Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda · Graeme Brown, Ross Bateup, Peter Ford, Helga Lemon and Mark Osterstock 1 APOLOGIES Nil 2 KAURNA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Presiding Member

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 01 December 2015 at 6pm

Council Chambers, 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

Members: Bill Chandler (Presiding Member)

Don Donaldson (Deputy Presiding Member) Graeme Brown, Ross Bateup, Peter Ford, Helga Lemon and Mark Osterstock

1 APOLOGIES

Nil

2 KAURNA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 03 November 2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

4 APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

(BY THE ADMINISTRATION)

Nil

(BY THE APPLICANT)

Nil

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

Nil

(B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (HEARING)

Report Number: 5701.1

Page: 1

Application Number: 180\0781\15

Applicant: Treetops Early Learning Centre Pty Ltd

Location: 346 Kensington Road, Erindale

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and change of use/construction of a child care centre including car parking and 1.8m high masonry fence along Kensington Road and Myall Avenue frontages.

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be refused

Representors: 354A Kensington Road, Erindale

60B Myall Avenue, Erindale

17 Kennaway Street, Tusmore

61 Godfrey Terrace, Erindale

352 Kensington Road, Erindale

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 01 December 2015



57 Myall Avenue, Erindale

335 Kensington Road, Kensington Gardens




PO Box 520, Glenside


58 Gleneagles Road, Mt Osmond

7 Statenborough Street, Leabrook





PO Box 647, Kensington Park



Applicant: 33 Carrington Street, Adelaide

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


Page: 321


Applicant: Alan Sheppard Constructions Pty Ltd

Location: 24 Knightsbridge Road, Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Amendment to DA 180\1145\14 (Demolition of existing dwelling and swimming pool and construction of single-storey detached dwelling including rendered boundary fencing) comprising changes to approved roof form and increase to conditioned boundary fencing height - retrospective


Representors: 22 Knightsbridge Road, Hazelwood Park

Applicant: 403 Glen Osmond Road, Glen Osmond


Page: 423



Location: 369A The Parade, Kensington Park

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including basement, garage x 2, portico, alfresco, balcony, gym, swimming pool, retaining walls and fencing

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

Representors: 369 The Parade, Kensington Park

373 The Parade, Kensington Park


57 Yeronga Avenue, Kensington Park


Applicant: 403 Glen Osmond Road, Glen Osmond


Page: 470


Applicant: Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd

Location: 13 McAllan Avenue, Burnside

Proposal: Demolition of existing shed and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, portico and retaining walls


Representors: 13A McAllan Avenue, Burnside

11 McAllan Avenue, Burnside

22A McAllan Avenue, Burnside

Applicant: 387-391 South Road, Mile End


Page: 517

Application Number: 180/1384/14

Applicant: Precision Homes

Location: 126 Hewitt Avenue, Toorak Gardens

Proposal: Demolition of Contributory Item (dwelling) and construction of a three-storey dwelling including underground garage and habitable rooms, lift, alfresco, balcony, tennis court fencing, swimming pool, front fence (masonry pillar and plinth) spa and incidental earthworks.


Representors: 117 Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens

115 Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens

117A Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens

Information Economy Planning



Page: 621


Applicant: Vin Keneally

Location: 11 East Terrace, Beaumont

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and construction of new single storey dwelling, retaining walls and fencing, decking, privacy screen and addition of garage to existing dwelling resulting in two dwellings on land.


Representors: PO Box 6182, Linden Park



Page: 665



Applicant: Proske Architects

Location: 18A Fifeshire Avenue ST GEORGES

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, shed, alfresco, swimming pool, screen, tennis court and fencing


Representors: 35 Woodcroft Avenue, St Georges

18B Fifeshire Avenue, St Georges

33 Woodcroft Avenue, St Georges

16 Fifeshire Avenue, St Georges

Applicant: 26 Wakeham Street, Adelaide

6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION – NO PERSONS TO BE HEARD

(A) NON-COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING) Nil (B) CATEGORY 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)

Nil

(C) CATEGORY 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (NO HEARING)

Nil

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


Page: 726


Applicant: B Hopkins

Location: 27 Sprod Avenue, Toorak Gardens

Proposal: Freestanding carport


8 OTHER BUSINESS

Nil

9 ORDER FOR EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE MEETING TO DEBATE CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS That, pursuant to Section 56A(12) of the Development Act, 1993, the public be excluded from this part of the meeting of the City of Burnside Development Assessment Panel dated Tuesday 01 December 2015 (with the exception of members of Council staff who are hereby permitted to remain), to enable the Panel to receive, discuss or consider legal advice, or advice from a person who is providing specialist professional advice.

10 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS


10.1 LEGAL MATTER APPEAL

Staff updates on Development Assessment Panel decisions appealed through the Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia:

DA 180\0822\14: Four (4) two-storey dwellings including garage, porch, alfresco, balcony, retaining walls and fencing at 27C and 27D Waterfall Gully Road, Burnside.

DA 180\0126\15: Tennis court lighting at 4 Berry Crescent, Burnside.

this page is left intentionally blank

Development Assessment Panel Agenda

01 December 2015

Report Number: PR 5701.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION


Applicant: Treetops Early Learning Centre Pty Ltd

Location: 346 Kensington Road, Erindale SA 5066

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and change of use/construction of a child care centre including car parking and 2.1m high masonry fence along Kensington Road, 2.4m high fence along Myall Avenue and 2.4m high fence along the western boundary

Zone/Policy Area: Residential Zone

Residential Policy Area 12 – Erindale

Development Plan consolidated 30m January 2014

Kind of Assessment: Merit

Public Notification: Category 3

Forty-six (48) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant and third party appeal rights

Referrals – Statutory: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer

Delegations Policy: Unresolved representations


Recommending Officer: Jason Cattonar

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:

- Appendix 1 – Aerial Locality Map

- Appendix 2 – Detailed Planning Assessment

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

Documentation provided as attachments to the report to members of the Development Assessment Panel to facilitate decision making:

Plans and supporting documents

External agency referral reports

Internal agency referral reports

Representations received

Applicant’s response to representations

Photographs


01 December 2015


1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and to change the use of the land from residential to childcare services including the following:

Construction of a new childcare building with a total floor area measuring 484m2;

Outdoor play areas (covered and uncovered);

On-site car parking for 23 vehicles including: - Disabled x 1 - Dedicated staff spaces x 2; and - Small car x 1

Masonry perimeter fencing - Kensington Road – 2.1m high - Myall Avenue – 2.4m high - Western boundary – 2.4m high x 18.5m long (acoustic fence).

Landscaping treatments are included within the car parking area along the southern boundary and the outdoor children’s play area to the north of the building. Two bin enclosures are provided on-site, with recycling bins to be stored in the south-western corner and general waste near the site entrance on Myall Avenue.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0781\15, was lodged on 18 August 2015 by Treetops Early Learning Centre Pty Ltd on behalf of the registered owner of the land. The proposal was determined to be a Category 3 development pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) of the Development Act 1993, to be assessed on merit in accordance with Residential Policy Area 12 – Erindale (RPA12) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. Public consultation was carried out in September 2015, during which time Council received written submissions from 48 external parties, with the exception of 3 expressing a desire to appear in person before the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) in support of their submissions. Copies of the submissions were provided to the Applicant, who has responded through Masterplan Town and Country Planners. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for an assessment of the impact of development on local roads and infrastructure. The application was also referred to DPTI pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Development Act 1993, with Council under direction from DPTI with respect to any conditions it wishes to impose on the development in accordance with Schedule 8, Clause 2(3) of the Development Regulations 2008. An assessment against the Development Plan has now been completed and, pursuant to Council’s Delegation Policy, the application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 3 development with an unresolved representation.

3. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY ATTRIBUTES

3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a regular shaped allotment measuring approximately 1,830 square metres in area, with frontage to Kensington Road measuring 39.62 metres and Myall Avenue measuring 39.73 metres. The land is located within the suburb of Erindale and is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 12 – Erindale.


01 December 2015


The land is currently occupied by a circa 1960’s Conventional style, single-storey detached dwelling with associated outbuildings located in the rear yard. The dwelling benefits from a generously grassed curtilage and offers a landscaped appearance to the streetscape with mature and semi-mature trees being planted along the perimeter of the land. Site access is achieved via two existing crossovers. The primary access is a double width crossover located on Myall Avenue with a secondary, single-width access located on Kensington Road.

3.2. Locality

The locality is comprised of the subject land and surrounding properties with frontage to Myall Avenue, Kensington Road, Godfrey Terrace (between Glynburn Road and Hamilton Street) and other nearby local streets to the south and east. The locality is situated wholly within Residential Policy Area 12 - Erindale of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. The demarcation of the locality encompasses those properties that share a common line of sight with the subject land and those that may observe impacts associated with noise and/or vehicular movements generated by the proposed development. Notable features of the locality include the generally high quality housing stock set on medium density allotments, established and well-maintained front gardens and tree lined local streetscapes. The narrow width of Myall Avenue provides an intimate setting for existing residents however the proximity of the intersection between Kensington Road and Glynburn Road influences the amenity of the locality during the peak traffic periods.

4. KIND OF ASSESSMENT

Kind: Merit

Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 35(5)

Applicant Appeal Opportunity: Yes

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Category: Category 3

Reason: Development Act 1993, Section 38(2)(c)

Representations Received: 354A Kensington Road, Erindale

60B Myall Avenue, Erindale

17 Kennaway Street, Tusmore









On behalf of local residents at 342 and 358 Kensington Road, Erindale and 55, 60B and 62 Myall Avenue, Erindale




01 December 2015




58 Gleneagles Road, Mt Osmond

7 Statenborough Street, Leabrook






PO Box 647, Kensington Park


Third Party Appeal Opportunity: Yes

Representations received are provided as an attachment to the Panel.

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

6. AGENCY REFERRALS

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

o Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).

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

o Traffic Engineer.

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7.1. Land Use

The subject land is contained within the Residential Zone which is described by the Burnside (City) Development Plan as having a high level of amenity with few non-residential land uses causing undesirable impacts. The establishment of child care centres and other non-residential land uses is contemplated by the Zone; however they must be small in scale, benign in external impact and serve the needs of the local community. Observations of the subject land and locality, which are wholly contained within RPA 12, find streetscapes of high residential amenity with good quality housing stock, maintained front gardens and wide tree lined verges. The locality does not contain any non-residential land uses. Commercial activities that service the surrounding residential streets are located to the east of the locality in the nearby Local Centre Zone on the northern and southern sides of Kensington Road. The Resthaven aged care facility which provides supported and independent residential accommodation to the elderly is located west of the locality and sits within RPA 12. Within the Burnside Council area, a total of 9 existing child care facilities are currently operating at the following addresses:

Name Address Places Zone Est.

Conyngham Street Child Care Centre

34 Conyngham Street, Glenside 73 R 1995


01 December 2015


Children’s Education Care Centre (SA)

531-533 Glynburn Road, Hazelwood Park

69 LCE 2002

Burnside Child Care 362 Portrush Road, Tusmore 60 HCZ 1993

Adelaide Eastern Community Childcare Centre

22 Watson Avenue, Rose Park 59 HCZ 1970

Goodstart Early Learning Linden Park

418 Portrush Road, Linden Park 37 R 1994

The Early Years at Seymour

546 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond

120 CU 1922

Victoria Park Child Care 163 Fullarton Road, Rose Park 45 UCZ -

Wendy’s Early Learning Centre

3 Prescott Terrace, Rose Park 35 HCZ -

St Peter’s Collegiate Girls’ School Early Learning Centre

32 Hallett Road, Stonyfell 120 CU 1957

Attachment F in the Applicant’s response to representations provides further information about the location and size of existing child care centres across the eastern region of Metropolitan Adelaide. Child care centres range in place numbers from 23 to 180 with the average being 60 places. Child care centres that accommodate higher place numbers are generally accommodated on the same campus as an educational establishment (i.e. pre-school or school). The Applicant has proposed an 82 place child care centre requiring 12 ‘on the floor’ staff plus one Director and one cook; total of 14 staff members on-site. Based on comparisons to other child care centres as described above, the proposed child care centre is considered to be ‘large scale’ with respect to the number of available places for children and particularly so for a stand-alone, independent centre. As a result, the external impacts of the proposed development, with a particular focus on traffic, are likely to be exacerbated for reasons that will be further explained in this report. For this particular site and locality, and given the number of places available, the proposed land use is not considered to be small in scale, benign in external impacts. Without the benefit of knowing the catchment area for the child care centre, Council is not in a position to offer a qualified opinion as to whether the proposed development is best servicing the needs of the local community. Because non-residential land uses are contemplated by the Residential Zone, the proposed child care centre is not considered to be seriously at variance with the Burnside (City) Development Plan, however the proposed development is considered to be at variance with the general thrust and intent of the Council Wide and Zone objectives and principles of development control as relevant to this application.

7.2. Character and Amenity

Built Form Character The Residential Zone states that development should primarily be for residential land uses that enhance the attractive qualities of streetscapes through good design. Non-residential uses are contemplated by the Zone but only where they are small in scale, benign in external impact and serve the needs of the local community. To further emphasise the importance of non-residential activity having a benign impact, Residential Zone objective 7 expressly seeks a reduction of the impact of established non-residential uses on the amenity of residential areas.


