ATTACHMENT 4 AGENCY COMMENTS€¦ · Seymour, Abergeldie House, Gilles Road or into Glenrose Court. There is often a back up of vehicles on Wootoona waiting to get access to Portrush

Development Assessment Commission

28 July 2016

AGENDA ITEM 2.1.1

ATTACHMENT 4 – AGENCY COMMENTS


28 July 2016

AGENDA ITEM 2.1.1

ATTACHMENT 5 – COUNCIL COMMENTS

17,) City of AO umswle

9 February 2016

Development Assessment Commission GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Sir/Madam

DAC Referral under Section 33(1) of The Act

Development Application: 180\1185\15

Applicant: Masterplan

Location: 548 Portrush Road GLEN OSMOND SA 5064

Nature of Development: Alterations and Additions to Abergeldie House (DAC Referral under Section 33(1) of The Act)

Thank you for referring the proposal to Council for consideration and comment under Section 33(1) of the Act.

Council has reviewed the application details and offers the following comments in relation to the proposal:

1. The development, as currently proposed, is generally in accordance with the relevant objectives and principles of the Burnside (City) Development Plan and therefore constitutes an appropriate planning outcome for the subject land and locality.

2. The applicant should provide plans and details of stormwater reticulation and reuse systems be incorporated within the design in order to reduce pressure on Council infrastructure.

3. The applicant should provide that all windows and balcony areas facing either east or south shall include fixed obscure privacy screening to at least 1700mnn above the subsequent finished floor level and all instructions provided under point 7.6 within the report compiled by Fabian Barone from MasterPlan. All privacy treatments should be installed prior to use of the built form.

4. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of on-site car parking to comply with Table Bur/5 within the Burnside City Development Plan in order to reduce pressure for on-street parking within the locality, which is already in high demand.

5. The shared use of the supplied car parking shall be available to school and health care users.

6. Consideration should be given to the incorporation of showers and lockers within the complex in order to encourage bicycle commuting for work and recr • •

Post PO Box 9, Glenside SA 5065

Civic Centre 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore SA 5065

Phone (08) 8366 4200 Fax (08) 8366 4299 Email [email protected] www.burnside.sa.gov.au ABN 66 452 640 504

re) City of urnstcle

7. All recommendations and site requirements as listed by Kym Knight - Tree Environs dated 16 June 2015 should be complied with at all times.

8. Consideration should be given to providing adequate screening to all east and south-facing windows and balcony areas, in order to reduce detrimental impacts to the acoustic privacy of the occupants of adjoining residences.

9. During demolition works the amenity of the abutting properties should be maintained where possible without detrimental impacts.

10. All facilitates/amenities including air-conditioning units should be sufficiently screening from the abutting properties.

11. All waste should be sufficiently screened from public view to not detract from the amenity of the locality or the existing LHP.

12. All vegetation as depicted within the original proposal and documentation sent by Fabian Barone on 5 February 2016 should be established within 3 months of the substantial completion of development and in any event prior to the occupation or use of the development. Such landscaping should be maintained in good health and condition to the satisfaction of the Council at all times and any dead or diseased plants or trees shall be immediately replaced to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.

13. The proposed masonry wall should finish short of the LHP verandah and finish as a cantilevered opening, stop 0.5m short of the verandah as a column, or return northwards as a solid wall a distance off the LHP verandah. Other design options may be also be possible. The wall junction should not physically abut the existing verandah, as views of the historic form of the verandah and its relationship to the house would be compromised when looking down the side and under the verandah.

If you require further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours • aithfully

n einrich Manager — Development and Safety

Phone: 8366 4136 Email: [email protected]

Post PO Box 9, Glenside SA 5065 Civic Centre 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore SA 5065

Phone (08) 8366 4200 Fax (08) 8366 4299 Email [email protected] www.burnside.sa.gov.au ABN 66 452 640 504


28 July 2016

AGENDA ITEM 2.1.1

ATTACHMENT 6 – REPRESENTATIONS

South AustralianDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993

REPRESENTATION ON APPLICATION - CATEGORY 3

Apolicant: Patrlcia Weinert {c/- Giordano & Associates Pty Ltd)

Development Numben 1801E020/L5

Nature of Development: Alterations and additions to Abergeldie House. The development will comprisethree stages: (1) construction of a five storey building at the rear of the site (withlevels 1-4 containing a carpark and level 5 for an aquatic centre, gymnasium andfour consulting rooms); (2) construction of a 2 storey extension to the existing

structures (containing a consulting room, reception area and a multi-purposeroom); and (3) the construction of an additional floor level (containing an

additional 6 consulting rooms).

Type of development: MeritZone I Policy Area: Communitv Zone

Subiect Land: 548 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond

Contact Officer: Ben Scholes

Phone Number: 8402 1861

Close Date: 10 February 2015

My name , NtrcAAr, LErH ( &r NC (=

My phone number:

PRIMARY METHOD(s) OF CONTACT: Email address:

Postal address:

S r Jr "; (c', r-\ postcooe iC b'*You will be contacted via vour nominated PRIMARY METHOD{s) OF CONTACT if vou indicate below that vou wish to beheard in support of vour submission.

My interests are: N o*n"r of local property

! occupier of local property

T a representative of a company/other organisation affected by the proposal

I a private citizen

rheaddressofthe propertyaffected i, ? A L+ lll-Ci-:f*,q 1 i fL{$"[ Lpostcode

which I make comment on are:

i

The specific aspects of the application to

"[kir {1{,1,J{ / 3t

trt-u t

By

f wish to be heard in support of my submission

N Oo not wish to be heard in support of my submission

(Please tick one)

l-l appearing personally

I o.,ng represented by the following person:

I I (Please tick one)

,.." IlL\\t sisnature

Return Address: The Secretary, Development Assessment Commission, GPO Box 18L5, Adelaide

[email protected]

2a Wootoona Terrace St Georges 5064 South Australia 8 February 2016 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Development Number 180/E020/15 548 Portrush Road As a local resident I would like to raise my concerns regarding the above development. The junction from Wootoona Terrace onto Portrush Road is a known traffic black spot with Burnside Council undertaking previous studies and trialing several measures to seek a solution. I am very concerned that this development’s use as a leisure facility encourages people to frequent it regularly and across the whole day. The whole section of Portrush Road in both directions from Wootoona Terrace up to Gilles Road will be negatively impacted by the huge increase in traffic volume. Wootoona Terrace is a very difficult and dangerous junction to exit if you require to turn right and travel down Portrush Road towards the city. There are a large number of vehicles coming down Portrush Road which U turn across this junction to facilitate a return up Portrush Road and turn into Seymour, Abergeldie House, Gilles Road or into Glenrose Court. There is often a back up of vehicles on Wootoona waiting to get access to Portrush Road, there are often cars backed up in the crossover which are queued into traffic on Portrush Road. These cars are waiting to U turn back up Portrush but cannot until the Wootoona Junction is clear. The fact this development proposes keeping the left hand only entry and exit will only exacerbate the huge problem of the cross over filling up and causing a traffic hazard. At best this crossover will only hold 5 cars safely and often people are even queued in the next cross over further up Portrush Road. It is a fatality waiting to happen. Despite the assurance that a traffic survey in 2014 found it would not adversely affect traffic flow.I would dispute this fact. Just for the one hour 830 to 930 this morning I counted 42 cars u turn in Wootoona. These are all wanting to return up Portrush Road.

Wootoona Terrace and Portrush Road are roads that are never quiet. At any time of the day or night,weekdays or weekend you will never be the only car at that junction. This area is a high traffic area with many varied and complex issues for which the correct solution is still being sought. The report says all but 2 of the 256 car parks will be required at the new premises which must mean a huge number of visiting vehicles, and if only half require to turn back up Portrush Road to enter, traffic will be adversely effected.

• 7.8 Access • • motorists will continue to be able to enter and exit the premises via the existing crossover on

the northern side of the landscaped garden bed which runs parallel to Portrush Road;

The above statement is not clear to me as there is no crossover which will give you entry after coming down Portrush at the moment. The only cross over is past the entrance going up and is marked a right hand filter crossover used by motorists exiting Wootoona and u turning in order to turn back down Portrush Road to the City. This does not facilitate entry to Abergeldie House and will always be used by motorists wanting to cross Portrush Road. While I do question the need for this facility in this location, I am far more disturbed by the danger that all the extra vehicles will cause and I certainly urge that more serious consideration is given to the impact on traffic, and a real solution sought to the many different issues surrounding this section of road before this application is granted. Yours faithfully Morag Lethbridge

HOLMES DYER PTY LTD ABN: 30 608 975 391

Ph: 08 7231 1889 Level 3/15 Featherstone Place

ADELAIDE SA 5000

The Secretary


GPO Box 1815

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Attention: Ben Scholes

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Secretary,

RE: DA180/E020/15 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO

ABERGELDIE HOUSE, 548 PORTRUSH ROAD, GLEN OSMOND.

We are writing to you on behalf of Lifecare the owners of the property at 550

Portrush, Road Glen Osmond that abuts the subject site to the south.

Firstly we would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment in respect of

this Development Application.

Lifecare is a provider of aged care living services.

To provide some context for our specific comments, the Lifecare site at 550

Portrush Road is Lifecare’s Glenrose Court establishment. Glenrose Court

provides a combination of supported living facilities and independent living

units. This facility is a key element of Lifecare’s service delivery model and the

site will continue to be home to many residents into the future.

As was noted in the planning report by Mr Barone of MasterPlan, and consistent

with Lifecare’s commitment to this site over the long term, it is Lifecare’s

intention to undertake a master planning exercise for the Glenrose Court

establishment. Such an exercise will naturally consider the site in an holistic

context including interfaces with neighbouring properties. That said, this

process will extend over a period of time and as such the site is expected to

remain in its current configuration for the foreseeable future.

10 February 2016

REF No.: 0134-001

REF 0134-001 | 10 February 2016 2

Turning now to the development application proposal, Lifecare believes that the

proposal is generally appropriate in terms of its land use, scale and height. The

additional facilities such as those proposed (consulting rooms, gymnasium, pool

and associated car parking) are considered to be an addition to the area. Overall

therefore, subject to the following comments in respect to the interface with the

Lifecare site, Lifecare supports the Development Application.

In terms of the interface Lifecare is concerned that the current proposal and in

particular the position of the eastern most building will provide some impacts

for residents that are not considered acceptable and should be further

mitigated.

