000 would pay

• a residential rate of $1044.10 [plus the Natural Resources Management Levy], or • a vacant land rate of $3221.20 [plus the Natural Resources Management Levy]

The City of Charles Sturt determines rates levied based on land use supplied by the Valuer-General as at June 30 each year.

If demolition has proceeded and the land is rated vacant as at June 30 but a home will be built on the land during the coming financial year, there may be an opportunity to have the rates recalculated using the residential rate. If footings are poured by June 30 in that financial year and you can demonstrate that you intend to live in the home once built, you can apply to have your rates reviewed.

However, if you do not meet these criteria, that is, you are developing the land for investment purposes or to sell the residential property/ies to third parties, you will need to factor the increased rates into the cost of the development.

More information including application forms for rebates and Council's rating policy are available at the City of Charles Sturt website at www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au .

Title Register Search LANDS TITLES OFFICE, ADELAIDE

For a Certiñcate of Title issued pursuant to the Real Property Act 1886

REGISTER SEARCH OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * VOLUME 5534 FOLIO 317 *

COST : $25.75 (GST exempt ) PARENT TITLE : CT 4031/568 REGION : EMAIL AUTHORITY : CONVERTED TITLE AGENT : VEDAP BOX NO : 000 DATE OF ISSUE : 13/05/1998 SEARCHED ON : 21/10/2013 AT : 09:18:17 EDITION : 1

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR IN FEE SIMPLE

WILLIAM DAVID LOWRIE OF 35 HODGEMAN ROAD PENNINGTON SA 5013

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

ALLOTMENT 17 DEPOSITED PLAN 1756 IN THE AREA NAMED PENNINGTON HUNDRED OF YATALA

EASEMENTS

NIL

SCHEDULE OF ENDORSEMENTS

NIL

NOTATIONS

DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THIS TITLE

NIL

REGISTRAR-GENERAL' S NOTES

CONVERTED TITLE-WITH NEXT DEALING LODGE CT 4031/568

END OF TEXT.

Page 1 of 2

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

LANDS TITLES OFFICE ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DIAGRAM FOR CERTIFICATE OF TITLE VOLUME 5534 FOLIO 317

SEARCH DATE : 21/10/2013 TIME: 09:18:17

OP 3298

HODGEMAN PD 5 . 18

D.

z 0 U,

a C)

o 10 20 30 40 Metres I I I

Page 2 of 2

'\ 6ckw5 Ov' L

I- •..••. .4 . • . .

•. . . . • • • • •

1.~ , W-i so Jr

_ W iri • I

-1C LIJ Scale: 352 Date: 17/12/2013 Author:

A N

Comments:

10 yIdI

Kate Stringer .

From: Grant and Marianne Cushway <[email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 7:41 PM To: Kate Stringer Subject: Re: Demolition of a contributory listed dwelling - 252/2907/13 - 35 Hodgeman Road

Pennington

Hello Kate,

Just in reference to our application to demolish the buildings on this property I just want to clarify that there

are some trees that we need to deal with on the property prior to demolition.

There are two Holly trees (very prickly), Oleander (which is poisonous), the tree that we understood to be an

emu bush (this is very close to the buildings and we are conscious of the canopy encroaching on the

neighbouring property and its buildings) as well as several smaller shrubs and vines. Given the delicate nature

of some of these we are going to need to arrange for expert removal to enable the demolition to proceed

safely.

Neither my mother or I plan to be in attendance at the meeting.

Appreciate your advises once the hearing has occurred.

thanks and regards, Marianne Cushway

V

A: Level 1, 70 Pine Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000

P: P0 Box 3453, Rundle Mall SA 5000 T: +618 7225 7441

F: +6187225 7479 [email protected] www.buildsurv.com.au

[10 BuiId

Merhrv

Building Surveyors fiers

ABN: 76 179 377 528

16 December 2013

Marianne Cushway 3LisaCt Fuiham SA 5024

Dear Marianne,

RE: 35 Hodgeman Road, Pennington Dwelling Inspection

As requested on the loth of December 2013 I inspected the abovementioned property to report in regards to the building's general condition and it's compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

The inspection involved a walk through visual review only to determine the suitability of the building for re-use and whether it is fit for human habitation. Reference has been made to the Housing Improvement (Standards) Regulations 2007 and the Housing Improvement Act 1940.