01 December 2015


With respect to the built form, the main building is single-storey in height and entails a building footprint that occupies 27 percent of the total side area, well within the 40 percent ground floor site coverage that is envisaged for residential development. Set-backs to property boundaries maintain the patterns of space between adjoining buildings and as such, the building is largely inoffensive to the existing streetscape character. The proposed masonry fencing along Myall Avenue measuring 2.4m high for a length of 31.0 metres is however considered to be at conflict with the existing streetscape character which generally consists of open front gardens and/or low and open fencing styles. The open nature of the Myall Avenue streetscape is an important feature of its visual amenity due to the narrow width of the carriageway that provides an enclosed but attractive streetscape quality that remains in the visual periphery. The fencing height was increased by the Applicant from 1.8m to 2.4m in response to concerns raised by adjoining and nearby land owners during the public consultation process. Concerns by residents in this regard spoke to the issue of controlling noise emissions from activities being carried out on the subject land. Although Council agrees that the increased fence height will assist the control of noise, the resultant impacts to the streetscape are considered to grossly impair its visual amenity. Traffic Movements Myall Avenue is a local collector road with a carriageway measuring 6.7m wide (kerb to kerb). The Council road reserve one each side of the street measures approximately 4.0m wide inclusive of the public footpath. The City of Burnside’s networks of local collector roads have carriageways that vary in width which is reflective of the differing period at which each suburb was first established. The Austroads 2010 standard for a two-lane local road with parking on both sides is 8.0m from kerb to kerb. While it is accepted that Myall Avenue is an existing local road engineered to a previous standard, the narrowness of the carriageway compared to the current standard is an important consideration when reviewing the impacts of traffic movements as a result of the proposed development. The Traffic Impact Statement and response to representation prepared by Mr Paul Morris of GTA Consultants observes 370 vehicle movements per day (vpd) along Myall Avenue with Council’s traffic count conducted in 2012 recording 281vpd. GTA Consultants anticipates the child care centre to generate an additional 70 trips during the am peak and 62 trips during the pm peak along Myall Avenue. This estimation results in an additional 132vpd along Myall Avenue (total of 502vpd) as a direct result of the proposed development. Being a local collector road, the accepted maximum number of vpd to travel along the street is 1,500. This means that even with the additional traffic generated by the child care centre, the number of vehicles movements will comfortably below the threshold. With due respect given to the views of the traffic engineers, their consideration regarding the tolerance of a local collector road to withstand a certain number of vehicle movements per day is an arbitrary figure. Their considerations take into account the length and formation of the road, the number of dwellings that have frontage to the road, the number of vehicles that travel along the road including through traffic from other roads and on the basis that the busiest exit and entry points are located at each end. Additional and important considerations that form part of a planning assessment in relation to this application need to take into account the amenity impacts associated with increased


01 December 2015


vehicle movements to a single property that is located on a narrow street within a residential zone. The generally accepted number of vpd to a residential property is 10 compared to the projected number of 132vpd that will occur at the child care centre. At face value, this represents an increase of 122vpd compared to the existing residential use of the land. Anticipating that the existing traffic characteristics along Myall Avenue, which includes 10 dwellings that have vehicular access to Myall Avenue, would be in the order of 100vpd, the proposed development will increase traffic movements along the road by more than double. On that basis, it is difficult to rationalise that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity on Myall Avenue as a direct result of the increased number of vehicle movements. Car Parking The provision of adequate on-site car parking is a critical component of this application as additional ‘spill’ of vehicles onto Myall Avenue will have a significant impact to the traffic flows due to the narrow width of the carriageway.

The number of on-site parking spaces provided by the development is 23 which include one disabled bay and two bays dedicated to staff. Within the Burnside (City) Development Plan, Table Bur/5 sets the on-site parking rate for a pre-school (determined to be the same as a child care centre in Schedule 1 of the Development Regulations 2008) as follows:

“1 space per staff member, plus not less than four spaces and an additional 0.15 spaces for each child to be accommodated on the site in excess of 25 children, for visitors and service vehicles.” The development proposes a maximum capacity of 82 children with 16 staff including the Director and cook. Having applied the calculations required in Table Bur/5 the child care centre would need to provide 28.5 parking spaces on-site. The proposal therefore fails to provide adequate on-site parking in accordance with the requirements of the Development Plan, falling short by 5.5 spaces. In the matter Emali Early Learning Centre v City of Mitcham & Ors [2015] SAERDC 36, which involved a 70 place child care facility on Cross Road, Westborne Park, the Court cited a recent parking study funded by the Local Government Association of South Australia, for the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (supported by other Councils and the DPTI). The study was undertaken by Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd and recommended that a standard rate of 0.25 spaces per child, and 0.9 to 1.0 space per (full-time) employee be applied for a child care centre. Based on this method, the proposed development would need to provide 36.5 parking spaces on-site. In the above matter, GTA Consultants gave technical traffic evidence where they accepted and recommended the new “Aurecon” study standard. Commissioner Green who presided over the matter also considered evidence from Mr Phil Weaver of Phil Weaver and Associates Pty Ltd, a qualified and experienced traffic engineer. In Mr Weaver’s opinion, a rate of 1 space per 4 children would be adequate for all parking demand for a child care centre including staff and visitors. Ultimately, the view of the Court was that the rate recommended in the “Aurecon” study would result in an oversupply while the rate applied by Mr Weaver would see a shortfall. While giving evidence, GTA Consultants concluded that 25 parking spaces on-site would


01 December 2015


meet the demand of the 70 place child care centre. This evidence was accepted by the Court on the basis that a discounted rate could be applied for assumed reliance by some, on other modes of transport. In their report, GTA Consultants has estimated the length of time for each drop-off to be in the order of 109 seconds. Council’s Traffic Engineer has taken a more cautious approach and considered 5 minutes to be more likely. In the above ERD Court matter, Commissioner Green suggested that drop-offs are likely to be in the order of 5 to 10 minutes. The above views are based on the prospect that parents or carers will need to drive into the car park, unload their vehicle, walk the child into the centre and then return to their vehicle to exit the land. The peak number of trips estimated in the am period (8am to 9am) is 70 meaning there will be approximately 9 vehicles vying for a 7 parking spaces (assumed drop-off length of 7.5 minutes) during this period. Given that the child care centre will have already contributed to increased traffic along Myall Avenue, the prospect of vehicles cuing along the street or making drop-offs is considered unacceptable. This outcome would be compounded by the lack of on-site car parking. Noise The proposal includes acoustic treatments at the property boundaries to assist with the attenuation of noise emissions from the land. Council is satisfied that the acoustic properties of the building, outdoor structures and perimeter fencing are sufficient to address the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007, with respect to the control of noise emissions.

7.3. Site Functionality

The primary vehicular access and egress point for the proposed centre is located on Myall Avenue due to Kensington Road being a controlled access arterial road. There is however an existing crossover located on Kensington Road which is shown of the submitted plans as remaining active. The layout of the car parking area appears sufficient in dimensions to accommodate the required manoeuvring areas to enable vehicles to enter and exit the land in a forward gear. Children’s play areas have access to northern sunlight with portions of the outdoor play area being providing with cover and shade. The area is appropriately secured from public roads ensuring child safety. Bin enclosures have been accounted for on the site and are suitably located so as to reduce the impacts of smells and odours impacting adjoining properties and be shielded from view within the streetscape.

7.4. Public Notification

Forty-eight persons submitted written representations to Council during the public consultation process carried out in September 2015, all of whom are opposed to the development. The primary issues of concern can be summarised as follows:

Inconsistencies with the established land use character for the zone and locality;

Adequacy of the provision of on-site car parking for staff and visitors;

Congestion to traffic circulation and on-street parking along Myall Avenue;

Landscaped character;

Loss of residential amenity; and

Noise emissions (children and vehicles).


01 December 2015


The applicant has responded to the representations through Masterplan Town and Country Planners. Their response can be summarised as follows:

The proposed land use is contemplated by the zone provisions;

The centre is a community facilities that will be located near the people it is intended to serve;

The appearance of the building is complementary to the built form in the locality;

The subject land fronts Kensington Road and as such, the heavy traffic along that road already alters the level of amenity for residents in the locality;

Noise from children will be appropriately attenuated through the inclusion of acoustic dampening devices and materials;

Noise from vehicles falls within the levels set by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007;

Headlight glare would be limited to one dwelling (62 Myall Avenue) and will be limited to the winter months where peak times occur outside of traditional sleeping hours with no operation on weekends;

Adequate on-site parking is provided; and

The impact of additional traffic generated by the development will be insignificant. Council contends that the response provided by the Applicant fails to address the concerns raised by the numerous representors during the public consultation process, with the exception of those towards noise emissions.

7.5. Agency Referrals

The application was referred to DPTI (direction) pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, for consideration of access and parking arrangements. DPTI were opposed to the location of the vehicle crossover on Kensington Road however raised no objection to the proposal, in-principle, provided a condition requiring the closure of the crossover on Kensington Road be included as part of any consent granted by Council. The site plan submitted by the Applicant has failed to address this issue and as such, should the Development Assessment Panel grant consent, a suitably worded condition is to be applied. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer to assess the impact of development on local roads and infrastructure. Concerns were raised with the adequacy of on-site parking based on the original number of 88 places and 22 parking spaces. Following the public consultation period, the Applicant reduced the number of places to 82 and increase on-site parking numbers to 23. This prompted a second internal referral. With the number of places reduced by 6 and number of parks increased by 1, Council’s traffic engineer is now comfortable with the proposal.

7.6. Conclusion

Having regard to all of the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with the policies of the Development Plan. The proposal is however deemed to be at variance with the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development control contained within the Development Plan and therefore should be refused.


01 December 2015


8. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Panel resolve that:

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

2. The proposed development is at variance with the policies in the Development Plan and that Development Application 180\0781\15, is refused Development Plan Consent for the following reasons:

Reasons

The proposal fails to achieve the following Council Wide Objectives and Principles of Development Control:

1. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 8. 2. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 9. 3. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 20. 4. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 32. 5. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 33. 6. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 35. 7. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 55. 8. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 74. 9. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 1. 10. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 3. 11. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 94. 12. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 95. 13. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 96. 14. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 100. 15. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 107. 16. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 108. 17. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 227. 18. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 229.

The proposal fails to achieve the following Residential Zone Objectives and Principles of Development Control:

19. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Objective 1. 20. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Objective 2. 21. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Objective 6. 22. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 1. 23. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 2. 24. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 7. The proposal fails to achieve the following Residential Policy Area 12 - Erindale Objectives and Principles of Development Control 25. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Policy Area Objective 1. 26. The proposal fails to achieve Residential Policy Area Principle of Development Control 1.

RECOMMENDING OFFICER

Jason Cattonar Team Leader – Planning


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

Representor’s Land


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2

DETAILED PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Summary of Policy Area Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Policy Area 12 Objectives:

Objective 1: Enhancement of the low scale residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) primarily single-storeyed detached dwellings, at low density, in a variety of styles (mainly post-war

conventional styles, but with a relatively smaller number of inter-war bungalows); and (b) well-established, open, front gardens and grassed verges. Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be enhanced, are found: (a) on land with frontage to Kensington Road and to Glynburn Road; and

(b) adjacent to the Local Centre Zone.

Principle of Development Control 1: Development should complement the scale, bulk, siting and positive elements of existing dwellings where a distinctive and attractive streetscape character exists.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1

Variance.

The application proposes the demolition of an existing dwelling and a change of land use through the establishment of a child care facility on land zoned for residential purposes.

Although significant variations to the prevailing character are identified on land with frontage to Kensington Road, the extent of impacts to the adjoining residential properties is considered to be significant and unwarranted. The proposed child care centre is not deemed to be small scale or benign in external impacts.

Local Compatibility PDC 1

Variance.

The proposed child care centre is deemed to be of a size and scale that is incompatible with the established residential character of the locality.

The proposed 2.4m high fencing along Myall Avenue will intrude upon the existing streetscape character and detract from the visual amenity that is enjoyed by existing residents.


01 December 2015


Summary of Residential Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Zone Objectives:

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

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

Objective 4: Provision of residential and community facilities and services for the aged community. Objective 5: Enhancement of the attractive qualities of streetscapes and particularly areas of cohesive character or visual sensitivity, through good design.

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

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

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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1–8 PDC 1

Variance.

The Residential Zone envisages the establishment of child care centre within the zone, provided they are located in suitable location, small in scale and benign in external impacts.

The site of the proposed development is not considered to be suitable given its proximity to the intersection between Kensington Road and Glynburn Road which restricts the potential to provide vehicular access from the arterial road instead of the local collector road.

Impacts associated with increased traffic movements which equate to more than double the current volume are likely to cause nuisance to local residents and detract from their residential amenity.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4

Minor variance. The child care building is considered to be compatible with the surrounding dwelling styles. The proposed boundary fencing is deemed to be at odds with the prevailing streetscape character along Myall Avenue. The 2.4m high fencing spanning approximately 30 metres would be a dominant structure that detracts from the visual amenity of the streetscape.

Non-residential Development PDC 7–9

Variance.

The proposed child care centre could be deemed an appropriate land use for the zone if not for the large scale of the proposed use with 82


01 December 2015


places and expected flow on impacts associated with traffic congestion and insufficient on-site parking.

Non-residential activities within the Residential Zone should to protect and enhance the amenity of a locality. The proposed development is considered to fail on this front and unreasonably impact upon the use and amenity of residents within the locality and adjoining land.


01 December 2015


Summary of Council Wide Objectives and Principles

Primary Development Objectives:

Objective 8: A rational distribution and arrangement of land uses to avoid incompatibility between activities, and permit efficient use of land within the metropolitan area.

Objective 9: Development in accordance with the Map Bur/1 (Overlay 1).

Objective 20: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects, or by noise, light, emissions, traffic or any other quality, condition or factor.

Objective 32: A compatible arrangement between land uses and the transport system which: (a) ensures minimal noise and air pollution; (b) protects the amenity of existing and future land uses; (c) promotes greater use of public transport; (d) provides adequate accessibility; and (e) maximises safety in all modes of transport.

Objective 35: Adequate parking for vehicles.

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

Objective 74: Community facilities and services conveniently located and designed to meet existing and future needs and minimise adverse effects on residential amenity.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 52–60

Variance.

Refer to Zone and Policy Area comments.

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

Variance.

Refer to Zone comments.

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

Variance.

Refer to Zone and Policy Area comments.

Access and On-Site Car Parking PDC 177–182

Variance.

The proposal is deemed to have insufficient on-site parking to accommodate the 82 places for children and 16 members of staff.

Access to the land on Myall Avenue is undesirable given the narrow width of the carriageway and significant increase in vehicle movements that will be concentrated on a single property within the street.

Fences and Retaining Walls PDC 190–194

Variance.

See Zone and Policy area comments.

Safety and Security PDC 195–198

Satisfied.

The development is considered to respond positively to the security requirements for a child care facility.