In particular this building is positioned to the north of the Lifecare independent

living units. Given the proposed building setback the residents in the

independent living units will sustain significant levels of overshadowing. Whilst

we accept that some overshadowing will be inevitable and appreciate that the

shadows shown at the winter solstice are the worst case scenario, these

diagrams show that the private open space of these dwellings will be in full

shadow all day. Furthermore, the extent of the shadowing is such that this

complete overshadowing will remain not only for the day of the solstice but for a

period leading up to the solstice and a period thereafter. For this period of

weeks during winter therefore the private open space (including the area for

drying clothes) will receive no sunlight at all. We do not believe this is

appropriate and believe that with some design modifications this could be

reduced to an acceptable level, allowing the new facility to be built and the

residents to continue their quiet enjoyment of their land.

Furthermore the perforated screens to the car park will enable the potential for

noise and fumes. The impacts of both of these would also be reduced via the

same design modifications that would enable access to more sunlight.

Whilst we believe that the proposal should be approved, we ask the DAC to

consider seeking the applicant make design modifications to address this

boundary interface.

REF 0134-001 | 10 February 2016 3

We would like to speak to this submission at the relevant meeting and look

forward to a development that will further enhance the locality.

Yours Sincerely

Stephen Holmes

Director

South AustralianDEVETOPMENT ACr, 1993

REPRESENTATION ON APPLICATION - CATEGORY 3

Applicant: Patricia Weinert (c/- Giordano & Associates Pty Ltd)Development Numberi r8o/Eo2o/7silature of Development: Alterations and additions to Abergeldie House, The development will comprise

three stages: (1) construction of a five storey building at the rear of the site (withlevels 1-4 containing a carpark and level 5 for an aquatic centre, gymnasium andfour consulting rooms); (2) construction of a 2 storey extension to the existingstructures (containing a consulting room, reception area and a multi-purposeroom); and (3) the construction of an additional floor level (containing anadditional 6 consultins rooms).

Type ot develooment: MeritZone / Policy Area: Community ZoneSubjed Land: 548 Portrush Road. Glen OsmondContact offi.er: Ben ScholesPhone Number: 8402 1851Close Date: 10 February 2016

r"ry name, I P€ter Stavrou

vy phone numuer, 0409 988 055

PRIMARY METHOD(s) OF CONTACT: [email protected]:

Postaladdress: Level 3 / 143 Hutt Street, ADELAIDE

Postcode 5000

You will be contacted vla vour nominated PRIMARY METHoD(sl oF coNTAcr if vou indtcate below that vou wish to beheard in suooort ofyour submission,

My interests are: I owner of local property

n occupier of local property

! a representative of a company/other organisation affected by the proposal

E a private citiren

The address of the property affected is 6 Gilles Road Glen Osmond SA po.1.o6" 5069

The specific aspects ofthe application to which I make comment on are:

Please see attached.

By

I wish to be heard in support of my submission

! do not wish to be heard in support of my submission

(Please tick one)

I appearing personatty

! b"ing r"p,arun,"d by the foltowing person:

10/oa2016

[email protected]

(Please tick one)

Signature

6nt Commisslon, GPO 8ox 1815, Adelaide SA 5001 or by email

1. Traffic management issues. Congestion along Portrush Road heading in a southerlydirection. There is significant difficulty entering and exiting Portrush Road especially atpeak hour but most times during the day. Within a short span of Road there will be anentrance and exit from Seymour College, entrance and exit from the proposeddevelopment as well as a set of pedestrian traffic lights and the intersection of PortrushRoad and Gilles Road. There is no access to the development for northbound traffic onPortrush Road that adds to congestion requiring a U-turn further north of thedevelopment. Seymour College avoids these problems by having a separate exit onGilles Road that allows access for North bound traffic via Gilles Road. The proposeddevelopment will not have this.

Asthetics, the proposed development will be signilicantly higher than the current size ofAbergeldie House. lt is a modern building not in keeping with the current appearance.This will be visable from all aspects significantly as it rises above all other buildings in thearea. lt will dominate views from all aspects without improving them aesthetically.

The proposed development is a 24 hour gym. This will create significant traffic consideringthe number of car proposed parks at all hours along with associated noise.

I have three children that attend Seymour College, there is concern about the safety andprivacy of the children especially in the junior school with this development directlyoverlooking that aspect of the school.

3.

4.


28 July 2016

AGENDA ITEM 2.1.1

ATTACHMENT 7 – RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

31 March 2016

Dear Ben

Re: Development Application 180/E020/15

I have been asked by my client, Ms Patricia Weinert, to review and subsequently respond to all six of the representations which were submitted within the prescribed time for such purposes.

Before doing so, I would like to point out that the issues raised by Ms Rita Chetcuti on behalf of Seymour College (‘the College’) are identical to those that were raised and subsequently addressed in writing on Wednesday, 10 June 2015. The first email and letter attached to my response clearly attest to this.

I would also like to point out that my client’s proposal now has Life Care’s “unilateral support”. The second email attached to my response clearly attests to this.

My response is set out below.

Zoning

I note that two of the representors have somehow managed to convince themselves that the complex is situated in a Residential Zone. This is simply not the case.

According to Map Bur/7 of the relevant version of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the complex is situated wholly within the confines of the Community Zone, and is separated from the adjacent Residential and Historic (Conservation) Zones to the north by the College’s main driveway.

Mr Ben Scholes Project Officer Strategic Assessment and Investment Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Level 5, Roma Mitchell House 136 North Terrace ADELAIDE SA 5000

14286LET07

The proposed uses are complementary to those which presently form part of the complex. They have strong ties to education and health care, and are contemplated within the Community Zone by virtue of their exclusion from the list of non-complying uses.

Height

It has been asserted by a few of the representors that the height of the Stage 1 Building is inappropriate.

I completely disagree with this assertion on the basis that:

• there is no height limit prescribed for non-residential buildings in the Community Zone;

• dwellings of up to three storeys in height could be constructed on this very parcel of land;

• Council Wide Principle 19, by virtue of its wording, contemplates the construction of multi-level buildings within close proximity to local heritage places;

• Council Wide Principle 76, by virtue of its wording, contemplates the construction of multi-level additions to local heritage places;

• Council Wide Principle 218, by virtue of its wording, contemplates the construction of buildings which contain five or more levels and stand more than 21 metres tall;

• the Stage 1 Building will contain five levels only and not exceed 16.4 metres in height;

• the Stage 1 Building will only be marginally taller than the original building when viewed from Portrush Road due to the deeply recessed platform it has been designed to occupy;

• when viewed from the service courtyards on the northern side of the neighbouring independent living units to the south, the Stage 1 Building will present as a two storey building due to the vast difference in levels (indeed, the first three floor levels of the Stage 1 Building will sit almost entirely below the adjoining ground level to the south); and

• the City of Burnside (‘the Council’) has not raised any concerns in relation to the height of the Stage 1 Building following its independent assessment of the proposal.

14286LET07 2

Appearance

It has been asserted by a couple of the representors that all three structures, including the Stage 1 Building, will not be pleasing on the eye.

The proposed structures have been carefully designed to ensure that each façade will be expressive but not overpowering, particularly when viewed from the adjacent tennis courts to the east and the integrated residential aged care facility to the south.

Indeed, the use of contemporary yet sturdy materials, such as concrete, aluminium composite and compressed fibre cement, and the application of warm and complementary colour tones will greatly assist in this regard. So too for that matter will the flat roof forms and the intricate shadows that are likely to be cast over each façade by the various projecting elements.

None of the façades will contain any bland or highly reflective surfaces. Instead, they will be brought to life by small vertical and horizontal components. These components will also serve to break up the width of each structure whilst reducing its apparent height.

The rooftop plant will be positioned on the western side of the skylight above the atrium and enclosed on all four sides by sheets of powder-coated steel. It will therefore be adequately concealed.

The degree of articulation afforded to each structure is more than acceptable in my view, especially when one considers that they will be hidden to a large extent by the original building, and the existing and proposed vegetation along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the complex.

As an aside, it is important for the Development Assessment Commission (‘the Commission’) to note that the Council’s consultant heritage advisor is now completely satisfied with the external appearance of all three structures.

Materials and Colours

The College has asked once again for confirmation of the materials and colours picked for the eastern façade of the Stage 1 Building.

These details are clearly shown on Sheets 1.2.7, Revision E and 1.3.8, Revision E, and were presented to the College’s Property and Building Committee back in June last year.

14286LET07 3

Perforated Metal Screen

The College has asked once again to be consulted on the final imagery for the exposed face of the perforated metal screen on the eastern side of the Stage 1 Building.

Mr Giordano and I approached the College via their Property and Building Committee back in June last year, and even suggested, with the blessing of our mutual client, that the final design be settled as part of a junior school competition where the winner’s drawing would be emblazoned onto the screen.

We are still waiting for an answer from the College’s Property and Building Committee.

Given this, and the fact that the screen will be erected well within the eastern boundary of the complex and subsequently screened in the next few years by the olive grevilleas, I would ask that the Commission proceed to assess the screen in its current form.

Rooftop Plant

The College has asked once again for details to be provided in relation to the rooftop plant.

I find this request extremely odd because:

• my client agreed, almost one year ago, to shift the rooftop plant from the eastern side of the skylight above the atrium to the western (opposite) side in order to appease the College’s Property and Building Committee;

• the College’s Property and Building Committee were told in writing and then shown in person that the rooftop plant would be enclosed on all four sides by sheets of powder-coated steel; and

• Mr Giordano and I have already explained to the College’s Property and Building Committee that the aforementioned enclosure has been sited and designed to ensure that any noise generated by the rooftop plant does not exceed the relevant criteria set out under the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

Overlooking

It has been asserted by a couple of the representors that the tenancies on the top floor level of the Stage 1 Building will overlook the College’s grounds, as well as the rear yards of those residential properties on the southern side of Wootoona Terrace.

14286LET07 4

My client, whilst not required to do so by Council Wide Principle 176, has instructed Mr Giordano to protect the privacy of those students using the neighbouring tennis courts, play equipment and grassed area immediately to the east by:

• fitting the window frames on the eastern side of the top floor level of the Stage 1 Building with obscure glazing to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level; and

• installing a precast concrete panel, which spans from the floor to the ceiling, at the eastern end of the balcony on the northern side of the top floor level of the Stage 1 Building.

The balustrade belonging to the balcony on the northern side of the gymnasium will not be raised to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level because:

• this would limit the gymnasium’s exposure to the sun and minimise the passive solar benefits that come with it;

• the balcony will overlook the College’s main driveway which cannot possibly be classed as ‘private open space’, as it belongs to an educational institution, not a dwelling, and is principally used to transport students to and from school;

• the rear yards associated with those residential properties on the southern side of Wootoona Terrace are separated from the complex by the College’s main driveway; and

• most of the rear yards associated with those residential properties on the southern side of Wootoona Terrace are presently visible to students, parents, visitors and staff whenever they walk or drive along the College’s main driveway due to the low and permeable nature of the fences that surround them.

