1

DAP AGENDA 14 DECEMBER 2010 DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

3.14.1

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

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

Council Chambers, Smillie Street, Robe on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 at 4.00pm Development Assessment Panel

Bill Hender Chief Executive Officer

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

2

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL Tuesday, 14th

DA no.

December 2010 at 4.00pm.

AGENDA TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

4.1 DAP Meeting held 19 October 2010 Recommendation: _____________ moved that the minutes of the DAP meeting held on 19 October 2010 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. Seconded ______________

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 6. LIST OF APPROVALS (01 October 2010 to 30 November 2010)

Applicant Owner Location Description 822/030/10 J Hinge W Purton 1 Davenport Street Change of use from

Church to Function 822/065/10 C & R Allen 5 Lord Syleham

Street Single dwelling

822/081/10 C Sharpe G & R Moloney 24 Main Road Single Cabin & garage 822/088/10 J Sinel T Bailey 13 Thompson

Road Carport/Shed

822/089/10 Selecta Homes & Building

NR Robertson 26 Thompson Road

Single dwelling

822/090/10 G Wight Lot 201, Main Road Car wash 822/092/10 Hocking

Constructions LJ Hocking 23 DeGuichen

Drive Pergola

822/095/10 N & K Jackson 23 Sneaths Road, Boatswains Point

Extension to existing shed & gazebo

822/096/10 L & W Phillips 19 Sail Street, Boatswains Point

Shed

822/098/10 R & M Homes F Korf 7 Shipard Court Dwelling 822/100/10 R Roach 14 Cape Thomas

Crescent, Boatswains Point

Solar Panels

822/102/10 L & S Copping 20 Peter McQueen Avenue

Garage

3

822/103/10 Chapman Herbert Architects

RM Lynn 1 Domaschenz Street

Part demolition of existing dwelling and extension

822/110/10 Blackbird Industries

BJ Guthrie 45 O’Byrne Avenue Pergola

822/111/10 L Stewart 4 Shipard Court Pergola 822/112/10 Concept

Design Group SM Bell 1 Main Road, Robe Garage

Recommendation: That the list of Development Approvals be received.

6.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 6.1.1 Application No. 822/104/10 Applicant P Birchall Subject Land 42 Victoria Street, Robe Ward Town Proposal Business Sign

6.1.2 Application No. 822/116/10

Owner D & N Peel Subject Land Lot 23, 30 Tobruk Avenue Ward Town Proposal Carport

6.1.3 Application No. 822/120/10

Applicant R & K Dolan Subject Land Lot 14, 11 Charles Bonney Drive Ward Town Proposal Dwelling and shed – Staged application, Stage 1 shed only

7. OTHER BUSINESS

7.1 M Austin ERD Court appeal 7.2 R Ling ERD Court appeal

8. CLOSURE

4

Item 4.1 Minutes of DAP Meeting held 19 October 2010

District Council of Robe

Council Development Assessment Panel Minutes of the District Council of Robe Council Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Meeting held on the 19 October 2010 commencing at 10.35am at District Council of Robe, Council Chambers, Royal Circus, Robe. Present Chairperson; David Chapman, Robert Miles, Cr Peter Riseley, Cr Jenny

Mathews, Cr William Peden and Niels Hansen. Apology David Stanhope In Attendance Minute Taker, Michelle Gibbs, Bill Hender; CEO. Confirmation of Minutes Cr Mathews moved that the minutes of the DAP meeting held on the

21st September 2010 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. (D8/2011) Seconded Cr Riseley Carried

Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest was declared. List of Approvals The list of approvals from 1 September 2010 to 30 September 2010 be

received. Received Address M Austin addressed the Panel in regards to correspondence received

from Phillip Brunning of Phillip Brunning and Associates Pty Ltd and himself re an appeal lodged with the ERD Court in relation to an application for a second dwelling at Lot 1, Kingston Road, Robe. Mat left the room at 10.40am.