01 December 2015



01 December 2015





Location: 24 Knightsbridge Road, Hazelwood Park

Proposal: Amendment to DA 180\1145\14 (Demolition of existing dwelling and swimming pool and construction of single-storey detached dwelling including rendered boundary fencing) comprising changes to approved roof form and increase to conditioned boundary fencing height - retrospective


Residential Policy Area 11 – Leabrook (South)

Development Plan consolidated 30 January 2014



One (1) representation received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights

Referrals – Statutory: N/A

Referrals – Non Statutory: Team Leader - Compliance



Recommending Officer: James Moss

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:








Photographs

February 2015 DAP minutes, report and attachments


01 December 2015



The Applicant seeks development plan consent for the following amendments to approved DA 180\1145\14:

Increased height of western boundary fence structure;

Redesign of front boundary fence to include masonry pillars and wrought iron infill panels; and

Redesign of roof form.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\1145\14 (Demolition of existing dwelling and swimming pool and construction of single-storey detached dwelling including rendered boundary fencing) was lodged with Council on 30 October 2014 and approved by the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) on 03 February 2015. As a result of deliberations on the night, the Panel determined to impose a condition on the development restricting the height of the western boundary wall to a maximum of 1.8 metres when measured from the adjacent ground level. Following commencement of construction on site Council received a complaint suggesting the western boundary wall had not been built in accordance with the approval. Investigations by Council’s Compliance Team confirmed the wall had been built higher than the approval permitted. The applicant has since lodged a second application, Development Application 180\0801\15 seeking retrospective approval for an increase in the height of the western boundary wall, as well as a redesign of the front fence and minor changes to the roof structure. The amendment proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the relevant provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan. During the public consultation process Council received one submission from the adjoining neighbours to the west (22 Knightsbridge Road), indicating an opposition to the development based on the height and visual impact of the boundary wall. A copy of the submission was provided to the applicant, who responded by reducing the height of a portion of the wall towards Knightsbridge Road. An assessment against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan has now been undertaken and the matter is presented to the Panel as a Category 2 development with a staff recommendation that the application be refused.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a moderately sized, rectangular shaped allotment at the intersection of Knightsbridge Road and The Parkway, Hazelwood Park, located within the Residential Zone, Policy Area 11 – Leabrook (south). The land has an overall area of 894.60m², a frontage to Knightsbridge Road measuring 18.29m and a secondary frontage to The Parkway measuring 39m. The land has recently undergone redevelopment with a new single-storey detached dwelling and boundary walls currently under construction.

3.2. Locality


01 December 2015


The locality comprises the streetscape of Knightsbridge Road, where it meets Philip Avenue to the east and Tusmore Avenue to the west. Many dwellings exhibit older architectural styles, and are predominantly single storey in building height. Fencing styles are varied within this locality, with brush style, timber picket style and masonry style fencing comprising the many fencing forms. Wide grassed Council verges and mature street trees contribute to the elegant and attractive streetscape. Portions of the locality are located within both Policy Area 11 and Policy Area 15.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 11 Principle of Development Control 7(b)

Representations Received: 22 Knightsbridge Road, Hazelwood Park

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No




6.1. Land Use

The development remains residential in nature and is therefore consistent with the desired and established use of the subject land.


The proposed roofing amendments are considered to be minor and inoffensive in this instance. The overall height, form and appearance remain virtually the same as previously approved, with no anticipated external impacts on the streetscape or adjoining land. The proposed fencing changes however have been observed as having a serious adverse impact on streetscape character and residential amenity, and therefore are considered not to warrant approval. The increase in height along the western boundary is out of scale with existing residential fencing within the locality and is highly visible from several vantage points. The changes to the front fence, although open in nature by virtue of the pillar and tubular infill design, increase the overall height and visual scale of the front fence, such that it is anticipated to dominate the locality and overpower its surroundings.


The proposal was placed on public notification between 14 October 2015 and 27 October 2015, during which time Council received one submission from the adjoining neighbours


01 December 2015


to the west (22 Knightsbridge Road), indicating an opposition to the development based on the height and visual impact of the boundary wall. A copy of the submission was provided to the applicant, who responded by reducing the height of a portion of the wall by 280mm to create a step down towards Knightsbridge Road. The applicant has also confirmed that while the previous proposal confirmed the neighbour’s side of the wall would be given a rendered finish, the intention now was to leave this side of the wall unfinished with exposed brick.

6.4. Conclusion

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

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Panel resolve that: 1. Development Application 180\0801\15, by Alan Sheppard Constructions Pty Ltd, is

refused Development Plan Consent for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Objective 20. 2. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 56. 3. The proposal fails to achieve Council Wide Principle of Development Control 190. 4. Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 2 (d)


James Moss Development Officer – Planning


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) single-storeyed detached dwellings of various (generally low) densities, from the interwar period and earlier, in well-landscaped gardens, with much of the remaining original nineteenth century housing stock dominating the built-form character of some streets; (b) varied front building set-backs (those in eastern Knightsbridge Road, Rochester Street and Rodger Avenue, being generally less than in surrounding areas); (c) buildings in Rodger Avenue that are State heritage places, notable for their consistent design and siting; and (d) large, indigenous eucalypt trees. Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) on land with frontage to Glynburn Road; and (b) adjacent to the Local Centre Zone.

Objective 2: Protection and enhancement of the natural features of Second Creek, its environs, and associated trees.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Departure.


01 December 2015






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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Departure.

There are no other examples of comparable fencing throughout the locality, making the proposed structure something of an anomaly and disruptive of the existing streetscape character.


01 December 2015



Primary Residential Development Objectives:

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

Objective 52: A compact metropolitan area.

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

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


Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

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

Departure.

The proposed fencing is anticipated to impair the amenity of the locality by virtue of its height and dominant form.


Departure.

The proposed fencing is considered excessive in height and out of character with the surrounding locality.

Through the previous application for the dwelling, the applicant has raised the finished level of the subject land and in doing so increased the visual impacts of boundary structures for occupants of the neighbouring property to the west (22 Knightsbridge Road).

The northernmost section of the western boundary wall is highly visible from both the neighbouring property and from within the locality in general.

There are no other examples of comparable fencing throughout the locality, making the proposed structure something of an anomaly and disruptive of the existing streetscape character.


01 December 2015





Location: 369A The Parade, Kensington Park

Proposal: Two-storey detached dwelling including basement, garage x 2, portico, alfresco, balcony, gym, swimming pool, retaining walls and fencing


Residential Policy Area 6 – Greater Kensington Park




Four (4) representations received



Referrals – Non Statutory: Technical Officer - Engineering




REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:



- Appendix 3 – Development Data Table







Photographs


01 December 2015



The applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including four bedrooms, basement, double and single garage, entry portico, rear alfresco, front balcony, gym and swimming pool. The proposal also includes concrete boundary retaining walls and 2.1 metre high rendered masonry boundary fencing.

2. BACKGROUND

The subject land benefits from four previous development authorisations:

DA 180\0574\11 – Land division creating three allotments from two existing;

DA 180\0756\11 – Three dwellings including garages, verandah and carport and associated cut and fill;

DA 180\0282\12 – Demolition of existing dwelling and ancillary structures; and

DA 180\0787\14 – Residential flat building comprising two single storey dwelling and boundary fencing.

The current proposal, DA 180\0838\15, was lodged on 03 September 2015 by Alan Sheppard Constructions Pty Ltd on behalf of the registered owners of the land. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the Burnside (City) Development Plan. The application was placed on public notification between 30 September 2015 and 14 October 2015, during which time Council received four written submissions; one in favour of the proposal but with concerns, three opposed. Copies of submissions were forwarded to the applicant, who in turn has provided a written response prepared by Masterplan Town and Country Planners addressing the concerns identified. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation Policy, the application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a generous sized battle-axe allotment created, along with two other allotments, out of two previous allotments fronting The Parade, Kensington Park. The head of the allotment measures 988.9m2 (approx.) with a width of 31.0 metres and a depth of 31.9 metres. The land is currently vacant of all buildings and structures and has a steady fall to the north (rear) of approximately 1 metre from the end of the access driveway strip.

3.2. Locality

The locality resides within the Residential Zone, specifically Residential Policy Area 6 – Greater Kensington Park, and is characterised by rectangular shaped residential allotments of varying size and dimensions. Single-storey detached dwellings constructed in the Interwar period and 1950s Conventional styles are the dominant built form. The Parade and nearby public open space are a notable feature of the locality.


01 December 2015



Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 6 Principle of Development Control 7 (a) and (b)

Representations Received: 57 Yeronga Avenue, Kensington Park







6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

The Development Plan seeks a rational distribution and arrangement of land uses throughout the City of Burnside to avoid incompatibility between activities, and permit efficient use of land within the metropolitan area. This desired pattern of distribution is contained within the Burnside (City) Structure Plan, Map Bur/1 (Overlay 1). The proposal comprises the construction of a single self-contained dwelling on an existing battle-axe allotment within the Residential Zone. The proposed land use is consistent with that envisaged for that zone and is not considered to be significantly at variance with the Development Plan.


The Development Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the low density, residential character derived from low density, single-storeyed, and substantial detached dwellings of a variety of styles, with low-scale, medium-density dwellings of other types being generally a less dominant feature. It is acknowledged, however, that significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found (amongst others) on land with frontage to Kensington Road, to Glynburn Road and to The Parade. The proposal involves the construction of a modern two storey dwelling of generous proportions on a battle-axe allotment set almost 40 metres from the public road, to be


01 December 2015


obscured from public view by the two dwellings at 369 and 371 the Parade to its immediate south. The two-storey portion of the building accords with prescribed building height guidelines and will be set back at a distance of almost 50 metres from The Parade. It is therefore considered that the development will have no tangible impact on the character of the locality as it will not form a visually apparent element of the streetscape. In terms of amenity impacts to neighbouring properties, The Development Plan states that the outer walls of a building should be of a height and length, and located in relation to the boundaries of its site (other than a boundary of a road), so that they do not cause a significant loss of amenity, in terms of their visual impact, overshadowing effect or access to daylight, to occupants of adjoining land and buildings. The building is centrally positioned on the land and comfortably accords with site coverage guidelines for building footprints. The dwelling maintains a minimum 3.5 metre ground floor set-back to the eastern side boundary abutting 57 Yeronga Avenue, the second closest neighbouring dwelling to the site of development after 369 The Parade to the south. Lesser set-backs are provided to the northern rear and western side boundaries, however in both cases the abutting land is occupied by tennis courts and not dwellings. The first floor component is contained within the 9 metre maximum building height guideline and comfortably achieves the prescribed set-back distance to the eastern boundary and to the southern boundary, with modest and acceptable discrepancies to the north (6.5 metres instead of 8 metres) and west (2.7 metres instead of 4 metres). Again, the impacts of the departures are mitigated by the presence of tennis courts on each neighbouring property. It is also prudent to note that due to the “L” shaped design of the upper level floor plan, the width of built form encroaching within the set-back distance in each case is minor in comparison with the length of the shared boundary overall. With regard to sunlight access, the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating that the proposed dwelling will not cause significant overshadowing of the windows to habitable rooms in any adjacent dwelling or main outdoor living area associated with any dwelling. Amenity impacts associated with the shortfall in building set-backs to the north and west are therefore considered reasonable in the context of both the quantitative and qualitative provisions of the Development Plan. The proposal also includes boundary retaining wall and fencing structures, which will create a level and stable site for construction in response to the fall to the rear, as well as provide visual and acoustic privacy to the future occupants and their neighbours. The height of retaining walls will range from 350mm along the southern boundary to 1 metre at the northwest corner of the land. The applicant seeks approval for 2.1 metre high masonry fencing above this. The proposed structures are of an acceptable height in this instance insofar as they will have no visual presence within the streetscape and the maximum height created by the combined structures will be greatest at the far northeast corner abutting neighbouring tennis courts, which will soften any potential sense of enclosure and contribute to acoustic buffering of these recreational areas. Although a fence height of 1.8 metres is preferable the 2.1 metre height is tolerable.


01 December 2015



The proposal successfully functions as a workable planning outcome for the subject land and locality. The proposal utilises the existing access driveway between the recently created allotments to the south at 369 and 371 The Parade, providing ample off-street parking spaces in excess of the requirements for a four bedroom home. Despite the planning staff’s reservations about the extent of proposed impervious surfaces around the dwelling curtilage, Council’s Senior Engineer has not raised any concerns in relation to stormwater runoff and dispersal to the street water table.


The application was placed on public notification in late September, early October 2015, during which time Council received four written submissions; one in favour of the proposal but with concerns, three opposed. The primary planning issues raised can be summarised as follows:

The two storey form of the building, external wall heights and overshadowing potential;

Overlooking from first floor windows and balcony; and

Increased height of boundary fencing. Copies of submissions were forwarded to the applicant, who in turn has provided a written response prepared by Masterplan Town and Country Planners addressing the concerns identified. Their response can be summarised as follows:

Two storey development is not precluded within the Residential Zone or RPA 6;

The proposed building complies with maximum building height guidelines;

The extent of overlooking is reasonable within the context of the surrounding buildings and will be mitigated by the building’s unconventional design and use of se-backs;

Overshadowing generated by the development is consistent with the relevant guidelines;

Standard fencing of 2.1 metres height is permissible without the need for Council approval and the proposed fencing only exceeds this by a maximum of 1 metre and only at the northwest corner of the site.

Overall Council is satisfied with the applicant’s response to the concerns raised through public notification, with the exception of privacy and overlooking matters, which require further consideration and restriction before the proposal can be deemed to be sufficiently in accordance with the Development Plan. Specifically, Council disagrees with the argument put forward by Masterplan Town and Country Planners, that the dwelling’s design, orientation and immediate surroundings eliminate the need for additional privacy treatments to the first floor portion of the building. The Development Plan states that the design of dwellings should ensure that balconies and windows to habitable rooms do not directly overlook the windows and private open space of adjacent dwellings. The south-facing balcony in particular will facilitate direct and unreasonable overlooking of 369 and 371 The Parade, and to a lesser extent 365 and 373 The Parade to the east and west. For this reason staff are only prepared to recommend approval on the condition that this balcony is constructed with solid screening to a minimum height of 1.6 metres on all sides to adequately restrict downward views towards neighbouring properties.


01 December 2015


Likewise, the distance provided between first floor windows and private open space areas on neighbouring properties to the north, east and west is not such that it would preclude intrusive and unreasonable views. Again staff deems it appropriate to impose a condition of consent requiring that all first floor windows be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level.