Overshadowing

It has been asserted by a representative of Life Care that the Stage 1 Building will cast a significant amount of shadow over the open spaces on the northern side of the two independent living units to the south of the complex.

The extent of shadow that is likely to be cast by all three of the proposed structures between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on the winter solstice is captured across the set of sun shadow diagrams attached to my response.

Whilst it is clear from these diagrams that the Stage 1 Building will cast a considerable amount of shadow across the open spaces on the northern side of these units, it is vitally important for the Commission to take into consideration that:

14286LET07 5

• whilst it may be used as a guide, Council Wide Principle 184 does not, strictly speaking, relate to development of a non-residential nature such as this;

• these diagrams depict the worst-case scenario, as the winter solstice marks the shortest day of the year and is when the sun is at its lowest point in the sky;

• on every other day of the year, the extent of shadow cast by the Stage 1 Building will be less (indeed, the other set of sun shadow diagrams attached to my response demonstrate the very minor difference this Building will make during the middle of summer);

• the first photograph attached to my response shows that the open space on the northern side of the eastern-most unit presently accommodates an air-conditioning unit, a hot water system and a shed (it cannot therefore be described as ‘private open space’ – see Council wide Principle 168);

• the second photograph attached to my response shows that the open space on the northern side of the western-most unit is used exclusively to dry clothes;

• the third photograph attached to my response shows that the open space on the western side of the western-most unit is legitimately used as ‘private open space’ but is covered by a pergola which generates a significant amount of shadow itself;

• that part of the Stage 1 Building’s southern façade which will be set-back 6.8 metres from these units will only sit 7.2 metres above the neighbouring ground level due to the depth of excavation that is required (in other words, the Stage 1 Building will be akin to a modest two storey building from these vantage points);

• Life Care’s representative has failed to take note of the 5.0 metre tall ‘green screen’ which my client intends to grow along the southern boundary of the complex (the shrubs forming part of this screen can be planted at any time, as this activity does not amount to ‘development’ in its own right, and will generate just as much shadow, if not more);

• the occupants of these units appear to have access to the amenities and open spaces associated with the adjacent nursing home to the west;

• Mr Giordano was advised by Mr Loris Rigon back in April last year that Life Care is in the process of developing a master plan that will guide the redevelopment of its integrated aged care facility, and that the placement and profile of the proposed structures would be taken into account; and

• Mr Giordano and I have since met with, and spoken to, Life Care’s representative. As a consequence of these discussions, our client has agreed to install two clothes dryers (one per unit) and to provide Life Care’s residents and their carers with access to the gymnasium and swimming pool via a future pedestrian link.

14286LET07 6

Noise

It has been asserted by one of the representors, who, by the way, happens to live on the southern side of Gilles Road, that the gymnasium and its patrons will generate a significant amount of noise.

I believe it is fair to say that any noise generated by the gymnasium or its patrons will be sufficiently muffled by the insulation and glazing surrounding this tenancy, as well as the ambient noise associated with Portrush Road.

It has also been asserted by one of the representors that noise will be generated by the car park at the back of the complex.

Firstly, the rear third or thereabouts of the complex is presently used as an ‘open lot’ car park. A fully enclosed car park is therefore an improvement as far as noise is concerned.

Secondly, there are, to the best of my knowledge, no restrictions in place which limit the use of the existing ‘open lot’ car park. In other words, my client’s tenants and their respective patrons can come and go as they please during all hours of the day and night.

Fumes

A couple of the representors appear to be concerned about the potential for harmful exhaust fumes to seep into the neighbouring properties to the east and to the south of the complex.

I have been informed by Mr Giordano that the car park which forms part of the Stage 1 Building will be mechanically ventilated in accordance with Australian Standard 1668 – 2005.

Landscaping

It has been asserted by Ms Chetcuti on the College’s behalf that no details in relation to landscaping have been provided as part of my client’s development application.

The attached Landscaping Plan, formally known as Drawing 1.2.8, Revision E, was available for a period of two weeks on the Commission’s Website. It was also provided, voluntarily might I add, to the College’s Property and Building Committee back in June last year as part of my client’s aim to accommodate their concerns.

14286LET07 7

Nevertheless, it is clear from this Plan that:

• a fast growing olive grevillea screen will be planted parallel to the eastern boundary of the complex;

• the shrubs will be 200 millimetres tall when planted but will rapidly grow to 5.0 metres in height;

• the shrubs, which are expected to reach 3.0 metres in width, will be planted at 2.5 metre intervals;

• the shrubs were recommended by my client’s arborist, as they are dense, put on a colourful display and do not have a propensity to drop leaves or branches; and

• no new trees, shrubs or grasses will be planted on or near the northern boundary of the complex.

For clarity, all of the trees, shrubs and grasses will be planted just before the Stage 1 Building is officially opened to the public. They will also be maintained on a regular basis by my client’s gardener.

External Lighting

It has already been explained both in writing and in person to the College’s Property and Building Committee that:

• there is no requirement for any external lighting on the northern, eastern or southern sides of the Stage 1 Building; and

• the ground level lighting on the western side of the Stage 1 Building, which is required to guide pedestrians, will accord with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 despite the fact that it will not be visible from, or spill onto, any part of the College’s property due to the difference in levels.

A lighting plan is therefore not required until such time that my client applies for Building Rules Consent.

Construction Programme

The College has asked once again to be kept in the loop about developments as they unfold.

My client has already promised to keep the College and Life Care abreast of developments well before they are scheduled to take place. This is despite the fact the she need only comply with the relevant construction related provisions set out under the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

14286LET07 8

Should the Commission decide to grant Development Plan Consent, my client will also arrange for her builder to erect a temporary fence along the western boundary of the complex, and to wrap a layer of opaque mesh around that fence for the duration of the construction process.

Access, Parking and Traffic

All of the concerns raised in relation to access, parking and traffic have been satisfactorily addressed in the attached letter from Mr Phil Weaver.

Consultation

It appears as though one of the representors is disappointed that they were not spoken to by my client or any of her representatives prior to the commencement of the public notification period.

My client is not required to approach any of her neighbours before, during or after the assessment process however, she felt compelled to disclose the particulars of her proposal to key representatives of Life Care and the College, as these two properties abut the southern, and northern and eastern boundaries of the complex respectively.

Summary

I remain of the opinion, despite some of the concerns raised, that the proposal accords, to a sufficient degree, with the relevant provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, and is deserving of Development Plan Consent.

Would you kindly disclose the particulars of the forthcoming meeting as soon as you become aware of them so that Mr Giordano, Mr Weaver and I can respond to any relevant queries or concerns on our mutual client’s behalf.

14286LET07 9

In the meantime, if you happen to have any further queries or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the first instance by phone (0413 832 607) or email ([email protected]).

Yours sincerely

Fabian Barone MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd

enc: Documents as listed. cc: Ms Patricia Weinert, and Messrs Giordano and Weaver.

14286LET07 10

Photograph 1

The service court on the northern side of the eastern-most independent living unit to the south of

the complex.

Photograph 2

The service court on the northern side of the western-most independent living unit to the south of

the complex.

Photograph 3

The covered private open space on the western side of the western-most independent living unit to

the south of the complex.

File: 116-14 24 March 2016 Mr Fabian Barone MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd 33 Carrington Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 Dear Mr Barone, ABERGELDIE HOUSE - 548 PORTRUSH ROAD, GLEN OSMOND (DA 180/E020/15) I refer to our previous discussions relating to the various representations which have been received by the Development Assessment Commission (the DAC) with respect to the proposed alterations and additions to Abergeldie House. I also note that informal comment has been made by the Operational Services Team of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) in relation to this matter. DPTI Comments The following traffic related aspects were raised by the Operational Services team of DPTI in an email dated 23rd February 2016, namely:-

Discounted traffic generation rate of 5 vehicle movements per 100m2 of floor space (for gym/pool) is considered excessive; 7 vehicle movements per 100m2 has been recommended, increasing the expected generation to 172.5 trips during peak hour;

The AM peak commuter period will likely coincide with school arrivals, peak traffic generation for the gym and drop-offs/arrivals for day surgery; therefore queuing across the adjacent pedestrian crossing is considered most likely to occur during the AM peak under proposed arrangements;

The impact of the traffic generation on movements through the site access points may be understated due to a number of the peaks of traffic generation for the site coinciding with peaks on Portrush Road; and

2

Concerns in relation to assumptions used in the car parking assessment – both AM & PM peak periods for car parking demand associated with various uses on site also coincide, introducing potential for the development to be under-parked during these periods.

Changes have been made to access arrangements and the car parking layout of the proposed development since the above advice was received. Whilst these changes will provide for the retention of the existing access points, it is proposed that the northern access point will become an exit only and that the southern access point will now be used as an entry only into the car parking area of the subject site. The proposed amended car parking layout is shown on the Site Plan prepared by Giordano and Associates (Drawing Nos. A14/04/1.2.1 Revision E and A14/04/1.2.7 Revision E). This plan identifies that the proposed entry point will be orientated at an angle of 70 degrees into the site. Similarly, the northern access point which will become a one way exit point onto Portrush Road, and will also be angled at 70 degrees to this arterial road. Consequently, the orientation of both access points will reinforce the one way nature of both access points, i.e. a left turn entry movement into the site at the southern access point and left turn exit movements onto Portrush Road at the location of the existing northern access point on this roadway. The proposed changes to the on-site car parking area will result in a total car parking provision of 258 spaces which will exceed the forecast parking demand previously identified by the subject development. The amended car parking layout will require control of exit movements from the rear car parking area. Such movements will be controlled by use of a Give Way sign and appropriate line marking. Consequently, the changes suggested by DPTI to the car park design have been incorporated into the amended plans. More particularly, the changes will reduce any potential for traffic entering the subject site to extend back to the area of the existing Pedestrian Actuated Crossing (PAC) on Portrush Road. In respect to the comments made by DPTI in relation to traffic generation, there does not appear to be any empirical evidence for the traffic generation rates identified by DPTI. Notwithstanding this, the nature of the proposed redevelopment of the subject site will result in only left turn entry and left turn exit movements. Accordingly, it is considered that there will not be capacity issues associated with traffic entering and exiting the subject development irrespective of the slightly higher rates suggested by DPTI. I understand that DPTI has also raised a concern in respect to the potential for service vehicles to turn on site. Accordingly I have further reviewed this aspect and have identified that it would be possible to:-

Manoeuvre a Small Rigid Vehicle (SRV) or similarly sized rigid body vehicles within the northern car parking aisle into and out of the delivery area on the northern side of the building, without any change to the design, and

Manoeuvre a Medium Rigid Vehicle (MRV) or similarly sized rigid vehicles within the northern car parking aisle provided that this design vehicle can utilise the area accessed by spaces 41 to 43 when servicing the site. Consequently, I would suggest that this vehicle could readily access the site in after hour periods, or within periods between the am and pm peak hour commuter periods, provided that these spaces are not occupied during such periods.