The following is a summary of our inspection:

Building Description: • The building is located at 35 Hodgeman Road Pennington and is a single storey dwelling of timber

floors, metal clad walls and roof and lathe and plaster framed internal walls and ceilings. The dwelling consists of a central corridor and 4 main rooms, two to either side of the corridor, and a kitchen dining area at the rear. Three masonry chimneys service fire places in the building. There is a shed to the rear of the dwelling, an enclosed verandah to the rear of the dwelling with a laundry bathroom addition and a semi-detached toilet outbuilding.

Building Condition: Structural -

• The front verandah consists of a concrete slab on fill with a clay brick perimeter support wall. Masonry is in poor condition with severe salt damp deterioration and erosion.

• The mini orb cladding has significant corrosion in places with nail fixings generally rusting and has been poorly maintained.

• The under-floor support for the timber floors is suspect with loose stacked makeshift masonry pier and timber log on ground supports and severely deteriorated original mortared masonry piers providing support for the floor. Support at the perimeter of the building is lacking as are appropriate building tie downs. Wood rot and water damage was evident to the timber stumps and floor framing.

• The bathroom / laundry addition at the rear is suspect with likely water and termite damage due to moisture ingress caused by poor waterproofing of wet areas and poor external cladding provisions.

• Significant termite damage was evident In a number of rooms with mud mounds and eaten timber noted in a number of areas.

• Ceiling displayed evidence of water damage in a number of places although it was not evident whether these were from current or previous roofing issues.

• The masonry chimneys are in a poor state of repair and require significant repointing and are likely to be structurally unsound for lateral loading from severe wind events or earthquake.

Page 1 of 9

00 IB3anflflctLnnw EE Building Surveyors & Certifiers

ED General-

• The dwelling is currently not connected to mains power with the electricity meter. I was advised that the power had been disconnected due to safety concerns over wiring. It was noted that most light fittings consisted of fabric insulated cable with globe hanging from the ceiling with the fabric being in poor condition and likely to present a hazard. Evidence of makeshift wiring was also noted. Many rooms in the dwelling are not provided with power points.

• Roof gutters are in a poor state of repair and severely corroded. Downpipes discharge to the ground adjacent the building generally and the building is not provide with any perimeter paving that is likely to have contributed to the severe salt damp damage to masonry and the significant termite activity evident on the site.

• All timber work including doors, door frames, windows and window frames, fascias and bird boards have been poorly maintained and are likely to require replacement in large extent because of wood rot and termite activity.

• Floor coverings throughout the dwelling are in poor condition • No hardwired smoke detection is provided to the dwelling as required by current standards • The extent of combustible shed storage and lack of fire construction near the boundary provides a

fire hazard

• The small separation between the shed wall and the eastern boundary and the extent of storage encourages vermin and does not comply with current standards (wall required to be located on the boundary or a minimum of 600mm off of the boundary

• The dwelling is generally considered a health hazard due to its condition, poor provision of facilities, vermin infestation, moisture ingress and suspect structural integrity

Sanitary facilities-

• All sanitary facilities are substandard and inadequate and not considered fit for purpose or in good working order.

• The only toilet to the dwelling is in effect an outhouse and it appears the sewerage system is in poor condition and likely blocked or damaged pipe work exists due to the nearly tree located in close proximity to the rear of the house.

• There is limited running water to the dwelling with taps to the laundry and bathroom only. • There is no designated water supply outlets within the laundry for a washing machine or a waste

water discharge pipe for a washing machine as required by current standards • The kitchen is provided with a poorly maintained and aged electric stove top with oven and the

adjacent kitchen bench does not have a sink.

• There is a makeshift sink in an adjoining room that has makeshift drainage pipework running to an external open inspection point. The PVC piping is in a poor state of repair having disconnected at joints.

• There is no appropriate waterproofing of walls and junctions as required under current standards and significant deterioration of pressed metal cladding has occurred as well as likely superstructure damage.

• The bathroom only has a cinder box type water heater. • The walls are generally of pressed metal and in poor condition due to water damage. It is suspected

that the wall framing is also in poor condition due to inappropriate waterproofing of walls and floors.

• Wet area floors are concrete with no tiring. • The sewer vent to the eastern side of the house has severely corroded and no longer serves its

purpose.

Page 2 of 9 2013.102435 hodgemarl rd pennirtgton rev a

EJED Bui1rJurv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

Summary The overall house is in a very poor state of repair and lacking basic facilities. Significant works would be required to provide a suitable standard of living in the dwelling and in our opinion would prove to be economically unviable. Likely works required include new plumbing (water and sewerage) and new electrical cabling throughout, re-stumping of floors, replacement of significant sections of damaged timber framing, re guttering of roof and provision of stormwater disposal system and perimeter paving, recladding external walls and significant portions internal walls replacement of sections of floor and new floor coverings, repointing of chimneys and structural strengthening, demolition and rebuild of wet areas and shed, re building of masonry dwarf walls and provision of damp proof membranes / courses, replacement of the majority of external timberwork.