As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure. No issues of concern were raised, however the developer is encouraged to use permeable paving materials around the dwelling curtilage to minimise stormwater runoff to the Council infrastructure.

7.6. Conclusion

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

8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0838\15, by Alan Sheppard Constructions Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

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

2 All first floor windows as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with fixed and obscure glazing up to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level. The fixed and obscure glazing shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

3 The south-facing first floor balcony as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be fitted with a fixed and obscure balustrade up


01 December 2015


to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level on all sides so as to obstruct sightlines to neighbouring properties to the south. The fixed and obscure balustrade shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

Engineering Notes

The width of the proposed driveway access within the road verge to be limited to maximum 4.5m and to be constructed per Council Standards. Any variation this requirement needs separate approval from our department.

Existing footpath levels, grades should not be alerted as a result of new development works Stormwater pipe across the road verge should be terminated at an approved galvanised steel

kerb adaptor. If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, then steel pipe

housing to be used per Council standard Excess stormwater runoff from the roof catchment to be discharged to the street water table

through a sealed system to the satisfaction of the Council. Developer is encouraged to use permeable paving in the development to minimise stormwater

runoff to the public system.




01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low density residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) low density, single-storeyed, and substantial detached dwellings of a variety of styles, with low-scale, medium-density dwellings of other types being generally a less dominant feature; (b) an open and attractive streetscape character created by moderate building set-backs from street frontages, well-landscaped front gardens with low or open fencing, and extensive grassed verges; and (c) mature vegetation such as indigenous eucalypts. Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) within Kensington Park Reserve (former Olympic Sports Field), a significant landscape feature and public open space; (b) on land with frontage to Kensington Road, to Glynburn Road and to The Parade; and (c) adjacent to the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and the campuses of Pembroke School in the Community Zone.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

Residential use of an existing allotment within the Residential Zone.


Satisfied.

The proposal is consistent with the existing and desired low density character.

Although two-storeys in nature, the proposed dwelling will not be a prominent feature of the local streetscape due to the location of the allotment approximately 40 metres from the road boundary.

The proposed design contributes to the “variety of styles” envisaged for the locality.

The development has no tangible impact on the open streetscape character by virtue of spatial separation form the street.

Site Areas and Frontages PDC 2–5

Satisfied.

Existing allotment of sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate a detached dwelling.


01 December 2015






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

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



Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Satisfied.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6

Satisfied.


01 December 2015









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

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

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

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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Satisfied.

Building Set-backs PDC 161–163

Side Set-backs Departure.

At the ground floor the dwelling will be set back 3.5 metres which exceeds the prescribed guideline. Ample spatial separation is therefore maintained from the adjacent residence at 57 Yeronga Avenue.

The ground floor set-back of 1.3 metres to the western side boundary is a departure from the guideline, but the encroachment is limited to a 5.5 metre wide wall and sits adjacent a tennis court on the neighbouring property.

The garage constructed on the western boundary measures 4.5 metres high and exceeds the prescribed wall height. This would likely not be acceptable if not for the presence of the neighbouring tennis court, which deflects the visual impact to an adequate degree.

The first floor component comfortably achieves the prescribed distance to the eastern boundary and to the southern boundary, with modest and acceptable discrepancies to the north (6.5


01 December 2015


metres instead of 8 metres) and west (2.7 metres instead of 4 metres).

Rear Set-backs Departure.

The northern boundary (rear) set-back does not accord with the guideline for a rear set-back, however the unconventional design of the building is such that in practical terms this is more akin to a side boundary with the main private open space area occupying the centre and western portions of the site.

As with the western boundary, the impacts to the north are off-set by the presence of a tennis court on the neighbouring property.

Building Height PDC 164

Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165

Departure.

The building footprint comfortable accords with the 40% guideline prescribed by PDC 165 (a).

The total floor area and combined footprint and driveway exceeds the guideline prescribed by PDC 165 (b) and (c), however the proposal is not viewed as an overdevelopment of the site.

In part, the excess in total floor area is assigned to the additional useable space created by the basement level.

Private Open Space PDC 166, 169

Departure.

The development provides sufficient private open space areas to the centre and western portions of the site.

The private open space areas accord with all prescribed criteria with the exception of relativity to total floor area (44%).

The shortfall is acceptable in this instance because the above-ground portions of the building do not exhibit an unreasonable bulk and scale and adequate off-street car parking is provided.

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

Satisfied.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176

Departure.

The proposal facilitates direct and unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties and is therefore not acceptable in its current form.

These issues can adequately be resolved by imposing a condition requiring standard privacy measures, such as fixed obscure glazing to all upper level windows and solid screening of the south-facing balcony.


Satisfied.

Access to Sunlight PDC 21, 183–186

Satisfied.


Satisfied.


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 3

DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE

Site Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Area 988.9m2 (excluding driveway) 550m2

Street Frontage N/A (battle-axe allotment) 15m

Design Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Coverage

- Buildings only 36.6% (excluding driveway) 31.3% (with driveway)

40%

- Buildings and driveways 60% (excluding access strip) 65.9% (with driveway and access strip)

50%

- Total floor area 68.1% (excluding driveway) 58.3% (with driveway)

50%

Building Height

- storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys

- metres 7.8m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- side boundary 3.5m (e) 1.3m (w)

2m

- rear boundary 2m 4m

Upper Level

- side boundary 6.6m (e) 2.7m (w)

4m

- rear boundary 6.2m 8m

Boundary Wall

- length 7.2m 8m

- height 4.5m 3m

Private Open Space

- percentage 44.7% 50%

- dimensions 7.5m x 17.3m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access

- number of parks 6 possible bedrooms 2


01 December 2015




Applicant: Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd

Location: 13 McAllan Avenue, Burnside

Proposal: Demolition of existing shed and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, portico and retaining walls

Zone/Policy Area: Watercourse Zone

Residential Policy Area 27




Three (3) representations received



Referrals – Non Statutory: Senior Engineer




REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:










Photographs


01 December 2015



The applicant seeks development plan consent for the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling, comprising three bedrooms, double garage under the main roof, front portico, upper level family room, lower level open plan living areas and retaining walls.

2. BACKGROUND

In June 2013 a large single allotment known as 13 McAllan Avenue was granted approval for subdivision into four allotments; two facing McAllan Avenue and two facing Waterfall Gully Road (DA 180\1192\12). The current proposal, Development Application 180\0760\15, was lodged on 13 August 2015 by Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd on behalf of the registered owner. The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 development under the provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, to be assessed on merit. Public consultation was carried out in September 2015, during which time Council received written submissions from three external parties, two of whom expressed a desire to appear in person before the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) in support of their submissions. Copies of the submissions were provided to the applicant, who has responded through Masterplan Town and Country Planners. As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was also referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure and flooding. An assessment against the Development Plan has now been completed and, pursuant to Council’s Delegation Policy, the application is presented to the Panel for consideration as a Category 2 development with an unresolved representation.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a newly created allotment on the eastern side of McAllan Avenue measuring approximately 829 square metres with a frontage to the public road of 27.9 metres. The land is situated wholly within the Watercourse Zone and is largely occupied by the 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 year flood plain, with First Creek running between McAllan Avenue and Waterfall Gully Road.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises both sides of McAllan Avenue within 100 metres of the subject land to the north and south. The eastern side of the street forms part of the Watercourse zone, while the western side forms part of the Residential Zone, specifically Residential Policy Area 27 – Southern Foothills (RPA 27). The locality exhibits no discernible cohesive character, other than a predominance of two-storey dwellings in proximity to the subject land. Building set-backs vary from as little as 2 metres to more than 11 metres from the road boundary. Local amenity is enhanced by the strong presence of mature trees and well landscaped private properties. Vistas within the locality are limited by the bend in the road.


01 December 2015



Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 27 Principle of Development Control 10 (a), (b) and (c)

Cut/Fill The proposal includes minor and incidental earthworks which do not have substantial external impacts.

Representations Received: 11 McAllan Avenue, Burnside

13A McAllan Avenue, Burnside

22A McAllan Avenue, Beaumont




6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

The subject land is located within the Watercourse Zone, which envisages residential development, together with various other land uses, where structures are located and designed in such a way as to minimise the potential for personal or property damage as a result of a flood. The proposal is residential in nature and constructed wholly outside of the 1 in 20 year flood plain. The proposal is therefore consistent with the desired land use and not seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan.


The Development Plan states that residential development within the Watercourse Zone should generally accord with the relevant principles of development control for the Residential Zone, including those for the adjacent Residential Policy Area, and more particularly RPA 27 if the site of the proposed development is in the suburb of Beaumont, or in the suburb of Burnside, adjacent to First Creek. RPA 27 refers to the enhancement of the low density, open residential and foothills character that is derived from (amongst others) the topographic and other natural features of the foothills location, and dwellings in a variety of architectural styles (typically, detached dwellings, medium-to-large in scale, with split-level or multi-storeyed construction). The policy area objectives also refer to moderate to deep building set-backs from roads, well-vegetated and generally unfenced front gardens. The proposal is generally consistent with this character, with the notable exception of the front set-back to McAllan Avenue. The proposal comprises a single detached dwelling of


01 December 2015


two storey construction and exhibiting a contemporary design that contributes to the “variety of architectural styles”. The proposed building sits within the 9 metre building height guideline for residential development and is largely consistent with ground floor and first floor side boundary set-backs. The proposed front set-back of 1.79 metres does not accord with the desired “moderate to deep building set-backs from roads” or the 8 metre front set-back guideline prescribed by RPA 27 Principle of Development Control 7. The allowable building area for this site is, however, highly restricted due to the location of the 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 year flood plain and the existing Council easement running through the subject land, which dictates that any new dwelling on the land will have to be located close to the road boundary. On review of the locality, the proposed siting is not considered inappropriate as many two storey dwellings in proximity to the subject land are also positioned at a distance from the street that falls substantially short of the guideline. The dwelling façade also incorporates a degree of articulation to break up some of the mass of the building, the most noticeable indication of this being the staggering of the double garage behind the main building line.


Council is satisfied that the proposed development constitutes a workable planning solution for the subject land and surrounding locality. The applicant has responded to the unique constraints of the site to ensure no building work encroaches within the 1 in 20 or the 1 in 100 year flood plains. The building footprint and total floor area remain well within the confines of site coverage guidelines, leaving large expanses of open space to the rear of the land. The proposal also provides sufficient off-street parking for a modern three bedroom dwelling and utilises the existing access crossover to ensure minimal disturbance to the Council verge.


Three written submissions were received by Council during the public consultation process carried out in September 2015, two of which indicated they were opposed to the development and one in favour, but with concerns. The primary issues of concern can be summarised as follows:

Inconsistencies with the character and built form guidelines of the Development Plan;

Potential erosion and flooding impacts arising from the development of an allotment occupied by First Creek;

Amenity impacts arising from the placement of the garage on the northern side boundary;

Stormwater disposal, retaining walls and site build up; and

Overlooking opportunities created by the two-storey form of the development.

The applicant has responded to the representations through Masterplan Town and Country Planners. Their response can be summarised as follows:

The proposed dwelling sits comfortably within site coverage and building height guidelines and is a form of development that is envisaged by RPA 27 policies;

The development cannot achieve the 8 metre front set-back distance due to the restrictions placed on the land by the First Creek watercourse, while several nearby dwellings also do not achieve the desired front set-back;


01 December 2015


The garage on the northern boundary will have no overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property and constitutes a minor and acceptable departure from prescribed quantitative guidelines for boundary development;

Each habitable room window on the first floor level of the proposed dwelling, except for those windows which face McAllan Avenue, will be positioned 1.6 metres above the finished floor level;

The proposal satisfies overshadowing guidelines for new dwellings;

The dwelling footprint has been positioned outside of the 1 in 20 year flood plain and no material change to the landform of the creek is proposed;

No regulated or significant trees will be impacted by the development and no non-regulated trees are planned to be removed from the land; and

The civil plan has been prepared by a suitably qualified engineer and stormwater will be released to the creek at an appropriate rate.

Council is satisfied with the applicant’s response to matters raised during the public consultation process, with the exception of that towards privacy concerns. Should the Panel see fit to grant development plan consent, the Administration recommends that all side and rear upper level windows be fixed and obscured below 1.6 metres from the finished floor level (see Condition 2).


As part of Council’s internal assessment process, the proposal was referred to the Senior Engineer to assess the impact of development on local infrastructure and the watercourse. No concerns were raised.

7.6. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0760\15, by Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions



01 December 2015


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

3 The driveway depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent shall be tapered to a maximum width of 4.5m at the property boundary. Reason: To ensure minimal impacts to Council verge.

Engineering Notes

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

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

Excess stormwater runoff from the roof catchment can be discharged to the creek . Appropriate erosion control measures are to be provided to minimise the erosion.

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

Developer should ensure that proposed development will not affect upstream or downstream water level due to the development.

Developer should ensure that finish floor level (FFL) of the building is set to 500mm above 1 in 100yr flood level.




01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2




Objective 1: Enhancement of the low density, open residential and foothills character that is derived from: (a) the topographic and other natural features of the foothills location, and dwellings in a variety of architectural

styles (typically, detached dwellings, medium-to-large in scale, with split-level or multi-storeyed construction); (b) many dwellings on elevated land and orientated to take advantage of views across the Adelaide Plains; (c) moderate to deep building set-backs from roads, well-vegetated and generally unfenced front gardens; (d) proximity to the natural character of the adjoining Hills Face Zone; (e) a pattern of development, including the division of land, that varies considerably with the topography (the

Policy Area contains some of the steepest land in the Council area), commonly imposing significant constraints on efficient development, access and servicing (to the extent that on some steep sites, a carport may need to be located between a dwelling and the road, subject to siting and design to minimise visual

impact); and (f) a transition in character and dwelling density between steep land near the Hills Face Zone, where allotments

are large and irregularly-shaped, and lower slopes, where there are more regular, compact patterns of land division and generally consistent building set-backs and orientation towards roads.

Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be enhanced, are found: (a) on land which, due to its elevation, gradient and aspect, is visible from the Adelaide Plains or main public

vantage points in the foothills; (b) on land adjacent to the Hills Face Zone, or other open land where there may be significant risk of bushfire; (c) on sites containing or affected by historic mining works; (d) on filled land, such as the former Dashwood Road Dump at Beaumont; (e) on land containing remnant indigenous vegetation; (f) on steep land with limited development and access opportunities, in particular, land fronting the section of

Sunnyside Road between Gill Terrace and Wheal Gawler Street, on the eastern side of Wheal Gawler Street; and

(g) in the “Burnside Park Estate” (centred on Ifould Drive and Burnalta Crescent), where specific encumbrance provisions apply.