Other Business

Cr Mathews moved that the ERD Court be advised that Council is prepared to consider entering into a Land Management Agreement with the owner subject to advice from Council’s Planning

M Austin – Appeal

5

Consultant’s on the provisions of the Land Management Agreement. Draft LMA to be endorsed by the Panel. (D9/2011) Seconded Cr Riseley

3. Native trees and shrubs shall be planted in such positions as to screen the development when viewed from the road. Such planting shall be established within 12 months from the date of Development Approval. Thereafter, all plantings shall be properly maintained and

Carried

Development Applications

6.1.1 Development Application No. 822/050/10 Applicant J Edwards & C Penfold Owner: as above Subject Land: Lot 51, 2 Wrattonbully Road, Robe Proposal: Two storey residential flat building

containing two dwellings Zone: Historic Conservation Zone,

Residential Policy Area R Miles moved that Development Application No. 822/050/10 by J Edwards & C Penfold for a Two storey residential flat building containing two dwellings at Lot 51, 2 Wrattonbully Road, Robe be refused. Seconded Cr Riseley Motion Lost N Hansen moved that Development Plan Consent for a two storey residential flat building containing two dwellings at Lot 51, 2 Wrattonbully Road, Robe Development Application No. 822/050/10 be granted, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with

plans and details approved with DA 822/050/10 except where required to be varied by any condition of consent or where approval is sought from and granted by Council, for any variation. Reason: Development Act Section 44.

2. Approval shall be obtained from the Robe Council

pursuant to the Waste Control Regulations for the plumbing and drainage system for connection to the Community Wastewater Management System (CWMS) (previously knows as STEDS) prior to issue of Development Approval. Reason: To comply with Development Act, Regulation 77.

6

nurtured at all times, and any dead or diseased plants replaced from time to time. Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Robe Development Plan and to preserve the character and amenity of the locality.

4. The external surfaces of the building shall be finished in

colours which harmonise and blend with the natural landscape and are of low reflectivity. Where the materials that form the external surfaces are not pre-coloured, they shall be colour finished by painting or other means within 6 months from their erection of fixing. Reason: To assist in maintaining the character and amenity of the locality and to conform to provisions of the Robe Development Plan.

5. A rainwater tank ( x 2) not less than 1000 litres must be

installed and plumbed to a toilet, to a water heater or to all cold water outlets in the laundry. An overflow device must be fitted and a mosquito proof, non-degradable screen must be attached to protect the water quality. SA Water require all plumbing work to comply with AS/NZS 3500:2003, the National Plumbing and Drainage Code and any SA Variations published by SA Water. The technical requirements for rainwater tanks are contained in Section 14 of AS/NZS 3500:2003 Part 1 and the SA Water Variations. A licensed plumber must: • Install the piping system delivering the rainwater to

the closet, water heater or cold water laundry outlets and

• Complete a Certificate of Compliance certifying that the installation has been installed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500 and the SA Variations. The Certificate of Compliance must be provided to SA Water and the home owner within 7 days of completion of the work.

6. Three car parking spaces be allocated to each residential

flat building. (D10/2011) Seconded Cr Riseley Carried

6.1.2 Development Application No. 822/030/10 Applicant: John Hinge Owner: W Purton Subject Land: 1 Davenport Street, Robe Proposal: Change of use from a Church to a

Function Centre

7

Zone: Historic Conservation Zone (Residential Policy area)

Cr Mathews moved that Development Application No. 822/020/10 for a Change of use from a Church to a Function Centre by W Purton at 1 Davenport Street, Robe be approved subject to the owner providing 12 car parks either by providing 12 car parks or by paying into the Council’s Car Parking Fund ($10,000 per car park). (D11/2011) Seconded R Miles

5. A detailed landscaping plan specifying all areas to be landscaped, species to be used, maturity at time of planting and mature height of plants shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to or at the time of Building Rules Consent. The establishment of all landscaping shall be undertaken prior to the operaton of the car wash and thereafter shall be maintained in good health and condition to the satisfaction of Council. Any

Carried

6.1.3 Development Application No. 822/090/10 Applicant: G Wight Owner: as above Subject Land: Lot 201, Main Road, Robe Proposal: Car wash

Zone: Residential zone R Miles moved that Development Plan Consent for a car wash at Lot 201, Main Road, Robe be granted, subject to the following conditions:- 1. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the

approved plans prepared by Bildit Industries dated 29/09/2010 and the Acoustic engineers report dated 26th May 2010; except where varied by the following conditions:

2. Prior to the operation of the car wash the development

shall be completed in entirely in accord with approved plans.