3

On the above basis, I consider that any concerns with respect to delivery vehicles reversing from the front car park to the service area would be addressed by the ability of these vehicles to manoeuvre directly in front of the bin room. This is notwithstanding that the need for servicing by larger trucks would be low and in any event would most likely be undertaken out of peak hour periods.

Representations I note that a total of six representations were received by the DAC in which matters of traffic, parking and access related aspects associated with the proposed development were raised in 5 of these representations. I have consequently summarised the relevant aspects of each of these representations and have provided a response to the various issues directly under the relevant representation. P Stavrou, 6 Gilles Road, Glen Osmond

1. Traffic management issues. Congestion along Portrush Road heading in a southerly direction.

There is significant difficulty entering and exiting Portrush Road especially at peak hour but most times during the day. Within a short span of Road there will be an entrance and exit from Seymour College, entrance and exit from the proposed development as well as a set of pedestrian traffic lights and the intersection of Portrush Road and Gilles Road. There is no access to the development for northbound traffic on Portrush Road that adds to congestion requiring a U-turn further north of the development. Seymour College avoids these problems by having a separate exit on Gilles Road that allows access for North bound traffic via Gilles Road. The proposed development will not have this.

2. The proposed development is a 24 hour gym. This will create significant traffic considering the number of car proposed parks at all hours along with associated noise.

In response to the matters raised in the above representation it should be noted that:-

All access to and from the subject development will be restricted to left turn entry and left turn exit movements only, given that DPTI will not support provisions of either right turn entry movements into or out of the site,

There will be no increase in the number of access points on the subject section of Portrush Road, as a result of the subject development. However, the manner of operation of these access points will be changed to reflect the requirements of DPTI, resulting in:-

An increase in the seperation of the entry point from the PAC on Portrush Road,

There will no longer be any potential for traffic to turn right out of the site onto the

northbound carriageway of Portrush Road nor will there be an opportunity for drivers to exit from the site directly onto Myrona Avenue,

Currently there is no direct access into the subject site for northbound traffic. This will

not change as a result of the proposed design,

There are opportunities for drivers to safely undertake U-turn movements on Portrush Road when travelling to and from the site by means of appropriately designed turning bays within Portrush Road,

4

There is no opportunity to provide a side road access into the above land, given that the existing development does not have a frontage onto a side road,

The volume of traffic generated by a 24 hour gymnasium at night would be minimal and more than adequate car parking will be provided on site to accommodate the car parking demand associated with such a land use in these periods.

Nick and Kathryn House, 8 Wootoona Terrace, Glen Osmond Mr and Mrs House made only a generic comment in relation to peak hour traffic on Portrush Road finishing at 6.30 pm. I consider that this concern has been addressed above. Rita Checcuti on behalf of Seymour College The College expressed a number of concerns regarding the development of which I consider the following related to traffic, parking and accessibility issues:-

Traffic

The operational Traffic Management Plan prepared for Ms Weinert was requested but not made available for review. This report, along with the Construction Traffic Management Plan needs to be provided to outline traffic impacts of the proposed development and related construction activities. We request a single plan showing location of existing entry/exit point, pedestrian crossing and Seymour main entry with an overlay of the proposed relocated entry/exit to Abergeldie. The withholding of the traffic management report raises issues that it does not adequately address the issue of traffic management for Seymour.

Car Park

We are very concerned regarding the number of car park spaces being constructed, traffic volumes and associated noise aspects and potential fumes discharged to neighboring properties. The business need for so many car parks is questionable and the number of parks well exceeds planning requirements. Un-necessary car park spaces will add to the larger massing of the development and resultant impact upon the College.

In response to the two issues above I consider that:-

The amended car parking layout maintains the same number of access points as currently provided. However, it addresses the concerns raised by DPTI and in particular will increase the existing separation of the northern access point from the PAC. More particularly, this access point will no longer be used as an entry into the site with entry now being provided by the existing exit point. Consequently, and as identified above, the potential for queuing relating to traffic entering the site will be addressed by the amendments to the design. I do not consider that there will be any adverse traffic impacts on the movement of traffic into and out of Seymour College as a result of the subject development.

While access to the subject development will be restricted to left turn in, left turn out movements only, there are U-turn opportunities to both the north and south of the subject site.

5

In relation to the specific concerns raised in this representation, I consider that:- 1. Traffic

The issues of post construction traffic have been addressed above, In relation to traffic management during construction, I note that the proposed development will be constructed in stages, with the initial stage including construction of the rear car park. While this would potentially result in a short term loss of some car parking capacity provided on site, the parking demand on site during this period would be minimal, given that a number of the existing consulting rooms and office uses would be demolished early within the redevelopment and the current low occupancy rate of the existing building.

2. Car Park

Previous assessment of the on-site car parking provision associated with the subject development would suggest that there would be an appropriate level of car parking provided on site with this parking provision meeting the anticipated level of parking demand likely to be generated by the construction of proposed and existing land uses.

Morag Lethbridge, 2a Wootoona Terrace, St. Georges The following issues were raised by this representor:- “The junction from Wootoona Terrace onto Portrush Road is a known traffic black spot with

Burnside Council undertaking previous studies and trialing several measures to seek a solution.

I am very concerned that this development’s use as a leisure facility encourages people to

frequent it regularly and across the whole day. The whole section of Portrush Road in both directions from Wootoona Terrace up to Gilles

Road will be negatively impacted by the huge increase in traffic volume. Wootoona Terrace is a very difficult and dangerous junction to exit if you require to turn right

and travel down Portrush Road towards the city. There are a large number of vehicles coming down Portrush Road which U turn across this

junction to facilitate a return up Portrush Road and turn into Seymour, Abergeldie House, Gilles Road or into Glenrose Court.

There is often a back up of vehicles on Wootoona waiting to get access to Portrush Road,

there are often cars backed up in the crossover which are queued into traffic on Portrush Road.

These cars are waiting to U turn back up Portrush but cannot until the Wootoona Junction is clear.

The fact this development proposes keeping the left hand only entry and exit will only exacerbate the huge problem of the cross over filling up and causing a traffic hazard. At best this crossover will only hold 5 cars safely and often people are even queued in the next cross over further up Portrush Road. It is a fatality waiting to happen.

6

Despite the assurance that a traffic survey in 2014 found it would not adversely affect traffic flow. I would dispute this fact. Just for the one hour 8.30 to 9.30 this morning I counted 42 cars u turn in Wootoona. These are all wanting to return up Portrush Road.

Wootoona Terrace and Portrush Road are roads that are never quiet. At any time of the day or night, weekdays or weekend you will never be the only car at that junction. This area is a high traffic area with many varied and complex issues for which the correct solution is still being sought. The report says all but 2 of the 256 car parks will be required at the new premises which must mean a huge number of visiting vehicles, and if only half require to turn back up Portrush Road to enter, traffic will be adversely affected. 7.8 Access motorists will continue to be able to enter and exit the premises via the existing crossover on the northern side of the landscaped garden bed which runs parallel to Portrush Road; The above statement is not clear to me as there is no crossover which will give you entry after coming down Portrush at the moment. The only cross over is past the entrance going up and is marked a right hand filter crossover used by motorists exiting Wootoona and u turning in order to turn back down Portrush Road to the City. This does not facilitate entry to Abergeldie House and will always be used by motorists wanting to cross Portrush Road. While I do question the need for this facility in this location, I am far more disturbed by the danger that all the extra vehicles will cause and I certainly urge that more serious consideration is given to the impact on traffic, and a real solution sought to the many different issues surrounding this section of road before this application is granted.”

In response to the above representation, I note that many of the concerns relate to an implied increased use of Wootoona Terrace to and from the site. I suggest that there would be a relatively minor, if any, increase in the volume of traffic using Wootoona Terrace as a result of the proposed development. While there will be some potential for drivers associated with the subject development to make U-turns at the intersection of Portrush Road with Wootoona Terrace, I note that there are also other opportunities to accommodate U-turning traffic to the north of the subject site including the intersection with Craighill Road. While there will be an increase in the volume of traffic entering/exiting the subject site, I remain of the opinion that there will be sufficient capacity on Portrush Road to accommodate such an increased use of this roadway.

7

In terms of the statement that “motorists will continue to be able to enter and exit the premises via the existing crossover on the northern side of the landscaped garden bed which runs parallel to Portrush Road” this statement related to the northernmost of the two crossovers on Portrush Road. As identified, this crossover will remain but has since been modified to provide exit only movements. John Branson, 6 Wootoona Terrace, St Georges Mr Branson identified the following concern in relation to traffic:-

“Traffic increase onto Portrush Road and/or Seymour Drive will be dangerous to existing traffic flow on both of those streets.”