We did not review roof framing but given the extent of termite activity it is likely that portions of the roof framing will require replacement and based on past experience roof tie downs would need review and upgrade. The building also is likely to lack adequate insulation provisions (roof and wall) as required under current sta ndards.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time should you wish to discuss any matter contained in the proposal.

Yours faithfully,

ILLL Andrew Cialini Director Building Surveyor and Private Certifier acialinibuildsurv.com.au

Attached site photos (6 pages)

Page 3 of 9 2013102435 hodgemari rd pennington reva

4

Ii

00 BuiIdurv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

• Poor underfloor supports and deteriorated

perimeter masonry dwarf walls. • Corroded sewer pipe to side wall. • Poorly maintained timber work required

replacing.

• Suspect underfloor electrical wiring

$

: Page 4 of 9

2013 1024 35 hodgeman Id pennington

Th'

.JI

Zf

T

— A~i

ELI BuiIdurv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

El • Termite damage to internal walls,

architraves and floors including mud mounds where furniture removed

Page 5 of 9 2013 102435 hodeman rd pennrngtcr1

LJLJ Bui1durv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

Li • Substandard kitchen and laundry

- - - facilities

F - • No running water to kitchen

• No washing machine provisions AT

(taps or wastewater as required by - BCA)

- • Inadequate waterproofing "-' provisions and floor drainage

• Generally 000r state of reoair and

maintenance • "Outhouse" toilet only that

services dwelling • Sink PVC drain pipe in poor state

of repair and discharging to open 'P

M, I

AL

I r • F •

I I i L.

jj

L

I :5

I 1;

2010 1024 25 bodqen 14 penningtor,

LIII Bui1cIurv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

El n'

I A:

t

• Bathroom is in poor condition, has poor

waterproofing and inappropriate linings and only a wood chip water heater.

• Addition structure is suspect with likely

termite and water damage to structure and external linings are inadequate

• Outdoor toilet only and not serviceable -

sewer blockage or damage

Page 7 of 9 2013 102435 hodgsm9n rd penninglon

I

LILIIJ BuiIdurw Building Surveyors & Certifiers

__________ • Rear lean to wall bowed and structurally unstable

• Shed with accumulated items encourages vermin. Above ceiling storage of timber appears inappropriate for structure and a safety hazard. Structure generally in poor condition.

• Bathroom / laundry additions with poorly maintained and fixed external cladding. Structure generally suspect and in poor condition

If

-

0

Page 8 of 9 2013 1024 35 hodgoman rd penr4riglon

ELI Bui1durv Building Surveyors & Certifiers

• Corroded gutters • Poorly maintained cladding and timber

works requires replacement as no longer

serviceable

,. _..r r'?

,

-

f C~ :-- - -.. -

2013 1024 35 hodgeman rd pennhgton


ATTACHMENT C

[Attachment C consists of 1 pages]

•: 04. • 4 • t ? • • • •. .4 . *+ •• •.. .•,... .. . . .

WARE) ST RI El

2' 22 21 26 22 30 32 36 I 40 42 44 I 46

I 48 I

1 1

SO 1 52

I [ II

I 'I

33 ii 35 37 •I 39

13 I. 15 21

16

FORTIcGREEN AVENUE

26 28 II 3u 1 (2-21

. S • T—L S

41 p 43 23 1

27 29 II 31 21

25

51

Comments:

NIAN

.\ • 1 26 Ii • • • 1 •

1381 I

- 25: 36! i401

42

24

F E .

DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 Section 38 (Category 2)

Public Notice and Consultation Authorisation

Pursuantto Section 38(4) of the Act to give notice of a

IS proposalfor a Category 2 development.

The properties marked with a red dot on the attached map

showthe occupiers and recorded owners of all properties

which have been notified pursuantto Section 384) of the

Act.

Authorityto form such opinion andto give notice is

delegated to the Team LeaderMajorPfanningAssessment.

Development Application No. 2521 2907 / 13

Signed Zoe -

(Team LeaderMajorPlanning Assessment)

Date 30/01/2014

HtL!

2 1 F :7: In 11 31

Scale: 1,407 Da

Documents

5 2014€¦ · Author Kate Stringer ... 'Thomasii" (New Zealand Christmas Bush), ... then confuses the story and misrepresents its value