Objective 2: Development designed and sited so that the appearance of the foothills visible from the Adelaide Plains is not impaired.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use O 1-2

Satisfied.

Residential land use.

No change in density given that the allotment already exists.

The development will not impair the appearance of the foothills when viewed from the Adelaide Plains.


Satisfied.

The proposal involves a detached dwelling of medium scale and of multi-storeyed construction as per Objective 1(a).

Although not consistent with the desired “moderate to deep building set-backs from roads”, the locality features several two-storey dwellings with a similar siting from the road and as such, an 8 metre


01 December 2015


set-back does not form part of the established character of the locality.


Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 6

Satisfied.

Building Set-backs PDC 7

Departure.

PDC 7 states that buildings should be set back not less than 8 metres form the boundary of a road.

As stated above, the proposed development fails to provide an 8 metre set-back, however is generally compatible with the siting of similar dwellings within the locality.


01 December 2015


Summary of Watercourse Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Watercourse Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: A zone comprising residential, open space, brewery and local shopping areas encompassing the floodplain of a 1-in-100-year return period flood from First Creek or Second Creek.

Objective 2: A zone where structures are located and designed in such a way as to minimise the potential for personal or property damage as a result of a flood.

Objective 3: Maintenance and enhancement of a character that is derived particularly from: (a) low-density, well-vegetated residential areas, public open space, and open, meandering creek channels with

earth and grassed embankments; and (b) the well-vegetated, relatively undeveloped or natural, open condition of the creek channels, banks and

immediate environs, historic gardens, and stands of significant indigenous and introduced vegetation. Acknowledged, significant variations from the Desired Character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) in Policy Areas 1 and 2, with their existing brewery and local shopping uses and buildings; and (b) in Hazelwood Park, Tusmore Park, and other reserves, which collectively or individually provide for a range

of active and passive recreation in natural or landscaped creek line settings.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

The proposal is residential in nature and sited in a way so as to minimise flooding.

Flood-Prone Areas PDC 2–6

Satisfied.

All proposed works occur outside of the 1 in 20 year flood plain.

Residential Development PDC 7

Satisfied.

See policy area section.


01 December 2015









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Zoning and Land Use O 1 PDC 1

See policy area comments.




01 December 2015










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

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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:






Side Set-backs Departure.

The dwelling accords with ground floor set-backs, but will be sited 300mm closer to the northern boundary than the 4 metre guideline for the first floor.

The 300mm departure is minor and acceptable and external impacts are considered to be within reason as it abuts the neighbour’s carport and driveway.

The garage will be constructed on the northern boundary for a distance of 6.5 metres, which accords with the 8 metre guideline.

Rear Set-backs Satisfied.


Satisfied.


Satisfied.

The dwelling comfortably conforms to ground floor, total floor area and impervious surfaces site coverage guidelines.


Satisfied.


01 December 2015


The proposal provides ample private open space to the rear of the dwelling satisfying all prescribed criteria.

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

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

Overlooking from first floor windows can be overcome by including an appropriate condition requiring fixed and obscured glazing to all side and rear windows.


Satisfied.

The dwelling satisfies off-street parking requirements prescribed by Table Bur/5.

The development utilises the existing driveway crossover and therefore makes no alteration to the Council verge.


Satisfied.

Energy Conservation PDC 31-32

Satisfied.

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

Satisfied.


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 3



Site Area 829.6m2 750m2

Street Frontage 27.9m 20m


Site Coverage

- Buildings only 17.32% 33%

- Buildings and driveways 20.7% 50%

- Total floor area 28.7% 50%

Building Height


- metres 8.8m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- front boundary 1.79m 8m

- side boundary On boundary (nw) 4.5m (se)

2m


Upper Level


- side boundary 3.7m (nw) 4.5m (se)

4m


Boundary Wall

- length 6.5m 8m

- height 3.8m 3m

Private Open Space


- dimensions 18.9m x 27.52 5m x 8m


- number of parks 4 3

- width of driveway 3.8m 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door 17.2% 33%


01 December 2015




Applicant: Precision Homes

Location: 126 Hewitt Avenue TOORAK GARDENS

Proposal: Demolition of Contributory Item (dwelling) and construction of a three-storey dwelling including underground garage and habitable rooms, lift, alfresco, balcony, tennis court fencing, swimming pool, front fence (masonry pillar and plinth) spa and incidental earthworks.

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 – Toorak Gardens (North)




Four (4) representations received


Referrals – Non Statutory: Technical Officer - Engineering / Local Heritage Consultant



Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:










Photographs


01 December 2015



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following:

Demolition of Contributory Item (dwelling) and construction of a three-storey dwelling including underground garage and habitable rooms, lift, alfresco, balcony, tennis court fencing, swimming pool, spa and incidental earthworks.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\1384\14 was lodged on 23 December 2014, by Precision Homes on behalf of the owner of the subject land. The application seeks Development Plan Consent for the demolition of a Contributory Item and the construction of a three-storey dwelling on an allotment which currently contains a single-storey dwelling. The proposal underwent numerous design changes and amendments during its time at Council. Additionally, two rounds of public notification were undertaken as a previous rooftop terrace was removed from the proposal. Although unrelated to the proposal at hand, one previous application is recorded against the property:

Development Application 180/0778/13 for “alterations and additions to existing dwelling including upper level, triple carport, verandah and enclosing of swimming pool” which was granted planning consent April 2014.

The current proposal was determined to be neither a complying nor non-complying form of development, prompting an assessment on merit pursuant to Section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993. The development was also determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Historic (Conservation) Zone Principle of Development Control 26(a) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, due to the dwelling being more than one storey. During the public notification period four (4) written representations were received in relation to the proposal; all representations are opposed to the development. One representation was made on behalf of various persons within the vicinity of the proposal. A number of these people are from properties that fall outside of the Category 2 notification zone. Concerns from all representations focused on issues with the possibility of overlooking, building height, impact on historic character, overshadowing, concerns with Council’s categorisation and description of the nature of development, impact on vegetation and property values and tennis court lighting.

During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Heritage advisor. Two reports were provided as the application has undertaken a number of amendments. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation policy, the application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations.


01 December 2015



3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a large single allotment described as allotment 85 in filed plan 141046 in the area named Toorak Gardens within the Hundred of Adelaide, as recorded on the Certificate of Title Volume 5900 Folio 196. The subject land is wholly contained within Historic Conservation Policy Area – Toorak Gardens (North). The subject land is a large rectangular allotment on the southern side of Hewitt Avenue on the corner of Von Rieben Lane. The total area of the land measures some 1605m2 and a frontage to Hewitt Avenue of 32.92m. The land currently contains a Colonial style dwelling which was built in 1952 and is identified as in Fig Bur HCPA/6 as being a Contributory Item.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises of the streetscape of Hewitt Avenue where it meets Portrush Road to the east and Moore Street to the west. Dwellings with access to Von Rieben Lane and dwellings that face Watson Avenue and share a common boundary with the subject land are also considered to form part of the locality. Detached dwellings are the predominant building form within the locality however there are two examples of semi-detached dwellings and one example of residential flat buildings on the adjacent properties. Half of the dwellings within the locality are not identified as Contributory Items with the other half being identified as either a Contributory Item, Local Heritage Place or State Heritage Place. Fencing styles within the locality are varied with some allotments having low, open fencing while towards Portrush Road some high masonry fencing exists and brush fencing is also found within the locality. Hewitt Avenue has wide verges and attractive mature street trees.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Historic (Conservation) Zone Principle of Development Control 26(a)

Cut / Fill: The proposal includes a significant degree of cut to accommodate the proposed underground garage and basement rooms. As the cut is internal to the site and underneath the building envelope, the excavation does not result in large retaining walls or fencing which would cause amenity issues to adjoining properties. As such it is not expected to unreasonably impact the occupiers of adjoining land.


01 December 2015


Representations Received: Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens SA 5065

115 Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens SA 5065

117a Watson Avenue, Toorak Gardens SA 5065

Information Economy Planning – On behalf of a number of residents




6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made:

The proposal is for a residential development within the Historic Conservation Zone, in a locality which is dominated by residential land uses;

The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the relevant policy area provisions of the Development Plan; and

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

The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan, in terms of its land use.


The policy area envisages new buildings within this locality as complimenting the existing historic character of the area and having similar mass and proportions, building form and roof pitches. Although some of the historic dwellings within the locality are large single-storey dwellings, they are diminutive compared to the scale of this proposed dwelling. The Neo-classical style of the dwelling is incompatible with the period of construction of the Contributory, Local and State Heritage Items within the locality. It is conceded that the locality is somewhat of an oddity within the Historic Conservation Zone as only half of the nearby dwellings are listed as Contributory Items. Additionally, some of the more recently built dwellings also do not strictly adhere to Council’s development guidelines in terms of building design, most notably immediately opposite the subject land. These dwellings were approved and constructed prior to 2005 which is the point in time when the Historic Conservations Zone was incorporated into the Burnside (City) Development Plan. The scale of ‘new’ dwellings pale in significance when compared to the proposed dwelling. The fact that the proposed dwelling, at its maximum height, is just 8mm below the 9m Non-Complying threshold is indicative of how distant the proposal is from according to the scale of existing dwellings within this historic area and the Development Plan guidelines prescribed by the Historic Conservation Zone. The 20m wide façade of the dwelling, although set-back some 14m from the street, is of an unprecedented scale within the locality and severely compromises the historic streetscape character.


01 December 2015



The development seeks to utilise the existing driveway crossover to gain access to the site from Hewitt Avenue. The application includes a substantial degree of cut to the east of the land to accommodate the basement car parking and sub-ground level rooms. Although this is a significant degree of excavation, as the works are below the natural ground, level its impact upon adjoining properties is considered to be benign. It is worth noting however that as a result of this excavation, a portion of the driveway will have a 1 in 4 gradient. This is at odds with Council Wide Principle of Development Control 179(a) which states that driveways should not exceed a gradient of 1 in 5 at any point. Council’s Technical Officer – Engineering has reviewed the documentation and supplied some recommended notes should the Panel be of the mind to grant consent to the application.


During the notification period Council received four (4) written submissions from owners/occupiers of adjoining land. The primary issues raised during public consultation process are as follows:

Privacy;

Overshadowing;

Fencing;

Height of building;

Security;

Disruption during construction period;

Negative impact to the Historic Conservation Zone; and

Devaluation of property. A number of the concerns raised by representors cannot be considered as part of the planning assessment process; property devaluation for example. Many of the representors concerns do however remain valid and are essential to determining whether the proposed development represents an acceptable outcome for the land, streetscape and locality. The large scale of the proposed building, the lack of privacy features and the proposed building’s inconsistency with other dwellings within the locality is expected to have an adverse impact upon the amenity of occupiers of adjoining land.


As the proposal was significantly amended during the assessment process, two heritage reports from Council’s Heritage Advisors have been included as attachments. Both reports detail that although the Contributory Item does not contribute to the established historic character of the locality, the proposed replacement dwelling is inappropriate for the Historic Conservation Zone and refusal of the application is recommended.

7.6. Conclusion

Having regard to all of the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the proposed development is not considered to be at serious variance with the land use policies of the Development Plan.


01 December 2015


However the bulk, scale and architectural style of the proposed development is considered to significantly impact upon the amenity of the historic streetscape character and locality in general. The application is therefore deemed to be at variance with the relevant objectives and principles of development control within the Burnside (City) Development Plan and the application should be refused

8. RECOMMENDATIONS


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

2. The proposed development is at variance with the relevant objectives and principles of development control contained within the Burnside (City) Development Plan; and

3. Development Application 180\1384\14, by Precision Homes is refused Development Plan Consent for the following reasons:

Reasons

The proposed development is at variance with the following provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan:

1. Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 - Toorak Gardens (North) Objective 1 in that the proposal does not enhance the Established Historic Character of the area.

2. Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 - Toorak Gardens (North) Objective 2 in that the proposal does not enhance the low scale residential character of the area.

3. Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 - Toorak Gardens (North) Principle of Development

Control 4 in that the proposal does not compliment the Established Historic Character of the Policy in terms of scale, massing, proportions, building form, roof-forms and pitches.

4. Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 1 in that the proposal does not enhance the historic

character of the relevant Policy Area.

5. Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 3 in that the proposal is not a housing type which is compatible with the historic character of the zone.

6. Historic (Conservation) Zone - Objective 4 in that the proposal does not enhance the Policy

Area in terms of (a) overall and detailed design of buildings and (b) dwelling type and overall form.

7. Historic (Conservation) Zone – Principle of Development Control 6 in that the proposed façade of the building is inconsistent with the historic character of the policy area.

8. Historic (Conservation) Zone – Principle of Development Control 7 in that the proposed roof pitches do not match the principal roof pitches of buildings within the policy area and immediate vicinity.

9. Historic (Conservation) Zone – Principle of Development Control 19 in that the proposed new building is not designed in a manner which compliments and reinforces the historic character of the policy area.


01 December 2015


10. Historic (Conservation) Zone – Principle of Development Control 22 in that the proposed new building copies an architectural style of an historic period which is at odds with the date of the original subdivision and initial residential development of the policy area.

11. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 174 in that the proposal includes upper level windows with no privacy treatments which may overlook adjoining properties.

12. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 179(a) in that the proposed driveway exceeds 1 in 5.


James Booker Development Officer – Planning


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2



Primary Historic Conservation Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: The conservation and enhancement of the historic character of the relevant Policy Area.

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

Objective 3: Development accommodating those housing types which are compatible with the historic character of the zone.

Objective 4: Development which conserves and enhances the historic character of the relevant Policy Areas of the zone, in terms of: (a) overall and detailed design of buildings; (b) dwelling type and overall form; (c) allotment dimensions and proportions; (d) placement of buildings on the allotment and alignment to the street; (e) layout of the site and the type and height of fencing; (f) streetscapes, verge treatment and street planting; and (g) curtilages and garden areas.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Variance.

Although the proposed development will continue the desired residential use of the land the proposed replacement building does not enhance the historic character of the relevant Policy Area.

General PDC 1–5

Variance.

The proposed building is of a bulk and scale which is unsympathetic to the early twentieth century dwelling character of Toorak Gardens.

Appearance of Land and Buildings PDC 6–15

Variance.

The bulk and scale of the building, roof form and incongruent style of the dwelling is in direct conflict with the established historic character of the locality.

New Buildings PDC 19–22

Variance.

The removal of the Contributory Item is considered appropriate only when the replacement dwelling is of a high quality and meets heritage design guidelines. Unfortunately in this instance the proposed replacement dwelling is considered to be inappropriate for the zone.


01 December 2015



Primary Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 Objectives:

Objective 1: Development that conserves and enhances the Established Historic Character.

Objective 2: Development accommodating detached dwellings on large allotments.

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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Local Compatibility O 1-3 PDC 1-4

Variance.

The proposed dwelling is classified as a detached dwelling, which adheres to the Historic Policy Area objectives with respect to land use and density. Existing detached dwellings within the locality are predominantly single-storey in scale and are of a diminutive scale when compared to the proposed dwelling.

The proposal does not accord with Principle of Development Control 4 in that the specific building features of the proposed dwelling are inconsistent with the established historic character.

Site Areas and Frontages PDC 5

Satisfied. The subject land is a large parcel and is capable of accommodating a detached dwelling.

Building Set-backs PDC 7

Satisfied.

The proposed building maintains the existing generous set-back from the front boundary of the site. Unfortunately the front façade is of a bulk and scale which presents as dominant to the streetscape.

Site Coverage PDC 8

Satisfied.

Given the large size of the subject land, the proposal accords with the Policy Area site coverage guideline.


01 December 2015









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

The dwelling is located in a section of the Historic Conservation Zone which is dominated by residential land uses.


Variance.

The design of the dwelling is not to a standard that reinforces positive aspects of the local built form character.


Satisfied. The proposal accords with all front rear and side set-backs guidelines within the Development Plan. The proposed boundary wall however does exceed the 3m building height guideline. This is only of a section of 5.2m on the common boundary and is to affect a narrow utility area. As such the additional height of the boundary wall is not expected to have a significant impact upon the adjoining land.


Variance.

The proposed dwelling remains under the 9m non-Complying trigger. However the proposal exceeds the two storey guideline and is of a height and scale out of character with other dwellings within the locality.


Minor variance.

The proposed building exceeds the total floor area guideline by 4%. Although this percentage discrepancy is considered to be minor in isolation, it is indicative of the three storey dwelling being an overdevelopment of the site.


Satisfied.

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

Variance.

The proposal is at clear odds with the amenity provisions of the Development Plan. The proposed dwelling does not include appropriate building elements that reflect the desired character of the locality in


01 December 2015


terms of:

Building height, mass and proportion;

Roof form and pitch;

Façade appearance; and

Style of dwelling.

The proposed building would have an adverse amenity impact upon both adjoining residences and the appearance of the historic streetscape character.


Variance.

The proposal does not include obscure glazing to either the south facing or east facing upper level windows. Although there could be some conjecture regarding the degree of overlooking of adjoining properties, the private open space of properties to the south and east may be affected.


Minor Variance.

The proposed design includes ample space for vehicular parking in both the garage and the driveway.

Of some concern is the 1 in 4 section of driveway which is a result of the extensive excavation.


Satisfied.

The proposal maintains an acceptable degree of solar access to adjoining properties in accordance with Development Plan guidelines.


The proposal does not include a significant degree of earthworks adjacent to common boundaries. As such the proposed fencing and retaining walls are not expected to have a significant impact upon adjoining properties. Furthermore the proposed tennis court fencing is considered acceptable for a residential setting.


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 3



Site Area 1605m2 750m2

Street Frontage 32.92m 15m


Site Coverage



- Total floor area 54% 50%

Building Height


- metres 8.992m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level


- side boundary 0m & 4m (west) & 6.7m (east) 2m


Upper Level


- side boundary 4m (west) & 6.7m (east) 4m


Boundary Wall

- length 5.2m 8m

- height 4m 3m

Private Open Space


- dimensions 14m x 32.9m 5m x 8m



- width of driveway No change 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door N/A 33%


01 December 2015




Applicant: Vin Keneally

Location: 11 East Terrace BEAUMONT

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and construction of new single-storey dwelling, retaining walls and fencing, decking, privacy screen and addition of garage to existing dwelling resulting in two dwellings on land.






One (1) representation received


Referrals – Non Statutory: Technical Officer - Engineer




REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:










Photographs


01 December 2015




Demolition of existing garage and construction of new single-storey dwelling, retaining walls and fencing, decking, privacy screen and addition of garage to existing dwelling resulting in two dwellings on land.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0532\15 was lodged on 10 June 2015, by Vin Keneally, the owner of the subject land, seeking Development Plan Consent for the construction of a single-storey dwelling at the rear of an allotment which currently contains a single-storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is located behind the existing dwelling in a group dwelling arrangement. An application for community land division was recently lodged (DA 180/0881/15). This arrangement matches the proposal at hand and is being assessed concurrently with the application for a dwelling.

The current proposal was determined to be neither a complying nor non-complying form of development, prompting an assessment on merit pursuant to Section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993. The development also was determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(d) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, due to the development resulting in more than one dwelling on the subject land.

During the public notification period one (1) written representation was received in relation to the proposal. The representor is opposed to the development. In response to the representation the applicant amended their proposal and submitted the plans to Council for further assessment against the Development Plan.

During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Traffic Management Engineer to assess the suitability of access arrangements and impacts to Council infrastructure. The application is now presented to the Panel in accordance with Council’s delegation policy as a Category 2 application where a third party representor has expressed a desire to be heard by the Panel in support of their written submission.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is located on the western side of Glynburn Road at the junction with East Terrace in the suburb of Beaumont. The subject land is an irregular shaped allotment with an area of 1063m² and frontage to East Terrace of 15.72m. The land currently contains an architecturally designed dwelling circa 1987. The subject land is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 22 – Beaumont Common. The site of the proposed development is to the north of the existing dwelling.

3.2. Locality


01 December 2015


The locality comprises the streetscape of East Terrace, from where it meets short Crescent to the west, and 50m north and south of the subject land down Glynburn Road. The locality has been defined on the basis of a visual connection with the subject land. The whole of the locality is located wholly within the Residential Zone. The surrounding locality is predominantly comprised of low density, single and two-storeyed dwellings mostly built in the 1960’s or later. Some more recently built contemporary style dwellings are also evident within the locality. Dwellings generally have generous front boundary set-backs of 6m-9m, and low and open front fencing which contributes to the character of the locality.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 22 Principle of Development Control 9(d)

Cut / Fill: Although a degree of cut and fill is to be introduced to the site, incidental to the construction of the dwelling, it is not considered excessive in light of the slope of the land. The building footprint requires both cut and fill and a stepped design to respond to topography.

The overall cut and fill is considered minor, does not require retaining walls and is not considered to unreasonably impact on the occupiers of adjoining land.

Representations Received: PO Box 6182 Linden Park SA 5065




6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

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

allotment within the Residential Zone; Although the proposal does meet the minimum site area requirement for a detached

dwelling, the proposal meets the site area guideline for a group dwelling arrangement;

The existing allotment is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate the proposed dwelling in accordance with the Policy Area and Council Wide guidelines;

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


01 December 2015



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

7.2. Character

The proposed development involves the construction of a single-storey dwelling in a group dwelling arrangement on an allotment which currently contains a single-storey dwelling. Council is satisfied that the proposal has been designed to contribute to and be consistent with the primary objectives of Residential Policy Area 22. This position is based on the following:

The policy area specifically identifies group dwelling arrangements as being a suitable pattern of development;

The dwelling is single-storey in its built form and of a modest floor area;

The proposed dwelling maintains appropriate set-backs to common boundaries;

As shown by the three dimensional streetscape elevation supplied by the applicant, the proposed dwelling is of a low scale with limited streetscape impact; and

The contemporary style of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be in conflict with the varied styles of dwellings throughout the locality.

7.3. Amenity

The proposal is not expected to have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties. This position is based on the following considerations:

The use of appropriate building set-backs provides sufficient separation between buildings. This softens the visual impact of the built form when viewed from adjoining properties;

The applicant has agreed to adhere to arborcultural recommendations that will protect the health of the regulated trees on the adjoining property and thus the trees are expected to continue their contribution to the amenity of the locality;

The proposal includes a privacy screen to avoid overlooking of adjoining land while the proposed fencing is standard for a property within the Residential Zone;

The proposal does not interfere with any Council street trees as the development does not propose to alter the existing crossover;

The proposal maintains a suitable finished floor level and is not raised to a degree that would affect either visual amenity or privacy; and

Due to the orientation of the allotment the proposal is not expected to significantly overshadow adjoining properties.


The development fits upon the land as a workable site-planning outcome. This determination has been based on the following:

The overall footprint of development sits within the guidelines of the Development Plan for site coverage for the whole site and is not anticipated to generate negative stormwater impacts as a direct result;

The subject land is an existing residential allotment with sufficient site area to accommodate an additional dwelling in a group dwelling arrangement in accordance with the Policy Area guidelines;


01 December 2015


The proposal has been appropriately set-back from the front of the allotment to allow a suitable area for vehicle movements;

The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is sited close to the natural ground level and as such large degrees of cut and/or fill are not required to accommodate the dwelling;

The proposed development has been assessed as being acceptable by Council’s Technical Officer- Engineering; and

The proposed residence and existing residence both feature two (2) off-street parking spaces in accordance with Table/Bur 5..


The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 type of development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 22, Principle of Development Control 9 (d) as the proposed dwelling is on a site which already accommodates a dwelling. During the public notification period one (1) written representations was received in relation to the proposal. The representor expressed opposition to the proposal. The representor has the following concerns with the proposal:

Boundary development;

Proposal not meeting minimum allotment size;

Safety and access between roofs;

Inadequate street frontage;

Impacts to significant tree;

Common property; and

Impractical access arrangement..

The applicant replied to each query from the representor in a detailed response (see attached).

In response to the representation the applicant supplied Council with amended plans. These plans showed that the proposed garage sharing a boundary wall with the representor’s land has been removed, thus resolving issues relating to boundary development and access between roofs.

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality as a whole. The proposal sufficiently meets allotment size guidelines and as the dwelling is a modest single-storey construction without a raised finished floor level, the dwelling is not expected to impact on the privacy of occupiers on adjoining land. Matters raised through the public notification process are considered to be satisfied through the overall design of the development, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.


Council’s Technical Officer - Engineering has made comments regarding the proposed stormwater disposal system. These recommendations have been included as advisory notes. Additionally it has been confirmed that the proposal includes appropriate access arrangements.

7.7. Conclusion


01 December 2015


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

8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Subject to concurrence from the Development Assessment Commission, that Development Application 180\0532\15, by Vin Keneally, is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions


2 All works within the vicinity of the regulated/significant tree located on-site shall be undertaken in accordance with the arborist report from Arborman Tree Solutions, dated 26 June 2015. Reason: To ensure that no adverse impacts result to the regulated/significant tree.

3 The privacy screen as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent described as west elevation shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

Engineering Notes

Stormwater Detention

For stormwater management purposes, it is desirable that: - the development utilise permeable paving for the proposed external paving work within

the development.

Stormwater Discharge The stormwater pipe across the road verge should terminate at an approved galvanised steel

kerb adaptor.


01 December 2015


If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, steel pipe housing is to be used as per Council’s standards.

The developer is responsible for locating all existing services and to consult with the necessary service providers if there is a conflict when placing stormwater infrastructure.

Construction of the stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Council's Standard Specification and General Conditions and to the overall satisfaction of Council.

Trenching and connections are to be undertaken as per Australian Plumbing Standards. Excess stormwater runoff from carport surfaces within the subject land shall be controlled and

managed within the subject land. Excess stormwater runoff from the roof catchment shall be discharged to the street water table

through a sealed system to the satisfaction of the Council.




01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2




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

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

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

the Policy Area.

Acknowledged, significant variations from the desired character, or the prevailing character or environmental conditions, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are to be found: (a) on Beaumont Common, a large open space significant as a landscape feature and for its remnant

indigenous vegetation; (b) on the site of Beaumont House, State heritage place; and (c) on land with frontage to Greenhill Road.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

The development facilitates continued use of the land for residential purposes.


Satisfied.

The proposed dwelling is of a low scale and is of a smaller size than most dwellings within the locality. Additionally due to the generous front set-back the allotment retains an open appearance to the streetscape.


Satisfied.

As the proposal is for group dwellings in a community arrangement, it comfortably meets Council’s 425m

2 (averaged for group dwellings)

guideline.


01 December 2015








Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

The proposed dwelling is a small scale, single-storey dwelling that contains a single bedroom and a study including habitable rooms. The low scale and modest proportions meet the intention of Objective 1 in that it adds to the range of dwelling types and styles within the locality.


Satisfied.

The local streetscape is somewhat eclectic due to the variety of housing age and style and irregular shaped allotments.

The proposed dwelling is compatible with the surrounding nearby dwellings albeit of a lower size and scale.

The proposed entrance is centrally located and visible from the street.

The location of the new dwelling is set substantially back from the street on the footprint of the existing garage. As the dwelling replaces an existing building of a similar size and scale, the proposals impact is considered negligible..

The proposed finishes of the dwelling are of a high quality and not expected to be highly reflective.


Satisfied.


01 December 2015








Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

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

Satisfied.

Side Set-backs

Satisfied.

Rear Set-backs The proposal will make the existing dwelling have a 2m rear set-back from the new dwelling (lot B). This set-back discrepancy is internal to the site and considered acceptable due to the existing allotment maintaining an acceptable degree of private open space. This discrepancy will not impact upon established dwellings on adjoining land. The proposed new dwelling will have a rear set-back of 1.5m – 2.4m to the adjoining property to the west. This reduced set-back is only for a width of 4.9m and this will have the effect of a side boundary set-back to the adjoining property to the west. Considering the low scale of the proposed dwelling and its relationship to adjoining dwellings the rear set-back is not expected to have an adverse impact.


Satisfied.


Satisfied.


Both allotments meet the dimensional private open space guideline however they fail to meet the percentage of total floor area guideline. This departure is considered minor as both allotments meet the dimensional criteria and are accessible from the living areas of the dwelling. It is also noted that a number of easily accessible areas of public open space are located within the vicinity of the subject land.

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

Satisfied.

As the proposed single-storey dwelling meets most Council set-back guidelines and is of a suitable scale, it is not considered that the


01 December 2015


proposed dwelling will adversely impact upon amenity.


Satisfied.

The proposed dwelling is single-storey and as such does not present any significant overlooking issues. As the deck is somewhat raised from the natural ground level within the vicinity of the Significant Tree, the applicant has included a privacy screen to the western boundary. This screen will ensure the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling to the west.


Satisfied.

Council’s Engineering Technical Officer has reviewed the proposal and concluded the access arrangements to be acceptable.


Satisfied.

Due to the orientation of the allotment and the proposed finished floor levels the proposal does not unreasonable overshadow any adjoining land.

Domestic Outbuildings PDC 187–189

Satisfied.

The proposed garage to service the existing dwelling is of acceptable proportions and is set-back from the boundary of the road in accordance with Development Plan guidelines.


Satisfied.

The proposed fencing and retaining walls are to an acceptable height to maintain privacy whilst not appearing visually dominant.

Safety and Security PDC 195–198

Satisfied.


Satisfied.

The proposal was accompanied by an arborist report authored by Arborman Tree Solutions. Council is confident that the protection plan which has been put in place is sufficient to protect the significant tree. This has been reflected in Condition 2 of this recommendation.


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 3


Site Characteristics Proposed Lot A Proposed Lot B Guideline

Site Area 710m2 300m2 425m2 (averaged)

Street Frontage 15.72m (east Tce) N/A 10m

Design Characteristics Proposed Proposed Guideline

Site Coverage

- Buildings only 21.1% 35.9% 40%

- Buildings and driveways 45% 42% 50%

Building Height

- storeys 1 storeys 1 storeys 2 storeys

- metres Existing 4.8m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- front boundary Existing 10m 6m

- side boundary Existing 1.7m (south), 3.5m (east)

1.5m

- rear boundary 2m 1.5m 4m

Private Open Space

- percentage 37% 44% 50%

- dimensions 5m x 13m 5m x 7.5m 5m x 8m


- number of parks 2 2 2

- width of driveway 5m 5m 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door N/A N/A 33%


01 December 2015




Applicant: Proske Architects

Location: 18A Fifeshire Avenue ST GEORGES SA 5064

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, shed, alfresco, swimming pool, screen, tennis court and fencing






(4) Four representations received


Referrals – Non Statutory: Technical Officer - Engineering




REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:










Photographs


01 December 2015




Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, shed, alfresco, swimming pool, screen, tennis court and fencing.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0677\15 was lodged on 16 July 2015, by Proske Architects on behalf of the owner of the subject land. The application seeks Development plan Consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling on site and the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling including garage, shed, alfresco, swimming pool, screen, tennis court and fencing. Related to this proposal is Development Application 180/0800/15 which involved “Demolition of existing dwelling and shed and construction of retaining wall with fence on top (northern and western boundary)”. This application was lodged with on 25 August 2015 and granted full Development Approval on 30 September 2015. The approved retaining walls and fencing appear in the submitted documentation for DA 180/0677/15 (the application currently under assessment).

The current proposal was determined to be neither a complying nor non-complying form of development, prompting an assessment on merit pursuant to Section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993. The development was also determined to be a Category 2 development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 25 Principle of Development Control 7(a) & (b) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, due to the two-storey form of the dwelling and the fact that the proposed garage includes boundary development. During the public notification period four (4) written representations was received in relation to the proposal; one being in favour of the proposal and three being opposed. Concerns from the representations focused on issues with proposed setbacks, bulk and scale, overshadowing, visual impact, garage width, building height and privacy.

During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Technical Officer - Engineering to assess the suitability of the proposal in regards to stormwater detention, stormwater discharge and impact to Council assets. Pursuant to Council’s Delegation policy, the application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) for consideration as a Category 2 development with unresolved representations.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject site is an irregular shaped battle-axe allotment located on the southern side of Fifeshire Avenue with an approximate area of 1,350m² and a frontage of 14.17m. The land currently accommodates a contemporary style detached dwelling circa 1967. The subject land is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 25 – St. Georges.


01 December 2015


3.2. Locality

As the allotment is a large, deep block and due to the dwelling being located within proximity to the rear boundary of the site, the locality has been defined as including those properties fronting Fifeshire Avenue and Woodcroft Avenue extending from Anglesey Avenue to the west and Blairgowrie Road to the east.

The locality contains a wide variety of dwelling styles most notably Contemporary style dwellings from the 1950’s and more recently built single and two-storey development.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 25 Principle of Development Control 7(a) & (b)

Cut / Fill: Although a degree of cut and fill is to be introduced to the site, it is incidental to the construction of the dwelling and is not considered excessive in light of the slope of the land. The proposal largely takes advantage of the bench level of the existing dwelling and surrounding areas.

The overall cut and fill is considered minor and is not considered

to unreasonably impact on the occupiers of adjoining land.

Representations Received: 35 Woodcroft Avenue, St Georges SA 5064

18b Fifeshire Avenue, St Georges SA 5064

33 Woodcroft Avenue, St Georges SA 5064

16 Fifeshire Avenue, St Georges SA 5064




6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

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

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

the low density residential character envisaged for the Policy Area;

The existing allotment is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate a detached dwelling which comfortably meets Council’s site coverage and private open space guidelines;


01 December 2015


The proposed dwelling replaces an established dwelling in the same location on the land and as such will not alter land use density;

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


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

7.2. Character

The proposed development involves the construction of a two-storey dwelling on an allotment which currently contains a single storey dwelling. Council is satisfied that the proposal has been designed to contribute to and be consistent with the primary objectives of Residential Policy Area 25. This position is based on the following considerations:

The proposed building is a detached dwelling as envisaged by the Policy area and reflective of the scale of recently built dwellings within the locality;

Two-storey development has become increasingly common with recently built dwellings now forming part of the character of Residential Policy Area 25;

Due to the irregular shape of the land, the proposed dwelling has a generous set-back from the front of the allotment, as such the dwelling will have a negligible streetscape presence.

Although the proposed garage is set forward of the dwelling, it maintains an eight metre set-back from the front of the allotment. Additionally a number of garages and carports are sited forward of associated dwellings within the locality;

Set-back discrepancies to Development Plan guidelines are observed amongst existing development throughout the locality as a result of irregular allotment shapes.

Although the proposal does not strictly adhere to the single-storey and upper-storey rear set-back guideline, the adjoining properties to the south are set on higher ground levels thus reducing the visual impact of the proposed dwelling;

The dwelling will be sited on the building footprint of the existing dwelling to provide visual balance and maintain siting patterns within the locality;

The proposed swimming pool will enhance the private open space available to the occupiers of the dwelling;

The proposed 3.6m high tennis court fencing is is required to contain activities on the tennis court and is not expected to have a significant impact upon adjoining properties;

The proposed contemporary style of the proposed dwelling is not considered to be in conflict with the varied styles of dwellings found throughout the locality; and

The proposal is consistent with the height and scale of recently built two-storey development within the locality and parts of the policy area in general.

7.3. Amenity

The proposal has been designed in a manner that will minimise its impact upon the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties. This position is based on the following considerations:

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

The proposed development is consistent with the building density found within the locality;


01 December 2015


The proposal includes appropriate privacy treatments to the upper level to ensure adjoining properties are not adversely impacted by the development. The proposal also includes fixed vertical privacy fins which direct views towards the private open space of the subject land rather than adjoining land. Views further west beyond the subject land are obscured by the proposed tennis court fencing as illustrated by Section B-B East-West Cross Section;

Although the proposal does not meet the upper level rear set-back guidelines, dwellings to the south of the subject land are built at a higher level and also include mature vegetation which would further obscure views of the proposed building;

The proposal does not interfere with any Council street trees;

The proposed shed meets Council guidelines with respect to boundary walls and is located in a suitable position to avoid amenity impacts to neighbours;

Although the proposed garage exceeds Council’s boundary development guidelines it impact is considered to be benign as it is located adjacent an existing shed on the adjoining property;

Submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that access to sunlight for adjoining dwellings is maintained within Development Plan guidelines.


The development fits upon the land as a workable site-planning outcome. This determination has been based on the following:

The overall footprint of development sits well within the guidelines of the Development Plan for site coverage and is not anticipated to generate unreasonable stormwater impacts as a direct result. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of Development Approval the proposal is required to meet the standards of the Building Code of Australia;

Although some retaining walls are required to accommodate the proposed level of the alfresco and garage they are not to a degree which would be considered visually imposing to adjoining properties;

The subject land is an existing residential allotment with sufficient site area and street frontage to accommodate a detached dwelling in accordance with the Policy Area guidelines;

The application does not propose to alter the driveway crossover and as such no street tree or Council infrastructure will be affected; and

The proposed residence features six off-street parking spaces to minimise on-street parking congestion within Fifeshire Avenue.


The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 type of development pursuant to Residential Policy Area 25 Principle of Development Control 7 (a) & (b) as the proposal is two-storey in nature and the proposed garage includes a wall on a side boundary. During the notification period Council received four (4) written submissions from owners/occupiers of adjoining land. The primary issues raised during public notification are as follows:

Concerns regarding the height of the building;

Excavation near common boundary to accommodate a new retaining wall;

Concerns regarding boundary set-backs;

Impacts to a non-significant tree;

Removal of non-significant vegetation;


01 December 2015


Concerns regarding overshadowing;

Demolition of fencing;

Issues during the demolition process such as dust and removal of asbestos;

Overshadowing of kitchen window;

Concerns relating to the bulk and scale of the proposed building;

Location of air conditioning unit;

Concerns regarding the visual impact of the building when viewed from adjoining properties;

Concerns regarding the width of the garage; and

Privacy concerns. The applicant’s planning consultant responded to the concerns of the representors which has been included as an attachment to this report. Additional plans were also submitted at this time which further explained the privacy treatment details in order to help address some of the representors concerns. Some of the concerns raised by the representors are beyond the scope of what can be considered and controlled by Council during its assessment of a development application. The concerns regarding a non-significant tree and vegetation removal, excavation near the property boundary and the location air conditioning are matters that the Development Plan has no authority to address. The consideration of boundary fencing that is less than 2.1m high is a civil matter that will require further negotiation between the two neighbours through the procedures identified in the Fences Act 1975. The demolition works will be assessed at the Building Rules Consent stage and is must meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. Council is satisfied that although the proposal fails to meet all of the guidelines contained within the Development Plan, the proposal has been designed in a manner that sufficiently ensures minimal impact to both adjoining properties and the greater locality. The proposed privacy features are suitable to ensure overlooking of adjoining properties will not occur. Despite the shortfall of the rear set-back the difference in levels of the properties to the south coupled with the flat roof and low profile of the dwelling create an acceptable outcome. Matters raised through the public notification process have been sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.


Council’s Traffic Management Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has not raised any concerns in relation to off-street parking or traffic congestion within the locality. Standard Engineering recommendations have been included as an advisory note. As the proposal does not alter the existing driveway, there will be no impact to Council infrastructure or street trees.

7.7. Conclusion



01 December 2015


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0677\15, by Proske Architects is granted Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions and reserved matters:

Conditions


2 The obscure glazing as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent described as northern elevation shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

3 The angled fixed privacy fins as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent described as Western elevation, First floor plan & Detail A shall be installed prior to the occupation or use of the building herein granted Development Plan Consent and thereafter shall be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times. Reason: To ensure the new development does not unreasonably diminish the privacy of residents in adjoining properties.

Engineering Notes

Footpath Maintenance Existing footpath levels, grades etc should not be altered as a result of new

development works. Stormwater Detention Due to an increase of the impermeable area, detention shall be provided to limit post

development flows to pre-development conditions for a 20 yr ARI event over 10 minutes.

Calculations shall be provided verifying the proposed detention quantity. For stormwater management purposes, it is desirable that:


01 December 2015


- an additional detention storage of 1000ltrs to be provided in addition to the standard 1000ltrs retention tank provided.

- the development utilise permeable paving for the proposed external paving work within the development.

Stormwater Discharge The stormwater pipe across the road verge should terminate at an approved

galvanised steel kerb adaptor. If the cover to the stormwater pipe across the Council verge is less than 50mm, steel

pipe housing is to be used as per Council’s standards. The developer is responsible for locating all existing services and to consult with the

necessary service providers if there is a conflict when placing stormwater infrastructure.

Construction of the stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Council's Standard Specification and General Conditions and to the overall satisfaction of Council.

Trenching and connections are to be undertaken as per Australian Plumbing Standards.

Excess stormwater runoff from surfaces within the subject land shall be controlled and managed within the subject land.

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




01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2




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

conventional); (b) streetscapes enhanced by well-established, open, front gardens, and grassed verges; and (c) in certain areas, tall trees, including indigenous eucalypts.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied. The proposed development will continue the existing and desired residential use of the land.


The scale of the proposed dwelling is similar to that of recently built two-storey dwellings within the locality and as such the proposal is considered to be compatible with the existing character. The locality includes a mix of housing types and styles and the proposed dwelling is considered to appropriately fit within that context.


01 December 2015









Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Council is satisfied that the development has been designed to be consistent with the primary objectives for Residential Policy Area 25, having due regard to mass and proportion, materials, finished floor levels, roof form and pitch, façade articulation and built form features.

Although the proposal demonstrates some discrepancies with some of Council’s set-back guidelines, the dwelling replaces an existing dwelling on the land and maintains the prevailing patterns of space observed throughout the locality and wider Policy Area.


Satisfied.

As the subject land is largely a benched site because of the existing dwelling, the proposal does not require extensive cut or fill or significant civil works. The 1.5m high retaining adjacent the swimming pool is not considered to be excessive as the retaining wall is internal to the site it is of no consequence to adjoining properties. The proposed finished floor level is generally consistent with the natural ground level of the subject land.


01 December 2015










Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Satisfied. The contemporary appearance of the proposed dwelling is an appropriate design outcome within the context of the locality and is an improved and more aesthetically pleasing building than the dwelling that it replaces.