I consider that the above issue has been fully addressed above. Yours sincerely,

Phil Weaver Phil Weaver and Associates Pty Ltd


28 July 2016

AGENDA ITEM 2.1.1

ATTACHMENT 8 – ORIGINAL PLANNING REPORT TO DAC

Development Assessment Commission 28 April 2015

1

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

Patricia Weinert C/- Giordano & Associates P/L & Masterplan SA P/L

Staged alterations and additions to Abergeldie House

548 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond

180/E020/15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO

AGENDA REPORT 2 – 24

ATTACHMENTS 25 – 287

1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 26 – 39

2: DEVELOPMENT PLAN ZONE MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHY 40 – 47

3: APPLICATION & PLANS A) Planning Report by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd

a. Copy of State Coordinator-General Decision b. Certificates of Title c. Site Location Plan by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd d. Plans by Giordano & Associates Architecture

e. Heritage Impact Statement by Hosking Willis Architecture f. Shadow Diagrams (Winter solstice) by Giordano &

Associates Architecture g. Shadow Diagrams (Summer solstice) by Giordano &

Associates Architecture h. Side Boundary Photograph by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd i. Traffic & Parking Assessment by Phil Weaver & Associates j. Arborist Report by Tree Environs Pty Ltd

48 – 222 51 – 79 80 – 81 82 – 85 86 – 87 88 – 122

123 – 148 149 – 150

151 – 152

153 – 154 155 – 168 169 – 222

4: AGENCY COMMENTS 223 – 226

5: COUNCIL COMMENTS 227 – 230

6: REPRESENTATIONS 231 – 245

7: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS 246 – 274

8: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION a. Response to Council Comments by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd

275 – 287


2

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

OVERVIEW

Application No 180/E020/15 (APPIAN ID 796)

Unique ID/KNET ID 2015/18983/01 (Knet No.10186388)

Applicant Patricia Weinert C/- Giordano & Associates P/L and Masterplan SA P/L

Consultant Team Masterplan SA Pty Ltd; Giordano & Associates Architecture; Hosking Willis Architecture; Phil Weaver & Associates and Tree Environs Pty Ltd

Proposal Alterations and additions to Abergeldie House over three stages

Subject Land 548 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond SA 5064

Zone/Policy Area Community Zone

Relevant Authority Development Assessment Commission

Lodgement Date 2 December 2015

Council City of Burnside

Development Plan Burnside Council (consolidated 30 January 2014)

Type of Development Merit

Public Notification Category 3

Representations 6 (4 wishing to be heard)

Referral Agencies City of Burnside, Commissioner of Highways

Report Author Ben Scholes, Project Officer

RECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant seeks approval for demolition of extensions to a Local Heritage place

known as Abergeldie House currently accommodating hospital and consulting room uses, to enable staged building work to provide a gymnasium, indoor swimming pool, consulting rooms and a car park over five levels, additional consulting room facilities within a two storey extension and an extra floor level to existing single storey facilities. On 15 September 2015 the State Coordinator-General determined the proposal to be of economic significance to the State and assigned the Commission as relevant authority, pursuant to Schedule 10(20) of the Development Regulations 2008. Although the proposed use of the subject land is consistent with expectations of the Community Zone and sufficiently compatible with existing uses in the locality, the development is expected to generate a significant increase in vehicle movements coinciding with peak usage periods associated with each use. Accordingly, potential impacts on the traffic network and car parking provision are important considerations.

Improvements to the configuration of site access undertaken in collaboration with the Commissioner of Highways have resulted in arrangements considered capable of maintaining acceptable levels of safety and convenience with respect to traffic management on the subject land and within the broader locality. Detail design development arising from separate discussions between the applicant, the City of Burnside and adjoining land owners have led to agreements between these parties concerning proposed interfaces between existing and new development, including specific endorsement of proposed building additions to a Local Heritage place. On balance, the anticipated impacts on the amenity of the locality associated with the proposed land uses and building work are considered to be acceptable. Conditional

Development Plan consent is recommended.


1

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

ASSESSMENT REPORT 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Strategic Context In August 2014, amendments to Schedule 10 of the Development Regulations 2008 expanded the role of the State Coordinator-General (SCG) to facilitate discretional appointment of the Development Assessment Commission as relevant authority to

consider certain development proposals with an investment construction value exceeding $3 million, on the basis of economic significance to the State and creation of employment opportunities through commercial investment. On 15 September 2015 the SCG determined the proposal to be of economic significance and assigned the Development Assessment Commission as relevant authority, pursuant to Schedule 10(20) of the Development Regulations 2008.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal incorporates the following elements: Stage 1 – demolition of hospital facility extensions to the east and southeast of the

main Abergeldie House building and construction of a five storey building with internal

area of 8,646 square metres featuring a 24-hour gymnasium, indoor ‘learn to swim’ pool, consulting rooms, office and administrative space, amenities, toilet facilities storage areas, passenger lift, balcony areas and 209 car parking spaces over four levels;

Stage 1a – construction of a two storey facility of approximately 605 square metres

connected to the north east corner of the main Abergeldie House building, incorporating ground floor office accommodation with reception and waiting area and a first floor multipurpose space with lobby and balcony area. Refurbishment of the interface areas between the new and existing buildings will also be undertaken;

Stage 2 – refurbishment and upgrade of a single storey wing of the existing facility

incorporating construction of a first floor to provide over 430 square metres of additional space for consulting rooms;

Modification to existing access points to incorporate left turn entry and left turn exit

vehicle movements from Portrush Road from realigned southern and northern access points with minor works to the Portrush Road median adjacent Myrona Drive; and

Dedicated landscaping of the site to provide screening and improve amenity.

Application details are contained in Attachment 3. A summary of the proposal is provided in the table below.

Land Use Description

Consulting rooms, administration, gymnasium, swimming pool and car parking

Building Height

Stage 1 Stage 1a Stage 2

5 storeys (16.4 metres)

2 storeys (7.8 metres) 2 storeys (7.6 metres)

Description of levels

Level Stage 1 Stage 1a Stage 2

Basement Car parking (29 spaces) & storage

N/A N/A

Ground Car parking (51 spaces) & storage

Reception, office, consulting room,

Addition of stairwell & storage


2

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

service area & waste storage

within existing facility

1 Car parking (69 spaces) & storage

Multipurpose area, lobby, balcony, kitchen & storage

Consulting rooms, storage and toilets

2 Car parking (60 spaces)& storage

N/A N/A

3 Gymnasium, swimming pool, consulting rooms, offices, reception, toilet facilities & storage

N/A N/A

Site Access Entry via southern crossover to Portrush Road (left turn-in only) and exit via northern crossover to Portrush Road (left turn-out only)

Car and Bicycle Parking

258 car parks (209 within the Stage 1 building, 49 at-grade / external) 6 motor cycle parking spaces 5 bicycle parking spaces

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

The proposed development area is a portion of land located to the east of the registered Local Heritage Place known as Abergeldie House situated at 548 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond and formally described as follows:

Lot No Plan No Street Suburb Hundred Title Reference A2 F1571 Portrush Glen Osmond Adelaide 5084/760

The subject land is a rectangular allotment comprising approximately 8,000 square metres with a frontage to Portrush Road of 63 metres and a depth of 125 metres. The topography of the subject site presents a substantial fall in level of over 7.5 metres from its eastern to western extents.

Portrush Road is designated as a Primary Arterial Road within the Structure Plan for Burnside (City) provided in Development Plan Map Bur/1 (Overlay 1). A two way access point to Portrush Road is located at the northwest corner of the site with a single lane exit point at the south west corner; 75 at-grade car parking spaces are currently provided on the property for staff, customers and visitors spread across hardstand parking areas at the west, north and east portions of the property. The main two storey building on the subject land known as Abergeldie House (formerly ‘Glencoola’) is listed in the schedule of Local Heritage Places in the City of Burnside’s Development Plan Table Bur/2. The heritage significance of the place applies to the external front façade of the 1860-1870s stone mansion and includes features such as the Italianate square tower and square ridge cresting, roof and verandah forms, bluestone walls, decorative detailing and rendered dressings. Other facilities comprise single storey extensions and additions to the south and east of the main building accommodating hospital and café uses, and are composed predominantly of red brick masonry and rendered frontages with an enclosed landscaped courtyard at the approximate centre of the property. The single storey extensions to the east and south are specifically excluded from the heritage significance of Abergeldie House.


3

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

3.2 Locality The locality is characterised by single storey residential development featuring brush fences fronting the western side of Portrush Road with similar conditions on the road’s eastern side to the north and south of the subject land. A signalised pedestrian actuated crossing of Portrush Road is located approximately five metres north of the existing (northern) vehicle access to the subject land. Seymour College is located to the east and north of the subject land, the northern

portion being a 30 metre-wide roadway lined with mature trees and a substantial olive hedge aligned with the subject land’s northern boundary. A registered State Heritage Place known as the Seymour College Gatehouse is located at 546 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond at the north east corner of the T-junction with Portrush Road formed by the College’s driveway. Residences are located beyond the driveway to the north. Two playing courts and a shelter structure are located to the immediate east of the subject land with various College facilities beyond. Lifecare Glenrose Court Hostel abuts the subject land to the south, incorporating supported residential accommodation within facilities over one to three storeys in height.

Figure 1 – Location Map

Development Plan Zoning Map Bur/7 and photography of the subject land are provided in Attachment 2.

4. COUNCIL COMMENTS

4.1 City of Burnside Council administration reviewed details of the application and advised the development is generally in accordance with Development Plan objectives and


4

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

principles, and constitutes an appropriate planning outcome for the subject land and locality. Council recommends that the applicant provide various additional details and consider operational arrangements intended to improve existing conditions in the locality, eg permit access to shared-use car parking by users or visitors of Seymour College to reduce demand for on-street parking. The applicant has indicated a willingness to consider these arrangements and the

balance of the Council’s recommendations are proposed to be addressed via condition of any consent granted or satisfied upon lodgement of Building Rules Consent documentation. A full copy of the Council’s comments is included as Attachment 5, and a copy of the applicant’s response to the Council’s comments is included for further information as Attachment 8, the details of which relate to the proposed interface with the heritage fabric of Abergeldie House.

5. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS

5.1 Commissioner of Highways The Commission of Highways is a mandatory referral agency in accordance with

Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008. The Commission must have regard to this advice. In advance of its formal response, the Commissioner’s delegate provided informal advice to the applicant intended to improve the safety of proposed access arrangements. This has prompted the applicant to commit to modifications to existing

vehicle entry and egress points from Portrush Road, works on the Portrush Road median and directional signage and give-way controls within the subject land. Upon receipt of amended details reflecting the amendments described above, the Commissioner’s delegate indicated it has no in-principle objections to the proposal and recommended that a series of conditions be attached to any consent granted. These conditions are proposed to be accepted where considered appropriate. The agency’s referral response is contained in the Attachment 4. 5.2 State Heritage Summary details of the application were also provided to the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) in its capacity as delegate to the Minister administering the Heritage Places Act 1993.

DEWNR advised that the works proposed at the rear of Abergeldie House would be sufficiently remote from the adjoining State Heritage place at 546 Portrush Road such that a statutory referral regarding the proposal’s potential affect on the context of the place was considered unnecessary.

6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was notified as a Category 3 development pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) of the Development Act 1993 (neither Category 1 or 2). Public notification was undertaken by directly contacting adjoining owners and occupiers of land, and those potentially affected to a significant degree and via public notice in a newspaper with local distribution. 6 representations were received as indicated in the map shown in Figure 2.


5

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

Representor ID Issue

R1 Overlooking Encroachment of privacy, safety concerns Maintenance of landscaping Excessive building height Material and colour selection Acoustic impact Disruption during construction Traffic impacts (congestion, exhaust fumes) Lightspill

R2 Traffic impacts on local road network

R3 Overshadowing Acoustic impact Exhaust fumes

R4 Excessive building height Traffic impacts on local road network

Acoustic impact

R5 Traffic impacts, exhaust fumes Overlooking Excessive building height

R6 Traffic impacts on local road network Excessive building height

Acoustic impact Encroachment of privacy Safety concerns (for College students)

Figure 2 – Representation Map

A total of 4 representors indicated a wish to be heard by the Commission, either by appearing personally of via representative. The applicant’s response to planning concerns raised by representors is summarised overleaf.