3. No fencing shall be located closer than 6 metres to the

front boundary of the land. 4. Boundary fences shall be constructed such that they are

airtight from the ground to their top and at all junctions and joins.

8

dead or diseased plants or trees should be replaced to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

6. Prior to the issue of Building Rules consent the applicant

shall submit and have approved a waste control system for the management and disposal of grey water from the development.

7. The operating hours of the car wash shall be restricted to

the hours of 7.00am to 10pm daily. 8. All site lighting shall be of an intensity shielded or

directed so as not to cause glare or light overspill for users of the adjoining road network or neighbouring properties.

9. The site shall be maintained in a neat tidy condition at all

times to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. 10. Driveway access to the site from the property boundary

to the edge of the road pavement shall be sealed in bitumen and shall be designed to allow the continued flow of stormwater along Main South Eastern Road.

11. A schedule of fencing colours being submitted to

Council for approval prior to Building Rules Consent being issued.

NOTE: This consent does not include any signage on the

subject site. A further application for signage will need to be submitted to the Council. (D12/2011)

Seconded Cr Riseley

19. Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should:

Carried

6.1.4 Development Application No. 822/093/10 Applicant: L Domaschenz Owner: L & C Domaschenz Subject Land: 25 McFarlane Street, Robe Proposal: Extension to existing shed

Zone: Residential zone R Miles moved that Development Plan Consent for an extension to an existing shed at 25 McFarlane Street, Robe be refused as it is at variance with the District Council of Robe Development Plan Principles as listed below:- Residential Zone

9

(c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres per allotment; (d) not exceed a side wall height of 3.0 metres, nor

exceed an overall height of 4.0 metres to the highest point of the building (D13/2011)

Seconded Cr Riseley Carried

General Business November DAP Meeting

The next DAP meeting is scheduled for the 16th November but due to the Elections it was decided that the November meeting, will be held on the 9th November, 2010 at 3.00pm prior to the Council meeting. If no applications are received the meeting will be cancelled.

Meeting closed at 12.05pm. Next meeting: 9th November 2010. _________________________________ Chairman ------------------------------ date

10

Item 6.1.1 Application No. 822/104/10 Applicant: P Birchall Application No: 822/104/10 Applicant: P Birchall Subject Land: 42 Victoria Street, Robe (Wild Mulberry Café) Ward: Town Proposal: Business Sign Zone: Historic Conservation Zone, Town Centre Policy Area Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: Not applicable Representations: not applicable Persons to be heard: - Agency Consultation: - Responsible Officer: Michelle Gibbs Main Issues: does not meet Robe Development Plan Table Ro/2 RECOMMENDATION For Panel determination. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY The Wild Mulberry Café is situated in the main shopping precinct of Robe. This intersection becomes extremely busy in the summer months for foot traffic and vehicular traffic. The Café is located within the Historic Conservation Zone, Town Centre Policy Area and is surrounded by various service industries namely the Guichen Bay Motel, tourist accommodation, shop and Council carpark. Diagonally opposite the Café is a dwelling which is a local heritage listed item. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The metal two sided sign is fixed to wooden posts and is yellow with the “Wild Mulberry Café” logo and a “Schweppes” logo either side with the words “Licensed Espresso Bar” at the bottom. The sign facing Robe Street measures 2.5m in length and the Victoria Street sign measures 2.2m. The overall height of the sign measures 1.8m. The sign is located 1.8 metres from the Victoria and Robe Street boundaries. The sign is not illuminated. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT In assessing the development proposal I have had regard to the Historic Conservation zone and the Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan, consolidated 11 January 2007. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and my assessment of them are as follows:- COUNCIL WIDE HISTORIC CONSERVATION ZONE PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

11

General 1 New development should be sited, designed and built in such a manner that

reinforces and enhances the historical character of the zone and be developed in a manner consistent with the desired character for the zone

23 Advertisements should conform with the standards and guidelines set out in Table

Ro/2, and should in all circumstances: (a) be discreet and of a small-scale to respect the historic character of the zone; (b) comprise type faces, colours, sizes and forms consistent with the clear and

simple form used during the 19th Century; and (c) be below the roof level or hung from below verandah fascias.