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

Minor variance. As the proposed garage is set forward of the proposed dwelling, it does not strictly adhere to Council Wide Principle of Development Control 161(c). From a site practicality point of view the proposed location of the garage utilises the wide “handle” of the battle-axe and is in proximity to the public road for easy vehicle access. The outbuilding is low profile and has been architecturally designed. From a visual standpoint the proposed garage is not expected to appear visually dominant or create an unacceptable streetscape outcome.

Side Set-backs Minor variance. Both the upper level and lower level fail to meet the eastern side set-back marginally. The upper level falls short 9mm while the lower level falls short 6mm. This is a minor discrepancy which only affects a small portion of the boundary due to the angle of the common boundary.

Rear Set-backs Minor variance. The proposal fails to meet the rear boundary set-back guidelines for both the ground level and upper level. As the proposed dwelling maintains the same ground floor rear set-back as the existing dwelling, this portion of the building will not have any additional impacts to adjoining properties. The upper level of the dwelling is set-back 4m from the rear boundary, falling short of the 8m guideline. This is not considered to be fatal to the


01 December 2015


application for the following reasons:

The subject land is set well below the adjoining properties to the south and as such, only the upper portion of the building will be visible from these properties;

The dwelling itself has a low profile flat roofed design and has a maximum height of 7m which is modest for a two storey dwelling; and

The proposed dwelling utilises the building footprint of the existing dwelling.


Satisfied.


Satisfied.


Satisfied.

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

The proposal is not expected to have an unreasonable impact upon the residential amenity of the occupants of adjoining land or visual amenity to the streetscape. The design of the dwelling is not in conflict with built form within the Policy Area and the proposal includes appropriate privacy treatments to ensure minimal interference with adjoining land.


It is considered that the proposed dwellings maintain acceptable levels of privacy for the following reasons:

The proposal includes fixed obscure glazing and angled privacy fins to the balcony areas;

The difference in site levels between the subject land and the adjoining properties to the west is such that external views from the first floor are unlikely to facilitate direct overlooking into private open space areas and windows to habitable rooms; and

Suitable fencing already exists between the subject land and adjoining properties.


The development does not propose alterations to the existing driveway crossover.

The proposed garage comfortably accommodates vehicles for parking in accordance with Development Plan guidelines.


Councils’ Development Plan contains a number of provisions relating to overshadowing of adjoining properties, most notably Council Wide Principle of Development Control 21(a), 183 and 184 which relate to “main outdoor living areas” and “habitable rooms”. The shadow diagrams provided clearly illustrate that this proposal meets the Development Plan requirements on the winter solstice.

Domestic Outbuildings PDC 187–189

Minor variance. The proposed garage is not considered to be visually dominant or to unreasonably overshadow adjoining dwellings. The width of the garage doors however exceed Council’s 1/3 of the frontage guideline by 7percent. This is not considered to be fatal to the application as the high quality design of the garage and its generous set-back appropriately reduce its visual impact on the streetscape.


The proposed 3.6m high tennis court fencing is considered acceptable and will not result in amenity impacts for the adjoining land owners.

All boundary fencing and retaining walls have already been approved under DA 180/0800/15.


01 December 2015



No significant or regulated trees are proposed to be removed by this development application.


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 3



Site Area 1350m2 (existing) 550m2

Street Frontage 14.17m (existing) 15m


Site Coverage



- Total floor area 29.8% 50%

Building Height


- metres 7.05m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- front boundary 8m (garage) 26m (dwelling) 6m

- side boundary 1.44m (east), 19.7m (west) 1.5m


Upper Level

- front boundary 30m 8m

- side boundary 3.91m (east), 18.4m (west) 4m


Boundary Wall (shed)

- length 5.26m (north) 6.14m (east) 8m

- height 2.5m 3m

- location Northern and eastern boundary N/A

Boundary Wall (garage)

- length 12.1m 8m

- height 3.4m 3m

- location Western boundary N/A

Private Open Space

- percentage 248% 50%

- dimensions 29m x16 m 5m x 8m



- width of driveway Existing 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door 40.2% 33%


01 December 2015




Applicant: B Hopkins

Location: 27 Sprod Avenue, Toorak Gardens

Proposal: Freestanding carport

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Historic Conservation Policy Area 06 (Toorak Gardens North)




Appeal Opportunity Applicant only

Referrals – Non Statutory: Local Heritage Consultant

Delegations Policy: Delegations Policy – 6.2.1.3

Any application in relation to a Historic Conservation Zone where the

Council’s Heritage Adviser has recommended that approval should not be granted.


Recommending Officer: Theresa James

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:







Photographs


01 December 2015




New freestanding carport measuring 20.25m² located in front yard;

Ridgeline height of 4.36m (option 1) / 5.18m (option 2); and

Set-back 5m from front boundary.

2. BACKGROUND

In October 2015 the subject development application was lodged with Council. This application was considered a merit type application pursuant to Section 35(5) of the Development Act, 1993. The application was referred to Council’s heritage advisor who reviewed the application and raised the following concerns:

The proposed new carport sits entirely forward of the dwelling and will be in full street view. In this location it will be highly visible and will significantly dominate the streetscape;

The design, details and materials are significantly at odds with the dwelling;

The 16º roof pitch of the carport gable is highly at odds with the steep pitch of the Tudor Revival dwelling;

The proposed steel structure in this location sits unsympathetically with the material pallet of the dwelling;

The location and design of the proposed carport are such that the development would be a

dominant, unsympathetic element in the streetscape; and

The development would detrimentally impact the integrity of the Contributory Item and the streetscape in this Historic Conservation Policy Area.

The above issues were forwarded to the Applicant for consideration, as well as other general planning policies within the Development Plan related to carport locations on residential land. The applicant then submitted amended carport designs, albeit in the same location, which offered two options. Each option maintains a 50º roof pitch, with one of the options also including a shallow 16º hip roof skirting the base of the gable (option 1). Council’s Heritage consultant has advised that Option 2 is the preferred design solution out of the two being proposed by the applicant, as it illustrates a design that entails a form and proportion better reflective of the design of the existing dwelling on the land, compared to the initial design and Option 1. However, the size, scale and forward location of the structure is expected to compete with the Contributory Item dwelling and is not supported by Council’s heritage advisor. Pursuant to Clause 6.2.1.3 of Council’s Development Delegations Policy, the application is presented to the Development Assessment Panel for a decision as Council’s Heritage Adviser has recommended that approval should not be granted.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is a rectangular shaped allotment located on the northern side of Sprod Avenue between Portrush Road to the east and Cudmore Avenue to the west. The land has an approximate area of 723m², a primary frontage to Sprod Avenue and a secondary frontage to Portrush Road.


01 December 2015


The land is located wholly within Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 – Toorak Gardens of the Historic (Conservation) Zone and is occupied by a single-storey Tudor style dwelling built circa 1935. The Burnside (City) Development Plan identifies the dwelling as being a Contributory Item to the Historic Conservation Zone.

A high masonry fence borders the property on its eastern boundary, as well as the corner cut-off portion of the boundary as it returns to Sprod Avenue. A simple, open style gate slides across the primary frontage to allow the parking of vehicles in a driveway via a crossover on Sprod Avenue. A double car garage is located in the rear north-eastern corner of the land, with vehicle access via Portrush Road through a large existing crossover.

3.2. Locality

The locality is comprised of those properties with primary frontage to Sprod Avenue on both the north and south sides of the road. The immediate locality comprises allotments located between Portrush Road to the east and Sturt Street to the west. . The locality is located wholly within Historic Conservation Policy Area 6 – Toorak Gardens, with most dwellings in this locality identified as Contributory Items. The Policy Area derives its character from a large number of dwellings built at the time of the original subdivision in 1909 – 1912 as well as inter-war dwellings. The majority of residential properties consist of detached single-storey dwellings, with garaging to the side of associated dwellings, or in detached garaging accessible via secondary frontages where provided.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Historic Conservation Zone Principle of Development Control 26

Cut / Fill: N/A

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made:

The proposed development comprises the construction of a carport to be used in association with the existing residential use of the land;

The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the relevant zone/policy area provisions of the Development Plan; and

The proposal does not alter the use of the land which will continue to operate as a single self-contained residence.


01 December 2015


The proposed development is therefore not considered to be seriously at variance to the Burnside (City) Development Plan in terms of its land use.

7.2. Character and Amenity The Historic Conservation Zone reflects the historic residential development of certain areas within the City of Burnside. The policies within this Zone seek to conserve and enhance that historic character by retaining buildings and other elements that contribute in a positive manner to the historic streetscape character. Many buildings are identified as contributing to the historic character of the Zone, and the Development Plan strongly discourages new development that would significantly diminish the level of contribution made by these buildings. The Historic Conservation Zone provides conservation and development guidelines in Table Bur/1 for development within the Zone, to ensure the historic fabric of an area is maintained. It advises that a new freestanding garage or carport should be located to the rear of an existing dwelling, with access past the side of the house, or by a rear lane. The locality exhibits a consistent building set-back to Sprod Avenue, with Contributory Item dwellings displaying deep building set-backs to the primary road boundary. The proposed development seeks to construct a carport set-back only 5m from the road boundary and sited wholly in front of the existing single-storey Contributory Item dwelling. The position of a carport in this location not only interrupts the consistent building set-back currently found along Sprod Avenue, it also obstructs clear views of the Contributory Item dwelling. The policies within the Development Plan state that if an addition is proposed, it should be set-back behind the existing building alignment and positioned so that it is not prominently visible from the street. Not only is the location of the proposed carport at odds with the Historic Conservation Zone guidelines, and the 8m set-back guideline for the Policy Area, it fails to satisfy general Council Wide policies that seek for garaging and carports to be set-back not less than 0.5m behind the main façade of a dwelling. The proposed development is not supported by policies within the Development Plan and will negatively impact on the existing historic streetscape character.

7.3. Conclusion Having regard to all of the relevant Objectives and Principles of Development Control of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, the proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with the land use policies of the Development Plan. However, the development is at variance with the relevant provisions relating to the siting of carports/garages, and the conservation of an established historic character.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS


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

2. The proposed development is at variance with the relevant objectives and principles of development Control contained within the Development Plan; and

3. Development Application 180\1041\15 is refused Development Plan Consent for the following reasons:


01 December 2015


Reasons

The proposed development is at variance with the following provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan:

Historic Conservation Zone Principle of Development Control 4

Table Bur/1 - Location of Additions

Table Bur/1 - Design of Carports

Historic Conservation Zone Policy Area 6 Principle of Development Control 4

Historic Conservation Zone Policy Area 6 Principle of Development Control 7

Council Wide Principle of Development Control 161(c)

Council Wide Principle of Development Control 187(a)


Theresa James Development Officer - Planning


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


01 December 2015


APPENDIX 2


Summary of Historic Conservation Zone Objectives and Principles

Primary Historic Conservation Zone Objectives:

Objective 1: The conservation and enhancement of the historic character of the relevant Policy Area.

Objective 4: Development which conserves and enhances the historic character of the relevant Policy Areas of the zone, in terms of: (a) overall and detailed design of buildings; (b) dwelling type and overall form; (c) allotment dimensions and proportions; (d) placement of buildings on the allotment and alignment to the street; (e) layout of the site and the type and height of fencing; (f) streetscapes, verge treatment and street planting; and (g) curtilages and garden areas.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Enhancement of Character O 1

The Historic Conservation Zone reflects the historic residential development of the City of Burnside. Development within this Zone should seek to conserve items that contribute positively to the established historic character of a Policy Area.

Table Bur/1 illustrates appropriate forms of garaging (including carports) for the Zone. Parking arrangements that are not in keeping with these conservation and development guidelines should not be allowed.

The design and detailing of the proposed carport (amended option 2) includes a roof pitch, materials, colours and details which resemble features found on the dwelling it relates to. However, the placement of the carport forward of the dwelling not only interrupts the consistent set-backs illustrated within the locality, the entire structure sits proud of the dwelling.

The inclusion of the carport in its proposed location does not reinforce the original appearance of the dwelling, as much of it will be obscured by the carport. The Historic Conservation Zone states that alterations/additions or like structure should be positioned so they are not prominently visible from the street. This development fails to satisfy these guidelines.


01 December 2015



Primary Policy Area Objectives:

Principle of Development Control 4: Development should complement the Established Historic Character of the Policy Area in terms of siting, scale, massing, proportions, building form, roof-forms and pitches, boundary setback, materials and external finishes.

Principle of Development Control 7: Any building or part of a building should be set back not less than eight metres from the boundary of a road.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Building Appearance PDC 4 & 7 The siting of the proposed carport is at odds with the established

character of the area in terms of the location, siting and boundary setback.

The 5m set-back to the front boundary not only fails to satisfy the minimum 8m set-back guideline for the Policy Area, it also fails to allow the Contributory Item dwelling to be the predominant feature on the site, as viewed from the primary street frontage.


01 December 2015




Principle of Development Control 161: Except in the Urban Corridor Zone, buildings should be set-back from the boundary of a road to: (a) contribute positively to an attractive existing streetscape character or desired streetscape character, described in an objective for part of a zone; (b) provide adequate visual and acoustic privacy by separating habitable rooms from pedestrian and vehicular movement; and (c) provide for the efficient use of the land concerned and in any case, not less than the minimum distances stipulated below:

Garage or carport facing the same road as an associated dwelling

0.5 metres behind the main face of an associated dwelling

Principle of Development Control 187(a): Outbuildings for use in association with a dwelling should not be obtrusive, or of a size, or in a location which results in their visual dominance of the dwelling to which they relate, or the locality.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Building Set-backs PDC 161 The proposed development fails to satisfy Council Wide guidelines with

respect to carport set-backs to primary street frontages, as it is located wholly in front of the existing dwelling. Such a set-back does not positively contribute to the established character.

Design and Appearance PDC 187 Whilst the design of the carport (option 2) presents proportions, form,

colours and materials that reflect elements found on the Contributory Item dwelling, the forward location of the development is problematic. The carport will be obtrusive in terms of its location, and likely to dominate the dwelling it relates to.

Documents

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda · Graeme Brown, Ross Bateup, Peter Ford, Helga Lemon and Mark Osterstock 1 APOLOGIES Nil 2 KAURNA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Presiding Member