6

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

Concern raised Applicant’s response

Excessive building height

No height limit is proposed for non-residential buildings within the Community Zone

Council Wide principles envisage construction of five or more levels and exceeding 21 metres in height

Council Wide principles envisage construction of multi-storey buildings within proximity to and / or multi-storey additions to local heritage places

The Stage 1 building will be marginally taller than Abergeldie House due to the recessed platform it is designed to occupy

Overshadowing The applicant has agreed to fund the installation of two clothes dryers and solar photovoltaic panels to two assisted living units adjacent the Stage 1 building as a means of overcoming the loss of solar access to private open space during the winter solstice

The applicant has agreed to provide residents of Life Care Glenrose Court Hostel with unfettered access to the proposed gymnasium and swimming pool via a future pedestrian link to the building’s south elevation, which will physically connect with Hostel facilities to be constructed within a proposed site redevelopment

The applicant has provided evidence that representatives of

Lifecare Glenrose Court Hostel have indicated their ‘unilateral support’ for the proposal in light of the concessions above

Overlooking, encroachment of privacy and associated safety concerns

The Stage 1 building requires access to daylight from the northern aspect

East facing windows within the Stage 1 building have been specified with obscure glazing to 1.7m in height

Overlooking to the east from the Stage 1 building north balcony will be prevented by installation of a full height concrete wall panel at the balcony’s eastern end

Seymour College’s driveway can not be classified as private open space and is principally used to transport students to and from the College campus

Traffic impacts on local road network

All access to and from the subject land will be restricted to left turn entry and left turn exit movements only, reducing the potential for congestion impacts caused by vehicle queuing as they enter the subject land during anticipated peak periods

The amended car parking layout maintains the same number of access points as the existing site however will respond to concerns raised by the Commissioner of Highways and increase the separation distance of the site entry point and the pedestrian

actuated crossing The volume of traffic generated by the proposed 24-hour

gymnasium use will be minimal and catered for by an adequate provision of car parking

There is no opportunity to provide side road access to the subject land

Acoustic Impacts Stage 1 building rooftop plant and equipment has been sited and designed to ensure any noise generated in operation does not exceed criteria established under the Environment Protection (Noise Policy) Policy 2007.

Noise generated by the gymnasium or its patrons will be addressed by internal insulation and glazing incorporated in the tenancy.

The fully enclosed car park is expected to improve acoustic


7

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

conditions generated by the existing ‘open lot’ car park

Exhaust Fumes The Stage 1 building will be mechanically ventilated in

accordance with Australian Standard 1668-2005.

Material and colour selection for east elevation

Materials and colour selection are specified on application drawings 1.2.7 Revision E and 1.3.8 Revision E.

In June 2015 the proponent team approached Seymour College’s Property and Building Committee to propose that the final design of the Stage 1 building east elevation’s perforated metal screen be resolved by means of a student art competition; the applicant indicates that the College has yet to respond to this proposal

Maintenance of landscaping

Plant species have been chosen for screening qualities, rapid growth and are considered unlikely to be an unreasonable maintenance burden

Light spill The only requirement for external lighting on the Stage 1 building is for pedestrian guidance at its western face, which will adhere to Australian Standard 4282-1997 and will not result in light spill on the adjacent College campus

Disruption during construction

The applicant has committed to keeping adjoining property owners informed of development activities well before they are scheduled to take place

Suitable temporary fencing including opaque hoarding will be erected for the duration of proposed construction phases

A copy of each representation and the applicant’s response is contained in Attachment 6 and Attachment 7 respectively.

7. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject land is located within the Community Zone as described in the City of Burnside Development Plan consolidated 30 January 2014. Relevant planning policies are contained in Appendix 1 and are summarised below.

Figure 3 – Zoning Map


8

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

7.1 Community Zone The objectives of the Community Zone focus primarily on accommodating existing community, educational and health care facilities and provision for the current and identifiable future needs of such institutions in a manner that does not adversely affect the use of adjoining properties. New buildings should be designed so that their siting, scale and appearance create

minimal adverse affect on the character and amenity of adjoining residential areas, and ensure the integrity of buildings of heritage significance are respected in terms of siting and architectural style. 7.2 Council Wide Council wide provisions provide guidance pertinent to the application in relation to the siting, design and appearance of buildings to contribute to the desired character of a locality and protect amenity, development proximate to heritage places, safe and efficient movement and parking of vehicles and the protection of regulated and significant trees.

8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Burnside City Development Plan, which are contained in Appendix 1.

8.1 Quantitative Provisions

Characteristic Development

Plan Guideline

Proposed Guideline

Achieved

Comment

Building Height

Buildings should reflect desired character while incorporating contemporary designs with regard to building height, mass and proportion (CW PDC 14(a))

Stage 1 – 16.4 metres Stage 2 – 7.8 metres Stage 3 – 7.6 metres

YES NO PARTIAL

Building height is measured from top of most prominent parapet to finished ground level

Car Parking 324 spaces (based on combined Development Plan Table Bur/5 and Planning SA Bulletin)

258 spaces YES NO PARTIAL

Considered adequate (achieves approximately 80 percent of amount recommended by combined

guidelines)

Bicycle Parking

Development should provide safe and secure facilities for the parking of bicycles where appropriate

5 bicycle parking spaces

YES NO PARTIAL

Considered adequate (no minimum or maximum provision identified outside of Urban Corridor


9

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

(CW PDC 110) Zone

Front Setback

Setbacks from road frontages should be additional to road widening setback established by the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act 1972

Development sited behind primary frontage of Abergeldie House

YES NO PARTIAL

Considered appropriate

Rear Setback Not specified 3 metres YES NO PARTIAL

Considered adequate

Side Setback Not specified 3 metres YES

NO PARTIAL

Considered

adequate

8.2 Land Use The Community Zone anticipates development of land for community-based purposes

including health care facilities that minimise adverse affect on adjoining development. Land uses incorporated in Stage 1 of the proposal are considered to be consistent with activities envisaged in the Zone, and the provision of additional secure vehicle parking will cater for the needs of users and reduce demand for on-street car parking in the locality. The introduction of the five storey structure represents a considerable increase in the scale of development in the setting of the subject land. Despite its size, the Stage 1 building is considered to have been sited with appropriate regard to spatial relationships with neighbouring properties, site topography and the Portrush Road streetscape such that the facilities to be retained will continue to feature prominently at the road frontage.

Two storey building extensions proposed within Stages 1a and 2 will also complement existing activities on the subject land and are not considered to diminish the character or amenity of surrounding land uses as encouraged by Council Wide Objective 74 which seeks community facilities conveniently located and designed to meet existing and future needs, whilst minimising impacts on residential amenity.

In summary, modern building additions are proposed to accommodate land uses which are expressly envisaged in the Community Zone and which are not expected to detract from the locality’s desired character or detrimentally affect surrounding uses through building configuration or site organisation.

8.3 Design and Appearance

Council Wide policy anticipates development of a high standard of design and appearance that reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form. Building design should seek to minimise visual impact of development when viewed from adjoining property and contribute to desired character with particular regard to building height, mass and proportion, external materials and colours, roof form, façade articulation, verandahs, parapets and window screens in accordance with Council Wide PDC 14.


10

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

8.3.1 Stage 1 A substantial portion of the Stage 1 building will be cut into the site’s existing landform allowing it to present as a two storey structure at the adjoining eastern and southern property boundaries, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4 – Stage 1 Building Section (looking north)

Figure 5 – Stage 1 Building Section (looking west)

In this regard, the proposal’s most substantial building addition responds positively to what is considered to be a site constraint by effectively reducing the building’s overall scale and proportion where it most directly interfaces with sensitive neighbouring uses. The building exterior is composed of large sections of perforated metal

screening featuring profile imagery of mature trees to add visual interest, with pre-finished cladding predominantly at upper levels. Façades also consist of alucobond cladding coloured metallic grey and copper to frame the ground floor entry and highlight material transitions and fourth floor balconies. Powder-coated steel sheets will screen rooftop plant positioned adjacent a protruded atrium topped with a vaulted skylight.


11

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

Existing mature trees lining the 30 metre-wide driveway to Seymour College are considered likely to interrupt views of the Stage 1 building’s three exposed levels from residences to the north, and opportunities for screening the building with suitable planting around the eastern and southern site perimeter will further soften the appearance of the structure. Consequently the Stage 1 building is not expected to be an overbearing or unacceptably dominant feature of the locality and is considered a suitable and complementary addition to existing facilities.

8.3.2 Stages 1a and 2 In comparison with the Stage 1 component, development proposed over Stages 1a and 2 is of a more modest scale and is designed enclose the existing central courtyard with contemporary two storey construction to the north and first floor additions to the existing southern wing. Material finishes and colours specified for these elements complement the material composition of the Stage 1 building and also that of the main Abergeldie House, including rendered masonry walls to match its existing colour scheme. The Stage 1a and 2 components are considered to be of a high quality standard

of design and are expected to integrate with and relate to adjacent buildings and in doing so, make positive contributions to visual amenity of the subject land as encouraged by Council Wide PDC 56.

8.4 Heritage

The Development Plan anticipates preservation, conservation and enhancement of identified State and Local Heritage places and buildings or sites of cultural heritage value. Development adjacent to a heritage place should not detract from the significance of the place, and should be sited and designed to reinforce and maintain the place’s historic character and visual prominence. The applicant has submitted a heritage assessment report undertaken by Hosking Willis Architecture which concludes the proposal will not detract from the integrity, character of heritage value of Abergeldie House and will contribute positively to the place by providing an ongoing use that will support existing arrangements. Specific details of the proposed additions to original building fabric and strategies to

address issues arising through exchanges between the proponent team and the City of Burnside’s appointed Heritage Adviser are discussed further in the following sections.

8.4.1 Physical and Visual Interface

Stage 1a will involve demolition of single storey additions and an external staircase at the northeast corner of Abergeldie House (highlighted in Figure 6) to be replaced by a two storey infill section to provide a loading bay, generator room and refuse storage space at ground floor and an extended kitchen at first floor with a balcony fire escape path linked to the existing House’s balcony.


12

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

Figure 6 – Building additions to be removed In response to concerns raised by the Council’s Heritage Adviser, the applicant has adapted details of the interface between the new and existing buildings at this location by introducing a negative junction setback 350mm from Abergeldie House’s northeast corner, with the new balcony featuring a return end 500mm short of the existing balcony and incorporating an infill glass panel to physically link with the existing balustrade. The two storey infill addition otherwise matches the height and alignment of the existing structure.