The sign does not meet the standards and guidelines as set out in Table Ro/2 nor meet 23 (a) in terms of being small in scale to respect the historic character of the zone. Advertisements 197 The location, siting, size, colour, shape and materials of construction of

advertisements should be: (a) consistent with the Outdoor Advertising Development Standards and

Guidelines comprising Table Ro/2; (b) consistent with the desired character of the zone; (c) in harmony with any buildings or sites of historical significance or of heritage

value in the locality; and (d) illuminated, where it is necessary to do so, only by external means.

The sign is not consistent with Table Ro/2 but is not situated near any buildings of historical significance or of heritage value to impact on them or illuminated. 198 The erection of an advertisement or advertising hoarding should not be undertaken

where it would: (a) detrimentally affect by way of its siting, shape, scale, glare, reflection or

colour, the amenity of the locality in which it is situated; (b) obscure views of attractive urban or rural landscapes or impair native

biodiversity; (c) create a hazard to persons travelling by road or on foot; (d) obscure a driver’s view of other road vehicles, or of pedestrians and features

of the road such as junctions, bends, changes in width and the like that are essentially hazardous;

(e) be so illuminated as to be hazardous to an approaching driver, or create difficulty in his perception of the road, or of persons or objects on it;

(f) be liable to interpretation by drivers as an official traffic sign or convey to drivers information that might be confused with instructions given by traffic signals or other controlled devices, or impair the conspicuous nature of traffic signs or signals; or

(g) distract drivers from the primary driving task at a location where the demands on driver concentration are high.

12

The sign is set-back from the boundary so that it does not impede on pedestrians, or obstruct driver’s views. The sign is not small in scale but is not glare or reflect either. There is only one other sign on the site located directly behind the new sign which is a “Budget Motel Chain” sign for the Guichen Bay Motel.

200 Advertisements should be compatible in scale with the buildings on which they are

situated, with other advertisements, and with nearby buildings and spaces, and be constructed neatly and executed in a workmanlike manner.

Whilst the sign is not small in scale it is compatible with the nearby buildings and space.

201 Advertisements should relate entirely to a lawful use of land and be located on the same site as that use. The sign is located on the site which it is advertising being the “Wild Mulberry Café”.

CONCLUSION As the sign is positioned 1.8 metres from either road boundary it is unlikely to create any issues with obscuring drivers views or pedestrians however the design fails to satisfy the zone Principle 23 relating to advertisements particularly part (a).

13

14

15

Item 6.1.2 DA No. 822/116/10 Owner: D & N Peel Application No: 822/116/10 Owner/Applicant: D & N Peel Subject Land: Lot 23, 30 Tobruk Avenue, Robe Ward: Town Proposal: Carport Zone: Residential Zone Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: n/a Representations: n/a Persons to be heard: - Agency Consultation: - Responsible Officer: Michelle Gibbs Main Issues: Proposed carport exceeds requirements for outbuildings

in Residential Zone

1. The Development Application No. 822/116/10 by D & N Peel be received. RECOMMENDATION

2. Panel to determine. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY Allotment 23 Tobruk Avenue is a long rectangular shaped block measuring 30 metres by 70 metres, a total of 2100m2. Approval for an extension on the existing dwelling was approved in October 2007. The existing outbuilding was approved as a garage/workshop/shadehouse in 1980 and is approximately 148m2. The existing outbuilding is connected to the dwelling by a verandah and is currently used as storage of various household items. There is also a bedroom at the rear of the outbuilding which was lived in prior to the house being built. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed carport consists of a corrugated colourbond steel skillion roof with an 8.5 degree pitch. The carport is 15m long and 5 metres wide (75sqm). The wall height is 2.7 metres with an overall height of 3.9 metres which is the same height as the roof of the existing outbuilding. The carport is situated directly in front of the existing outbuilding and will house 2 cars, trailer and/or caravan. As the proposed carport is at the rear of the house it is only visible to the neighbouring property on the eastern boundary. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT In assessing the development proposal I have had regard to the Residential Zone and the Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan, consolidated 11 January 2007. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and my assessment of them are as follows:-

16

COUNCIL WIDE 17 Outbuildings associated with dwellings within townships and settlements should be

small in scale and carefully sited so as not to detrimentally affect the character and amenity of the surrounding locality.

The existing outbuilding is 148m2 and the proposed is 75m2 but is situated at the rear of the allotment behind the dwelling. RESIDENTIAL ZONE 19 Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should:

(a) not be of a size or in a location which results in their visual dominance of the dwelling to which they relate or the locality;

(b) not unduly restrict private or shared open space; (c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres

per allotment; (d) not exceed a side wall height of 3.0 metres, nor exceed an overall height of

4.0 metres to the highest point of the building; (e) have external walls constructed of new pre-colour coated or pre-painted

metal, or masonry, timber or compressed fibre cement or other material painted in a muted or earth colour within six months of the building being constructed;

(f) be used for domestic purposes only and in conjunction with a dwelling on the same site; and

(g) not be erected until or unless there exists on the same allotment a dwelling or a valid planning authorisation for the construction of a dwelling.

Due to the location of the carport it will not dominate the dwelling, nor impact on the open space due to the large allotment side. The carport also meets the requirements of (d) – (g) but does not meet (c) as the existing outbuilding is already 148m2. 38 Garages and carports should: (a) have a roof form and pitch, building materials and detailing that complement those

of the associated dwelling; (b) have a maximum width opening of six metres or 50 percent of the frontage width,

whichever is the less; and (c) where in the form of a double carport or garage that is setback less than 8.0 metres

from the street: (i) have two separate doors with a distance of not less than 300 millimetres

between them; or (ii) double tilt-up doors with moulded door panels having a maximum width of 5.0

metres.

17

The roof form, pitch and materials are complementary to the associated dwelling but the opening of the carport is 15m which does not meet (b). CONCLUSION The carport meets all the requirements of Principle 19 except for 19 (c) 19 Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should:

(c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres per allotment;

nor does it meet the requirement of Residential zone no. 38(b) 38 Garages and carports should: (b) have a maximum width opening of six metres or 50 percent of the frontage width,

whichever is the less; and

18

19

20

21

Item 6.1.3 DA No. 822/090/10 Owner: Application No: 822/120/10 Applicant: R & K Dolan Subject Land: Lot 14, 11 Charles Bonney Drive, Robe Ward: Town Proposal: Dwelling and shed, Staged application – Stage 1 shed Zone: Residential Zone Form of Assessment: Merit Public Notification: n/a Representations: n/a Persons to be heard: - Agency Consultation: - Responsible Officer: Michelle Gibbs Main Issues: Proposed carport exceeds requirements for outbuildings

in Residential Zone

1. The Development Application No. 822/120/10 by R & K Dolan be received. RECOMMENDATION

2. Panel to determine. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY Allotment 14, 11 Charles Bonney Drive is a flat rectangular shaped block measuring 23 metres by 34.99 metres, a total of 804.7m2 and is currently vacant. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes to re-locate a 12 month old shed that is currently located in Horsham at Robe. The green colorbond shed is 12 metres in length by 7.5 metres (90m2). The height of the shed is 3m and the overall height is 4m. The existing roller doors at the front of the shed will be replaced with a double barn door constructed in the middle that will be approximately 4m in height at the highest point. The applicant advises that barn door is required to allow storage of his boat. The shed is located on the south eastern corner of the allotment on both boundaries. As the allotment is vacant the applicant is aware of the Development Plans requirement to have a valid planning authorisation for the dwelling before the shed can be constructed. Plans for the dwelling have been submitted with the application. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT In assessing the development proposal I have had regard to the Residential Zone and the Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan, consolidated 11 January 2007. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and my assessment of them are as follows:- Residential Zone 19 Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should:

22

(a) not be of a size or in a location which results in their visual dominance of the dwelling to which they relate or the locality;

(b) not unduly restrict private or shared open space; (c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres

per allotment; (d) not exceed a side wall height of 3.0 metres, nor exceed an overall height of

4.0 metres to the highest point of the building; (e) have external walls constructed of new pre-colour coated or pre-painted

metal, or masonry, timber or compressed fibre cement or other material painted in a muted or earth colour within six months of the building being constructed;

(f) be used for domestic purposes only and in conjunction with a dwelling on the same site;

and (g) not be erected until or unless there exists on the same allotment a dwelling or

a valid planning authorisation for the construction of a dwelling. PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL General 38 Garages and carports should:

(a) have a roof form and pitch, building materials and detailing that complement those of the associated dwelling;

(b) have a maximum width opening of six metres or 50 percent of the frontage width, whichever is the less; and

(c) where in the form of a double carport or garage that is setback less than 8.0 metres from the street: (i) have two separate doors with a distance of not less than 300 millimetres

between them; or (ii) double tilt-up doors with moulded door panels having a maximum width

of 5.0 metres. CONCLUSION The carport meets all the requirements of Principle 19 except for 19 (c) 19 Garages, carports and other freestanding outbuildings should:

(c) not exceed, either singly or in combination, a floor area of 74 square metres per allotment;

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Item 7.1 – M Austin – ERD Court appeal At the Council Meeting held on the 9th November, 2010 a request was made by Mr M Austin and Mr Phillip Brunning of Phillip Brunning and Associates for Council to enter into a Land Management Agreement for the purpose of constructing a second dwelling on his property at Lot 1,Kingston Road, Robe as a resolution to the appeal before the Environment, Resource and Development Court. A report was submitted from Council’s Consultant Planner, Mr David Hutchison of Access Planning recommending that the Council decline to enter into a Land Management Agreement. (See attachment 1) The Council resolved not to enter into a Land Management Agreement and Mr Austin and Mr Brunning were advised of this outcome. Since the Council Meeting the CEO has had discussions with Geoff Austin.

Council has received a letter from Mat’s parents, Geoff and Debbie Austin requesting the Panel to reconsider their decision and request the Panel conduct a site visit. (see attachment 2).

The Panel is requested to reconsider the matter.

33

Attachment 2

34

35

36

Attachment 1

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Item 7.2 – R Ling – ERD Court Appeal 24th November 2010 Ref: 5291 Cnclreport The Chief Executive Officer District Council of Robe PO Box 1 ROBE SA 5276 Dear Bill, RE: PLANNING APPEAL - R A & S C LING and DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

At the Development Assessment Panel meeting of 23 April 2010 the Council refused to grant approval to a land division seeking to sub-divide land at 49 Main Road, Robe into two allotments of 509m2 and 447m2 respectively. The subject land is a “hammerhead” shaped property with a frontage of 3.71 metres to Barrowmans Drive and 33.53 metres to Main Road. The frontage of 3.71 metres to Barrowmans Drive appears to have been provided as a means of gaining road access to the land without the need to take access from Main Road. The Main Road frontage of the land comprises a relatively steep embankment which is, for the most part, heavily vegetated. An existing angled dirt driveway provides access to the land from Main Road, but is so arranged as to provide limited or no use to proposed allotment 102 in the plan of division. (plan attached) In response to the refusal and as part of the appeal process the applicants provided an engineer’s report (copy attached) which examines how road access may be achieved for the two proposed allotments. In essence, the report assumes that development on the land will be ‘split level’ with ‘garaging close to the road.’ I am not sure how the engineer arrived at this assumption as there is no concurrent development application for dwellings on the two proposed lots at this time.

49

In addition to the above assumption, the engineer has advised that to achieve safe access in accord with the relevant Australian Standard, the currently steep banks would need to be laid back (slope reduced). It is unclear as to the extent that the banks in total would be affected, or whether the report only refers to the specific location of a driveway. I would assume however that the recommended works on the banks would need to be relatively extensive to ensure that driver sight lines are maintained on the entry to Main Road. The Council (not the Panel) also resolved pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act that it is not prepared to approve the removal of roadside vegetation, or the laying back of banks in the Council road reserve fronting land identified as Certificate of Title 5599, Folio 910. At a second appeal conference it was agreed that the applicant would provide more information as to how access might be safely provided to the both allotments having regard to the smaller size of the proposed lots and the constraints imposed by the slope of the land and the need for work on the Council road reserve. The applicant has since provided plans showing what I would understand to be undercroft garages for a dwelling on each of the two allotments. Without finished floor levels it is difficult to determine the full extent of cutting and retaining walls required, but it is instructive to note that the northern-most retaining wall on proposed allotment 102 is shown as being 3.5 metres in height suggesting a floor level for the garage of 5.0 metres AHD. The 5.0 metre contour for the land is effectively at the property boundary with Main Road. If the car parking were to be established as shown on the plans there would be a need for retaining walls of 67 metres long and varying in height from o to 3.5 metres for lot 102 and 48 metres in length, or varying height for lot 101. The solution provided by the applicant in my view demonstrates the difficulty in providing access for smaller parcels of land where the combination of small dimensions, the extent of development proposed and the slope of the land all conspire to impose significant difficulty on the potential future development of the land. In my earlier report to the Panel on the land division application, I commented as follows; “The subject land fronts a Section of Main Road that is an “entry point” with the lake on one side and housing on the other being largely screened by the intervening roadside vegetation. Whilst the allotments being proposed are acceptable in terms of site area and dimensions, I am of the view that the works required to gain access to them safely is not acceptable, would have a significant impact on the character and amenity of the locality and thus should not be supported.” Whilst the development is able to meet the quantitative provisions of the Development Plan relating to site area, frontage etc In particular, the Development Plan does not, in my opinion, accord with the following qualitative provisions of the Development Plan. Council wide

50

23 Residential allotments should have the appropriate area and dimensions for: (a) the siting and construction of a dwelling and ancillary outbuildings; (b) the provision of private outdoor space; (c) and convenient vehicle access and parking; and (d) effluent disposal in accordance with relevant standards. 24 Allotments should have an orientation, size and dimensions that will facilitate the siting of dwellings to: (a) protect natural or cultural features; (b) utilise sloping sites and minimise the need for earthworks and retaining walls; (c) face streets and open spaces; and (d) maximise solar access. 65 Land should not be divided: (d) if the size, shape and location of, and the slope and nature of the land contained in each allotment resulting from the division, is unsuitable for the purpose for which the allotment is to be used; 67 Development should ensure that the following conditions are satisfied in relation to the provision of roads, streets, or thoroughfares: (c) access from each allotment to any road, street or thoroughfare should be safe and convenient; Residential zone Objective 2: A zone accommodating a variety of dwelling types where individual site conditions, character and design are appropriate and a safe and pleasant streetscape is established or maintained. 3 Medium density development, including semi-detached dwellings, group dwellings and residential flat buildings should generally be integrated throughout the residential areas where individual site conditions are satisfactory

However, I am not satisfied that the land division has proper regard to the constraints imposed on the development of the land by the slope of the land and in particular the

and design and layout are appropriate to the character of the locality. Conclusion It is well-established that, when considering an application for a residential land division, it is only necessary to be satisfied that proposed allotments are suitable for future residential development in a generic, rather than a particular sense. Any future proposals to construct dwellings on both the proposed allotments would need to be assessed by the Council when applications are lodged and the possible site for dwellings and the intended access arrangements provided by the applicant are simply indicative. It is however appropriate that I give some consideration at this stage to the likely consequences of approving the proposed land division and creating the expectation thereby that a dwelling could be built at a later date on each of the allotments in accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. As indicated above, the proposed land division would provide allotments of a size that would meet the Council-Wide and Zone provisions of the development plan relating to the minimum size required for a residential development and to other relevant quantitative standards.

51

embankment at the junction between the land and the road reserve and the vegetation on the road reserve which limits driver sight lines for oncoming traffic leaving Robe. I am not satisfied therefore that the dimensions of the land are suitable for two dwellings and thus two allotments. I consider that the information provided by the applicant simply confirms the difficulties in providing site access to two allotments and on that basis I do not consider that the information provided is suitable for the purposes of achieving a compromise in the appeal. Recommendation For the above reasons I recommend that the compromise plans submitted by the applicant are not a sufficient basis for a compromise and that the ERD Court be advised accordingly. Yours sincerely

David Hutchison ACCESS PLANNING (SA) Pty Ltd

52

53

54

55