The Council’s Adviser indicated this junction treatment will sufficiently reduce the impact of the proposal on the existing fabric of the building, with no objection raised to the proposed location of rooftop plant for the infill building which will be positioned behind its northern parapet and is considered unlikely to be a dominant element of the addition when viewed from the north. The Council’s Adviser was also concerned the remainder of the Stage 1a building frontage and its projecting northern canopy would compete with views of the heritage place from the west, due primarily to the new building’s orientation which diverts from the north elevation of Abergeldie House Accordingly, a new garden bed adjacent the existing building has been modified to accommodate additional planting including screening trees intended to

obscure views of the misaligned portion of the Stage 1a building, which the Council’s Adviser has indicated will sufficiently minimise visual dominance of the development from Portrush Road.

8.4.2 Adjacent Development Stage 2 additions involve the construction of an additional building level above an existing single storey wing to the south of the subject land which will


13

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

connect with a first floor corridor extended from the Stage 1a development. This component is considered appropriate as it will be substantially shielded from views from the west and will not interrupt or detract from the visual prominence of Abergeldie House, as encouraged by Council Wide PDC 20. The physical and visual interfaces between development in Stages 1a and 2 and the Local Heritage place are considered to have been designed to be compatible, and not interfere with, the integrity of existing heritage fabric whilst protecting and enhancing the value of the place in accordance with

Council Wide PDC 71 and PDC 72. In light of the physical separation between Abergeldie House and the larger Stage 1 building and in recognition of the Council’s Heritage Adviser’s endorsement of the modifications described in Section 8.4.1, the overall development is considered to demonstrate appropriate regard to Council Wide Heritage Conservation policies and is not expected to detrimentally impact on the heritage place’s historic and cultural significance.

8.5 Traffic Impact, Access and Parking

The Community Zone encourages development incorporating adequate off-street areas for vehicle manoeuvring and loading and unloading of goods, and access points designed and located to minimise disturbance to adjoining residential development.

Council Wide policy provides guidance in relation to safe and convenient access for vehicles and pedestrians, development on sites with frontage to Primary Arterial Roads and provision of off-street car parking at the rates prescribed in Development Plan Table Bur/5, subject to specific Zone provisions.

The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment by Phil Weaver and Associates which suggests the development would not adversely impact on the road network and includes an adequate supply of off-street parking. Preliminary feedback provided under delegation from the Commissioner of Highways has prompted amendments to the proposal intended to improve overall traffic arrangements, as discussed below.

8.5.1 Site Access

In response to the Commissioner’s feedback, the applicant now proposes to realign vehicle crossovers to Portrush Road such that vehicles will be permitted to enter the property via left turn from the southern crossover only and exit the site via left turn from the northern crossover only.

This arrangement is intended to minimise potential for vehicle queuing during peak demand and/or commuter peak periods and thus limit or eliminate consequential encroachment of vehicles over the adjacent pedestrian actuated crossing, and related conflict with the driveway to Seymour College nearby. Minor work to the Portrush Road median opening adjacent to Myrona Avenue

on the west side of Portrush Road will supplement the proposed access configuration by preventing right turn movements into the site by north-bound vehicles. These modifications are considered appropriate by the Commissioner of Highways and are expected to minimise impact of the development on the adjacent arterial road and free flow of traffic, as encouraged by Council Wide

PDC 95. Council administration also supports the proposed modifications,


14

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

believing them to provide safer and more convenient access to and from the site with a probable reduction in the potential for vehicle queuing. 8.5.2 On-site Vehicle Movement All vehicles will be capable of entering and exiting the subject land in a forward direction. Small rigid vehicles will be able to turn in and reverse out of the proposed loading dock and refuse storage area provided within the Stage 1a building in a single turn, with Medium Rigid Vehicles (MRV) having to undertake

a three-point turn to do so. This manoeuvre will require the proposed adjacent parking spaces (numbers 41 to 43) to be vacant in order to provide sufficient space to accommodate the turn; this will be facilitated via condition of any consent granted to ensure service vehicle movements are programmed to occur outside of anticipated peak parking periods with signage prohibiting parking in spaces 41-43 during the associated hours. A total of seven parking spaces adjacent the realigned access points will be reserved for employee use only to reduce the likelihood of turnover and minimise the potential for internal vehicle conflict at the northern and southern crossovers to Portrush Road, with directional signage installed to deter undesirable vehicle movements within the subject land.

8.5.3 Car Parking

The applicant’s Traffic Consultant has considered guidelines within Development Plan Table Bur/5 in combination with details published in the 2001 publication ‘Planning Bulletin: Parking Provisions for Selected Uses

(Metropolitan Adelaide)’ to provide an estimate of sufficient parking rates for land uses not assigned a corresponding parking rate by the Development Plan. On this basis, the applicant’s parking assessment includes an estimate of total parking demand of some 324 spaces. The proposal will provide a total of 258 spaces, equivalent to approximately 80 percent of spaces required under peak demand scenarios as determined by the combined Development Plan and Planning Bulletin guidelines. The applicant’s traffic consultant has noted that peak parking demand periods for the various uses are expected to vary, resulting in possible opportunities for shared parking which are considered likely to offset total parking demand. Taking into account the anticipated peak parking demand periods and predicted

usage factors associated with the indoor pool, gymnasium, consulting rooms, day surgery, multi-purpose room and café uses, the assessment concludes weekday parking demand would realistically amount to some 255 spaces. Notwithstanding the anticipated shortfall in parking provision relative to the total forecast demand, the potential for shared parking opportunities is

considered a reasonable cause to contemplate fewer on-site spaces than the quantity encouraged under a scenario in which peak demand for parking generated by all uses would occur simultaneously. Accordingly and despite expectations of significantly larger amounts of traffic being generated, the proposed vehicle access arrangements and provision of on-site parking incorporated with the development are considered to be

acceptable.


15

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

8.5.4 Bicycle Parking The Development Plan encourages provision of bicycle parking facilities as detailed in Table Bur/7 and which are located in accessible, legible areas exposed to opportunities for surveillance, lighting and directional signage. Table Bur/7 establishes off-street bicycle parking requirements in the Urban Corridor Zone and does not establish preferences for bicycle parking elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the application includes a total of five bicycle parking rails within the ground floor of the Stage 1 building (car park) which will provide a relatively secure and sheltered environment and is considered adequate for this purpose.

8.6 Interface The Community Zone anticipates development that does not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of adjoining land, whilst Council Wide policy provides more general guidance on minimising potential impacts arising from interfaces between development and existing uses in order to maintain amenity and reinforce positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

8.6.1 Overshadowing

Where a building is sited on or close to a side or rear property boundary, Council Wide PDC 15 anticipates boundary walls designed to minimise overshadowing of adjoining properties and allow adequate sunlight access to neighbouring buildings. Similarly, Council Wide PDC 21 encourages buildings designed and located to enable direct winter sunlight into adjacent dwellings

and minimise overshadowing of habitable room windows, private open space and solar energy collectors. Due to the substantial difference in levels between the subject land and the facilities comprising the Life Care Glenrose Court Hostel (Lifecare) to the south at 550 Portrush Road, the Stage 1 building is sited and designed to present as a two storey structure at the southern boundary as detailed in section 8.3.1. Shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant demonstrate the Stage 1 building will cast considerable shade on Lifecare’s single storey supported living units adjacent the Stage 1 building from late morning during the winter solstice, with lesser shade being cast during the summer months. The applicant acknowledges these impacts and has consulted with Lifecare

during the development of its concept on the basis of an understanding that Lifecare intends to undertake a master plan exercise for comprehensive redevelopment of the site to better provide independent living facilities and related services for its clients; a representation made on Lifecare’s behalf corroborates this advice.

In response to concerns raised via public notification and through earlier consultation, the applicant has made a private agreement with Lifecare to fund the installation of two clothes dryer appliances and solar photovoltaic panel arrays to two assisted living units adjacent the site of the Stage 1 building as a means of overcoming the loss of solar access to private open space, particularly during the winter solstice.


16

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

The applicant has also agreed to provide residents of Lifecare with unfettered access to the proposed gymnasium and swimming pool via a future pedestrian link to the building’s south elevation at level five, which will physically connect with Lifecare facilities to be provided within the future site redevelopment. The applicant has provided evidence of Lifecare representatives’ willingness to accept the measures proposed to compensate for the impacts anticipated by the development, confirming Lifecare has advised “…these actions overcome any concerns previously expressed regarding the subject proposal, which now

has Lifecare’s unilateral support.” Accordingly, the applicant is considered to have adequately compensated for the overshadowing impacts anticipated on Lifecare’s property at 550 Portrush Road in association with the Stage 1 building.

8.6.2 Overlooking The Community Zone envisages development designed and sited to create minimal adverse effect on adjoining development, particularly in relation to amenity and character of residential areas. Council Wide policy provides guidance on minimising direct overlooking of living areas and private open spaces with strategies intended to restrict views into adjoining land.

Concerns have been raised via public notification concerning the potential for diminished privacy resulting from configuration of the Stage 1 building, particularly concerning the placement of an upper floor balcony on the north elevation. The applicant has specified obscure glazing to 1700mm to windows within the

Stage 1 building’s east elevation and a screening panel spanning from floor to ceiling level fixed at the eastern end of the north facing balcony, which in combination will prevent direct views from the building into property located to the east. The applicant does not intend to obscure views to the north from the balcony in order to maintain solar access to the gymnasium. The applicant asserts that Seymour College’s main driveway to the north does not constitute private open space and is principally used to transport students to and from the established College campus to the east and as such, overlooking of this area should be considered acceptable. The rear yards of residences fronting Wootoona Terrace beyond the College’s driveway are currently exposed to views from the south due to the relatively

low and permeable boundary fencing. The physical separation between the residences and the Stage 1 building balcony will be in the order of 33 metres, which is of relevance in consideration of the potential for ‘direct’ views. Furthermore, views to the north from the upper level balcony are likely to be screened by substantial trees lining each side of the adjacent driveway.

On balance and in light of current conditions, the potential for diminished privacy occurring within the College’s main driveway and at residences further to the north resulting from overlooking by occupants of the Stage 1 building is not considered to be unreasonable.

8.7 Environmental Factors


17

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

The Development Plan provides general guidance with respect to compatibility of new development with general amenity and characteristics of a locality in terms minimising nuisance or undesirable conditions caused through generation of noise, tree damaging activity, micro-climatic conditions and anti-social activity in association with approved land uses.

8.7.1 Noise Emissions Rooftop plant and equipment associated with the Stage 1 building has been

sited and designed to ensure any operating noise does not exceed criteria established under the Environment Protection (Noise Policy) Policy 2007. Noise generated by the gymnasium and its patrons’ activity will be addressed by internal insulation and glazing incorporated within the tenancy. The applicant also suggests the fully enclosed car park is expected to improve current acoustic conditions generated by the existing ‘open lot’ car park, which is considered reasonable despite the anticipated increase in vehicle movements as a result of the development.

8.7.2 Tree Damaging Activity

A substantial Olive tree located at north east corner of the subject land straddles the northern boundary between the site and Seymour College’s

driveway. This tree is expected to be adversely impacted by the proposal and its removal has been recommended by the applicant’s arboricultural consultant Tree Environs Pty Ltd. Despite being of a size that could qualify the tree as being classified as ‘significant’ and eligible for protection, the tree is exempt from significant tree

protection provisions under the Development Regulations 2008 as it is not planted and maintained for domestic or commercial use. Due to it being located on the boundary of two properties, the tree can only be removed with the shared consent of the neighbouring land owner (Seymour College) however this is not a matter for the Commission to make a determination on. The remaining trees in proximity to the proposed development area are to be retained by adherence to tree protection measures recommended by Tree Environs Pty Ltd.

8.7.3 Waste Management The applicant has indicated that all waste will be sorted and stored in sealed enclosure at the ground floor of the Stage 1a building immediately adjacent the

proposed interface with the existing Abergeldie House. Scheduling for refuse collection from the associated loading bay will incorporate bi-weekly collection of general waste collection, weekly collection of recyclable waste and fortnightly collection of organic matter. All service vehicle movements on the subject land will be undertaken after hours and outside of

anticipated peak parking periods via a condition of any consent granted. 8.7.4 Wind Analysis Council Wide PDC 218 anticipates development of five or more storeys (or 21 metres or more in building height) to be designed to minimise the risk of wind tunnelling effects on adjacent streets.


18

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

In recognition of the siting and use of topography to reduce the overall scale of the Stage 1 building particularly where it interfaces with sensitive uses, the building is not expected to result in significant wind tunnelling or otherwise generate undesirable micro-climatic conditions on adjoining land. 8.7.5 Crime Prevention The development is considered to minimise the potential for anti-social behaviour occurring in the vicinity by providing safe and secure facilities which

introduce a 24-hour activity on the subject land, with opportunities for passive surveillance of the surrounds facilitated by a continuous presence of gymnasium operators and occupants.

8.7.6 Site Contamination The subject land has historically been used for allied health and consulting room purposes with ancillary café and car parking use. None of these uses gives rise to particular suspicion of potential site contaminating activities.

9. CONCLUSION The land uses proposed in the application are envisaged within the Community Zone and are considered to be sufficiently compatible with activities established on adjoining land

and more broadly within the locality, such that the proposal is expected to satisfy the Zone’s desired character. The configuration of built form exploits the subject land’s prevailing topography to effectively reduce overall building scale and proportion where it most directly interfaces with sensitive neighbouring uses, such that consequential impacts on adjoining land are

considered acceptable. The proposal is expected to generate a significant increase in vehicle movements coinciding with peak usage periods associated with proposed land uses and accordingly, potential impacts on the traffic network and the adequacy of car parking provision are important considerations. Although a shortfall in parking provision relative to the overall estimate of peak demand is anticipated, potential for shared parking opportunities is considered a reasonable cause to contemplate fewer on-site spaces than the number encouraged under a scenario in which peak demand for parking generated by all uses occurs simultaneously. Improvements to the configuration of site access undertaken in collaboration with the Commissioner of Highways have resulted in arrangements considered capable of

maintaining acceptable levels of safety and convenience with respect to traffic management on the subject land and within the broader locality. Similarly, detail design development arising from separate discussions between the applicant, the City of Burnside and adjoining land owners have led to agreements between these parties concerning proposed interfaces between existing and new

development, including building additions to a registered Local Heritage place. In recognition of improvements arising through collaboration with referral agencies and in light of concessions made in discussions with adjoining land owners, the proposal is considered to display considerable merit. Sufficient regard has also been given to environmental factors supported by Council Wide Development Plan provisions not expressly encouraged within the Community Zone.


19

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

The City of Burnside does not object to the proposal, believing it to constitute an appropriate planning outcome for the subject land and locality. On balance, the anticipated impacts on the amenity of adjoining land associated with the application are considered to be acceptable. Conditional Development Plan consent is recommended. 10. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the proposal meets the key objectives of the Community Zone with particular reference to development of land for community purposes in a manner that minimises detrimental effects on adjoining land.

3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent (and Land Division Consent) to the proposal by Patricia Weinert for staged alterations and additions to Abergeldie House at 548 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond subject to the following conditions of consent.

PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by

conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the details and following plans submitted in Development

Application No 180/E020/15.

Drawing No. Sheet No. Sheet Title Revision Date

A14/04 1.1.0 Title Page E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.1 Existing Site Location E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.2 Existing Site Survey E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.3 Existing Site Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.4 Existing Ground Floor Plan 1/2 E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.5 Existing Ground Floor Plan 2/2 E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.1.6 Existing Upper Floor and Basement E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.1 Proposed Site Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.2 Proposed Site Imagery E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.3 Site Elevations E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.4 Site Sections E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.5 Overshadowing Study – 21st June E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.6 Overshadowing Study – 21st December

E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.7 Materials Study and Crossover Realignments

E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.2.8 Landscaping Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.0 Stage 1 Cover Page E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.1 Stage 1 Lower Ground Floor Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.2 Stage 1 Ground Floor Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.3 Stage 1 First Floor Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.4 Stage 1 Second Floor Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.5 Stage 1 Third Floor Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.6 Stage 1 Roof Plan E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.7 Stage 1 Elevations: West & North E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.3.8 Stage 1 Elevations: East & South E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.4.0 Stage 1A and 2 Cover Page E 31/03/2016


20

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

A14/04 1.4.1 Stage 1A Floor Plans E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.4.2 Stage 1A Roof Plan & Elevations E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.4.3 Stage 2 Floor Plans E 31/03/2016

A14/04 1.4.4 Stage 2 Roof Plan & Elevations E 31/03/2016

N/A 1 of 5 Photomontage view from eastern side of Portrush Road

N/A 10/02/2016

N/A 2 of 5 Photomontage view from western side of Portrush Road

N/A 10/02/2016

N/A 3 of 5 Site Elevation: West (Portrush Road)

N/A 10/02/2016

N/A 4 of 5 A – Ground Floor Plan (part) – nts B – Ground Floor Plan (part) – nts

N/A 10/02/2016

N/A 5 of 5 Upper Floor Plan (part) – nts Ground Floor Plan (part) – nts North Elevation – balcony junction

N/A 10/02/2016

Reports and Correspondence

Planning Report by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd Heritage Impact Statement by Hosking Willis Architecture Traffic & Parking Assessment by Phil Weaver & Associates Arborist Report by Tree Environs Pty Ltd Emails from Masterplan SA Pty Ltd dated 15 March 2016; 7 March 2016; 4 March

2016; 18 February 2016 (with attachments) and 5 February 2016 (with attachments).

2. Air conditioning or air extraction plant or ducting shall be screened such that no

nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to residents and users of properties in the locality to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission.

3. The landscaping shown on the plans forming part of the application shall be established prior to the operation of the development and shall be maintained and nurtured at all times with any diseased or dying plants being replaced.

4. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, shall be

designed and constructed to conform with Australian Standards and must be located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of

amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

5. All stormwater design and construction shall be in accordance with Australian Standards and recognised engineering best practices to ensure that stormwater does not adversely affect any adjoining property or public road.

6. All Council, utility or state-agency maintained infrastructure (i.e. roads, kerbs,

drains, crossovers, footpaths etc) that is demolished, altered, removed or damaged during the construction of the development shall be reinstated to Council, utility or state agency specifications. All costs associated with these works shall be met by the proponent.

7. The proposed access points to and from Portrush Road shall be angled to the road at

70 degrees and be appropriately signed and line marked to reinforce the desired flow of traffic.

8. The Portrush Road median opening associated with Myrona Avenue shall be altered

to prevent this median opening being utilised for right turn movements into the subject land. These works will involve extending the median nose to the north with back-to-back kerbing. The applicant shall contact Mrs Christina Canatselis, Engineer, Traffic Operations, on (08) 8226 8262 or via [email protected] to

mailto:[email protected]


21

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

progress the design of these works. Construction of these works shall be completed prior to operation of the development.

9. All vehicle car parks, driveways and vehicle entry and manoeuvring areas shall be

designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and be constructed, drained and paved with bitumen, concrete or paving bricks in accordance with sound engineering practice and appropriately line marked to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to the occupation or use of the development.

10. Deliveries and refuse collection shall be scheduled to occur outside of peak traffic

periods, with signage installed to prohibit parking in car park numbers 41, 42 and 43 outside of these periods to enable these spaces to be used to accommodate turning manoeuvres required by Medium Rigid Vehicles.

11. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and

implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA publications “Handbook for Pollution Avoidance on Commercial and Residential Building Sites – Second Edition” and “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” – to minimise environmental harm and disturbance during construction. The management plan must incorporate, without being limited to, the following

matters: a. air quality, including odour and dust; b. surface water including erosion and sediment control; c. soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of

soil contamination; d. groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination;

e. noise f. occupational health and safety

For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?'. A copy of the CEMP shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commission prior to the commencement of site works.

12. The applicant shall provide a traffic management plan for the construction period of the development. This shall be submitted to the Development Assessment Commission for approval in consultation with the Commissioner of Highways prior to commencement of on-site construction.

ADVISORY NOTES

a. The applicant should consult with Seymour College’s administration in relation to the

proposed removal of the mature Olive tree (Olea europa) located at the north east corner of the subject land and straddling the northern property boundary between the subject land and the adjoining property forming part of the Seymour College Campus at 546 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond (portion of Allotment 102 in Deposited

Plan 38583).

b. No additional signs shall be displayed upon the subject land other than those identifying the parking area access points and those shown on the approved plans. If any further signs are required, these shall be the subject of a separate application.


22

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2

c. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date of this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment Commission.

d. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12 months of the date of this

Notification. e. The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by this

Notification must be completed within 3 years of the date of the Notification unless

this period is extended by the Commission. f. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed

on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval. g. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development

Court within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow.

The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide (telephone number (08) 8204 0289).

Ben Scholes Project Officer Investment Management, Development Division

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE