Jim Gronthos Wednesday, 27 March 2019 12:16 PM To: … · 2019. 6. 18. · 1 From: Jim Gronthos Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2019 12:16 PM To: DPTI:Planning Engagement Subject: Council

1

From: Jim Gronthos Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2019 12:16 PMTo: DPTI:Planning EngagementSubject: Council submission on the State Planning Commission's draft Planning and Design

Code in the Outback (Land not within a Council Area)Attachments: Endorsed Submission - City of Charles Sturt -

Phase_One_Code_Written_Submission_Form - 25 March 2019.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Mr Bailey,

Please find enclosed a submission from Council on the State Planning Commission’s draft Planning and Design Code in the Outback (Land not within a Council Area). This submission was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 25 March 2019.

Could you please forward an acknowledgment of your receipt of this email.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter.

Thank you and kind regards

Jim Gronthos Senior Policy Planner Urban Projects

72 Woodville Road, Woodville T: (08) F: (08) 8408 1122 www.charlesturt.sa.gov.au

2

Go Green ‐ Think before you print. This initiative forms part of our environmental plan ‐ Towards One Planet Living: Greening the Western Suburbs.

Warning ‐ This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, subject to legal or other professional privilege, or protected by copyright. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete this email from your system. You are not permitted to use, reproduce or disclose the contents of this email. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the sole responsibility of the recipient. Thank you.

1

Submission form: Planning and Design Code in the outback (land not within a council area)

This submission form is being used to collect feedback from practitioners and the community on the Planning and Design Code in the outback (land not within a council area). It will help us consolidate comments under specific themes so that we can more easily identify trends and consider feedback according to the zone, overlay or general module to which it applies. Your input will ensure that the new planning and development rules for the outback meet the planning needs of rural South Australians and address planning issues relevant to land outside of council boundaries.

Please send your completed submission form to: Jason Bailey, Project Lead Planning and Design Code Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Level 5, 50 Flinders Street, Adelaide 5000 GPO Box 1815, Adelaide SA 5001 Email: [email protected] Section one: About you 1. Are you a planning, design or building industry professional?

☐ Yes

☒ No

If yes, please choose the professional field that best describes you from the drop‐down list below: Click here to choose an item

2. Are you lodging this submission on behalf of yourself or an organisation?

☐ Self

☒ Organisation

If you are lodging a submission on behalf of an organisation, please provide the name of your organisation

below:

City of Charles Sturt

3. What council (or non‐council) area do you typically reside in?

N/A 4. If you wish to receive a report on the feedback received during this consultation, please provide your name

and email address. Name: Jim Gronthos, Senior Policy Planner, City of Charles Sturt Email address:

2

Section two: Feedback on the Planning and Design Code in the outback

5. Please provide your feedback on any or all of the Code sections outlined below.

PART 1 – RULES OF INTERPRETATION

The draft Code should contain at the beginning of the document the entire table of contents consistent

with current Development Plans in order to make it easier for the reader to navigate through the

document.

Support the inclusion of definitions into the draft Code to assist the practitioners and general readers to

understand land use and general administration terms. Currently these definitions are found in the

Development Act, 1993 and the Development Regulations, 2008 which makes it difficult to navigate while

reading through multiple documents.

While the draft Code outlines that subzone policy will prevail over zone and general development policies

to the extent of the inconsistency, it is still unknown what subzones might be possible in the City of Charles

Sturt. Council reserves its opinion on this matter pending the release of the draft Code for the

metropolitan area.

The statement at the top of page 3 makes no sense and needs to be reworded. There seems to be words

missing. “Desired Outcomes of a zone, overlay, subzone or general development provisions automatically

apply in addition to the Performance Outcomes that are specified in a table of relevant provisions for

performance assessed development, although any that are not relevant to the issue(s) addressed in relevant

the Performance Outcome(s) will be disregarded.”

Where performance outcomes outline ‘appropriate’ design or spatial outcomes the Code should provide

minimum quantitative design standards to reduce ambiguity and the risk of the authority and applicant

having very different views on how they are achieved as part of a merit based assessment.

PART 2 ‐ ZONES AND SUBZONES

While the draft Code applies only to land not within a council area there are some proposed zones which

may be applied to the draft Code for the metropolitan area and therefore affect the City of Charles Sturt.

Details comments on these proposed zones are addressed below.

Coastal Waters Zone

It is noted that this proposed zone does not include Adelaide metropolitan marine water and

therefore the City of Charles Sturt. There appears to be a buffer on the associated mapping. The

Coastal Waters Zone is 6km off the beach and there is a space between this and where the current

on land zoning begins with the Coastal Open Space Zone which is also in the out of Council area but

is not provided with a zone in this draft. This needs clarification.

Conservation Zone

It is noted that the proposed zone does not impact the City of Charles Sturt as it applies over

conservation parks and reserves generally under State and Federal ownership.

3

Local Infrastructure (Airfield) Zone

It is noted that the draft Code includes a proposed Local Infrastructure (Airfield) Zone. The Charles

Sturt Council Development Plan currently includes an Airfield Zone located at the southern end of its

local government boundary.

The policies contained in the proposed Local Infrastructure (Airfield) Zone are considered similar to

the policies contained in the existing Airfield Zone.

Council supports the consideration for performance assessed development (merit based assessment)

for the majority of development proposals rather than through a deemed to satisfy approach

because of the nature of this Zone which serves to promote aviation operations.

Remote Areas Zone

While the City of Charles does not contain a Remote Areas Zone the following comments are

provided:

In the Accepted Development table, which will only require a building assessment, a dwelling

addition can be approved with no consideration required to be given to whether the onsite parking

is maintained with the development. This should be a required consideration. Further part 4(a) of

this required an overshadowing assessment of the north facing windows on adjoining land and part

(b) requires assessment of overshadowing to private open space. It is questioned where it is better

to set a minimum setback from a southern boundary that will ensure there is acceptable levels of

access to sunlight retained to windows and other setbacks from remaining boundaries to limit this

offsite shadow impact rather than require shadow diagrams to review this standard without a formal

planning assessment. Accepted development should set basic quantitative standards that can be

easily assessed and not require a more complex planning assessment of variables.

The standards for accepted development for a carport, garage or verandah in part 4 require a

primary street setback – at least 5.5m from the primary street boundary and as far back as the

building to which it is ancillary. We don’t know what this is trying to achieve. Does the verandah

have to be a minimum of 5.5m back but further back if the dwelling is already further than 5.5m

from the street? This needs Clarification.

Settlement Zone

While the City of Charles does not contain a Settlement Zone the following comments are provided:





from the street? This needs Clarification.

Specific Use (Tourism Development) Zone

While the City of Charles does not contain a specific Tourism Zone, the City does contain two caravan

park sites which are currently located in the Adelaide Shores Zone and the Coastal Open Space Zone.

The City of Charles Sturt contains two residential/caravan parks. These include a portion of Adelaide Shores and the Adelaide Beachfront Tourism Park. The current Charles Sturt Development Plan does not contain general section policy from the SAPPL which relates to residential parks and caravan and tourist parks. The implementation of the draft Code for the metropolitan area should address this.

4

The procedural matters list in part ‘(b) restaurant located within 30m of a sensitive land use or approved sensitive land use on land’ for notification. What land is this meant to be capturing. Is it adjacent?

Township Zone

While the City of Charles does not contain a Township Zone the following comments are provided:





from the street? This needs clarification.

PART 3 ‐ OVERLAYS

The index in the draft Code for the Overlays includes a Hazards (Flooding) Overlay. The detail for this

Overlay however is not included in the draft Code. Will this address minimising risk of flooding such as that

covered by PDC 5 and 6 in the current General Section Hazards, Flooding, PDC 9 in General Section Natural

Resources, Water Sensitive Design which deals with rain interval design standards and PDC 11 which deals

with mitigating peak flows and stormwater discharge downstream.

Building Near Airfields Overlay

Generally the draft policies are similar to what is contained in the Charles Sturt Council Development

Plan.

Deemed to Satisfy provision 1.1 refers to Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS). Details as to what the

OLS are is not included in the draft Code or the mapping on the website.

Currently, the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan under ‘Constraints Maps’ identifies Airport

Building Heights which if exceeded by a development proposal triggers a referral pursuant to

Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations, 2008 to the Aviation Authority (Commonwealth

Secretary for the Department of Transport and regional Services). Question why there is no referral

mechanism for this Overlay if proposed development exceeds the OLS requirements.

Council’s preference would be to see building height limitations placed on the Overlay Maps for the

pending release of the Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation.

Recommend the inclusion of current Principle of Development 4 under the General Section of the

Development Plan, Building near Airfields, which seeks to avoid development near airfields that may

create a risk to public safety. Current PDC 4 part (e) could be removed as this is addressed in

proposed PO 1.3.

Coastal Areas Overlay

Generally support the draft policies contained in this Overlay as they similar to a number of existing

policies contained in the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan, General Section, Coastal Areas.

Further consideration should be given to proposed wording of Performance Outcome 3.4 associated

with part c) as this does not make sense in its current form.

PO 1.2 ‐ protection of development within established areas should also be addressed by state

infrastructure. The required 0.3m above the standard sea flood risk level may not always be the

required standard. This will impact division of one site into two because it doesn’t limit it to only

large scale divisions. Setting one or two blocks higher in an established area doesn’t solve the risk of

5

sea level rise and the fact that they won’t be able to get to their land because everything around

them is flooded. It could also stop land division of small sites because they aren’t able to be

accessed by roads set at this level or higher.

PO 2.1 and associated DTS 2.1 – protection of development within established areas should also be

addressed by state infrastructure.

PO 2.2 and associated DTS 2.2 – protection of development within established areas should also be

addressed by state infrastructure.

PO 5.2 ‐ This should be removed from the general provision and only come into play in a zone where

development can be restricted. It could be reworded to talk about development not within an

established area. This should also be addressed by state infrastructure.

Hazards (Acid Sulfate Soils) Overlay

Generally support the draft policies contained in this Overlay as they similar to the existing policies

contained in the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan, General Section, Sloping Land.

Hazards (Bushfire Protection) Overlay

Not applicable to the City of Charles Sturt

Historic Shipwrecks Overlay


Key Outback and Rural Routes Overlay


Key Railway Corridors Overlay

The Overlay’s policy focus relates to railway crossings rather than as the title suggests ‘corridors’.

Marine Parks (Managed Use) Overlay


Marine Parks (Restricted Use) Overlay


Murray‐Darling Basin Overlay


Prescribed Watercourses Overlay


6

Prescribed Wells Area Overlay


Ramsar Wetlands Overlay


River Murray Flood Plain Overlay


Significant Landscape Protection Overlay


Sloping Land Overlay

Generally support the draft policies contained in this Overlay as they similar to the existing policies

contained in the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan, General Section, Hazards, Acid Sulfate

Soils.

PO 1.3 ‐Access driveways and tracks that is accessible and consists of a safe, all‐weather trafficable

surface. This should be are not is.

State Heritage Area Overlay

The wording seems unnecessarily overly prescriptive in some areas but fails to mention terms like setting, materially affects, new buildings on the same site as a Heritage Place and also new buildings on Land Adjacent Heritage Places; this is quite an omission for a State Heritage Area, where some buildings are not individually listed but nonetheless assessed as places;

Advertisements: could be strengthened to avoid visual clutter and the tendency to merge signage with external painting; this may not be such an issue with State Places but could become an issue in a State Heritage Area or Conservation Area (like a main street in a town with perhaps one Heritage Place or even a Hotel!)

State Heritage Place Overlay

There is an error on page 202. It should read ‘Desired Outcome’ rather than ‘Performance

Outcome’.

Council supports reference in the Desired Outcome for encouraging adaptive reuse of these

historically significant places. This policy approach is consistent with the State Planning

Commission’s State Planning Policy directions (SPP 3). Similar policy should be included in the

pending release of the draft Code for the metropolitan area to also apply to Local Heritage Places

which feature prominently in the City of Charles Sturt.

Council supports the approach for having no ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ policies on sensitive sites that

contain State Heritage Places. Future development on these sites should be assessed on their

merits. This approach should also be applied to Local Heritage Places as part of the Commission’s

pending release of the Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation.

Refer also to comments above under State Heritage Area Overlay.

7

Water Resources Overlay

Consistent with current policy applicable to the City of Charles Sturt

PART 4 ‐ GENERAL MODULES

Click here to enter text.

Advertisements

Generally support the proposed policies. Council reserves the right to provide further comments

once it has had an opportunity to review the Commission’s pending release of the Draft Code for the

Metropolitan area for consultation.

Animal Keeping and Horse Keeping

Not currently applicable to the City of Charles Sturt but generally supported.

Aquaculture


Bulk Handling and Storage Facilities


Clearance from Overhead Powerlines

This essentially reflects the current arrangement. Council reserves the right to provide further

comments once it has had an opportunity to review the Commission’s pending release of the Draft

Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation.

Design and Siting




Council supports the proposed Desired Outcome, DO 1 part d), which envisages the integration of

sustainable systems into new buildings and the surrounding landscape. This approach should also be

applied to the Commission’s pending release of the Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for

consultation. However, a recommended amendment is proposed in part (d) to reference

ecologically sustainable development as a recognised term for what is trying to be achieved. “part (d)

sustainable – by integrating sustainable systems into new buildings and the surrounding landscape

design to pursue ecologically sustainable development, improve environmental performance and

minimise energy consumption.”

8

Built form Context

PO 2.1 Building massing and form contributes to and complements the development context and

streetscape. This statement has the potential to prohibit achievement of increased density and

higher built form because it is applied generally rather than in zones or overlays where a special

character outcome is desired. If the current context is all single storey but the zone is calling for two

storey this would fail to meet this provision.

Public Realm Interface

Page 228, PO 4.2 ‐ This could be modified to require the street elevation to read as a primary facade

and relate to all buildings with no exclusions. The current wording would exclude a group dwelling

that may be sited close to the street from needing to address the street.

Proposed performance outcome 8.1 on page 229 should be amended. The word ‘alongside’ should

be two separate words.

PO 4.3 Landscaping that is coordinated and integrated with the character of the locality could be

removed because there is already adequate policy in other parts of the Code to deliver landscaping.

Visual Privacy

DTS 6.1 ‐ This should be 1.7m to address consistent community concern about the limited effect of

1.5m.

Landscaping

To contribute to implementing State Planning Policy 15: Natural Hazards policy 15.1 – to minimise the risk of extreme heat events the following amendment should be considered in PO 9.1 (page 230) ‐ retains or provides additional canopy trees in front yards and private open space.”

The following landscaping principles from current Development Plans should be transferred to the

Planning and Design Code:

1. g) assist in climate control within buildings

2. a) include the planting of locally indigenous species where appropriate.

Water Sensitive Design

PO 13.3 ‐ The performance outcome for reducing water pollution should also refer to meeting the

state‐wide performance target in the Government of South Australia Water Sensitive Urban Design

Policy. Recognised targets assist applicants and assessment of planning applications to more

efficiently plan and assess developments. They also provide a more concrete understanding and

measurement of outcomes.

The current PDC 9 in General Section Natural Resources under water sensitive design requires that

development should include stormwater management systems to protect it from damage during a

minimum of a 1 in 100 year average return interval flood. This should be incorporated to ensure

flooding impacts are addressed. Refer to the earlier comment at the start of the overlay section

form more explanation of this issue.

Forestry


9

Infrastructure and Renewable Energy Facilities

Council recommends the consideration of the use of additional existing policy that is contained in

the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan, General Section, Telecommunications Facilities. These

include PDC’s 2, 3, and 4 as identified in the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan.

While the Commission is developing the draft Code for the metropolitan area for consultation

release Council wishes to seek policy that considers telecommunications facilities (mobile phone

towers) to be deemed as “restricted development” within Residential Character Zones. This will

enable a more rigorous assessment for development of this nature within residential character areas

in the City of Charles Sturt.

Intensive Animal Husbandry and Dairies

Not currently applicable to the City of Charles Sturt as this is currently non‐complying in our area but

generally supported.

Interface between Land Uses




Overshadowing

DTS 3.2 ‐ Building envelope policy should be included to set the heights and setbacks and for a

southern boundary this should be adequate to set an acceptable standard of overshadowing when

met. This standard is not necessary in zones where buildings are encouraged at higher densities and

built form with limited setbacks is promoted.

PO 3.3 ‐ Development does not unduly reduce the generating capacity of existing rooftop solar

energy facilities taking into account:

(a) the form of development contemplated in the relevant zone;

(b) the orientation of the solar energy facilities to operate effectively and efficiently; and

(c) the extent to which the solar energy facilities are already overshadowed. How does this provision

work in conjunction with a desire to achieve higher densities and buildings heights in established

areas? This could be enough to stifle support for infill development. It already raises complaint from

residents and claims for compensation.

Land Division

Council supports the inclusion of Performance Outcome 3.2, which is currently identified in the

Charles Sturt Council Development Plan as a minimum design standard which should be applied to

the draft Code for the metropolitan area.

Marinas and On‐Water Structures

Generally supported.

10

Mineral Extraction

Not applicable to the City of Charles Sturt.

Open Space and Recreation

Generally support the proposed policies which are similar to the current provisions contained in the

Charles Sturt Council development Plan, General Section, Open Space and Recreation. Council

reserves the right to provide further comments once it has had an opportunity to review the

Commission’s pending release of the Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation.

Residential Liveability

Communal Open Space

The draft Code should include existing provisions under PDC 20 and 21 for Communal Open Space to

express what is excluded from communal open space and its design where proposed on elevated

gardens or rooftops.

Multiple Dwellings

The Code should provide for greater design standards to assess multiple dwelling proposals. The

New South Wales Government in June 2018 released some standards in design including:

o Locating the development within 800m walking distance of a railway station, 400m of a tram

station and 400m of a bus stop.

o Private open space at least 20m2 to be provided

o Car parking 0.5 car spaces per boarding room

o Room size – 12m2 for single boarding rooms and 16m2 for doubles

o Maximum room occupancy – two adult lodgers

o At least one communal room with a minimum room size of 25m2 where 5 or more boarding

rooms are provided.

o Boarding rooms with 20 or more residents must have an on‐site manager

Performance Outcomes for group dwellings, residential flat buildings, multiple dwellings, supported

accommodation and student accommodation should require a waste management plan for these

types of developments. Waste management approach should be identified at the planning stage to

ensure that waste storage and the collection service will be viable, not erode verge space

unnecessarily and allow for equitable and cost‐effective provision of waste and recycling services.

Onsite facilities for Group dwellings etc

The code should not be getting down to where they place their mail box or washing lines as

suggested in PO5.1 and 5.2. We should be satisfied that there is enough space around a dwelling or

dwellings for this to occur delivered by setback and private open space standards.

Ancillary Buildings and Structures

Page 269 – PO 6.1 part (g) – there are too many words in this statement that confuse its meaning (g)

will not be located within 3m of any other wall along the same boundary unless on an adjacent site

on that boundary unless there is an existing wall of a building that would be adjacent to or about the

proposed wall or structure;

11

Table 1 – Residential Liveability

Minimum rate specified for studio apartments should be 8m2. All minimum rates for open space

above ground level should be exclusive of space for air‐conditioning units (where applicable).

Minimum rate specified for studio apartments are half the area of Western Australia and Victoria

guidelines, which specify a minimum of 8m2. This amendment would increase the liveability of the

smallest of apartment dwelling types.

Site Contamination

Generally supported and reflects current process.

Tourism Development

Caravan and Tourist Parks ‐ PO 2.2 ‐ Designed to protect the privacy and amenity of occupants

through landscaping and fencing. There is concern that this could be argued to require fencing or

screening around each space when perhaps it is intended to reference the external boundaries of

the caravan park. This provision could be removed because PO 2.4 covers it.

Transport, Access and Parking

Sightlines

PO 2.2 – how do you reconcile this provision with the Regulations that allow a fence up to 2.1 metres

in height along a front and/or side boundary of solid form without requiring approval. This policy

and the Regulations contradict each other and should potentially only relate to corner sites.

Vehicle Access

Page 280 – PO 3.5 Access points located so as not to interfere with mature street trees, existing

street furniture (including directional signs, lighting, seating and weather shelters) or infrastructure

services to maintain the appearance of the streetscape, preserve local amenity and minimise

disruption to utility infrastructure assets. DTS 3.5 – The access point does not involve the removal or

relocation of mature street trees, street furniture or utility infrastructure services. This cannot be

limited to mature street trees but rather should protect all street trees. These are a Council asset

that regularly involve replacement or renewal and upgrade to street planting to ensure longer term

there is appropriate canopies to achieve the canopy cover required in the State Planning Policies and

30 Year Plan. If they can remove younger trees they would be negating the ability to replenish the

street tree canopy where trees are dead or failing to deliver the canopy outcome.

Vehicle Parking Rates

Page 281 – DTS 5.1 – It is noted that DPTI are currently reviewing car parking standards that will be

presented in the Code for the metropolitan area (Phase 3). Council reserves the right to provide

further comments once it has had an opportunity to review the Commission’s pending release of the

Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation. We question the extent to which on street

parking can subsidise a loss of onsite parking when multiple sites rely on these spaces and we

reserve the right to provide more detailed commentary when the Metropolitan Code is released for

comment

There seems to be a significant lack of parking rates within the table considering all of the possible

land uses that could occur in the various zones. For example, indoor recreation centre, industry,

hotel, motor repair station, retail fuel outlet, educational establishment do not have any parking

12

standard. This needs to be addressed before the code is implemented based on the uses envisaged

in the zones.

Page 282 – PO 6.8 On‐site visitor parking spaces are sited and designed to be accessible to all visitors

at all times. We can’t say all visitors because the parking rates are not designed to cater for all

visitors having a parking space. This word should be removed.

Waste Treatment and Management Facilities

PO 2.2 ‐Land uses and activities within the separation distance are compatible with and do not

jeopardise the operations of the waste treatment or management facility. – If the separation

distance for this policy is based on technical evidence under PO 2.1 then would this mean we can’t

approve a waste treatment facility if there are more sensitive uses already present? Is it meant to

capture new uses that are more sensitive not locating within the separation distance because if so

that isn’t clear by this wording. Current PDC 5 in our plan references new development not

impacting a waste facility and this new provision in the code appears to be an attempt to capture

this but it has reversed the effect. How do we capture the separation distance from an application

for a waste treatment facility through the eplanning system so that a provision like PO2.2 is pulled

into the provisions against which an assessment will occur?

PO 4.3 Litter control measures minimise the incidence of windblown litter, and PO 4.4 Waste

treatment and management facilities are designed to minimise adverse impacts on both the site and

surrounding areas from weed and vermin infestation. We do not think these provisions are necessary

as other legislation deals with offsite nuisance and litter impacts or vermin impacts.

PO 7.2 Landfill facilities separated from areas of environmental significance or used for public

recreation and enjoyment. This statement could be read to allow for land fill facilities to be used for

public recreation or enjoyment rather than separated from them because it seems to be saying they

must be separated from areas of environmental significance but the or changes the meaning for the

rest of this sentence. Perhaps it should say ‘and land’ instead of ‘or’.

Workers Accommodation and Settlements

Not applicable to the City of Charles Sturt.

PART 5 ‐ MAPPING

No comment. Council reserves the right to provide further comments once it has had an opportunity to

review the Commission’s pending release of the Draft Code for the Metropolitan area for consultation.

PART 6 – LAND USE DEFINITIONS

Consulting Rooms – This definition has been expanded to include yoga and pilates activities. These

activities generate large numbers in attendance at any one time with only one or two staff supporting

the activity and thus generate much higher parking demand than a one on one consulting activity. The

parking rate for a consulting room contained in the draft at 4 per 100m2 would be significantly lacking

to support the numbers associated with yoga or pilates classes. This is more akin to gymnasium

activities and is included under Indoor recreation Centre contained in the draft Code so they should not

be referenced in consulting room and this creates conflict and inconsistency.

Detached dwelling still makes reference to a site being ‘exclusively held’ with the dwelling. This will not

address ERD court case law that requires a prior title or land division with the dwelling to confirm it is

exclusive. This could be reworded to Means a detached building comprising 1 dwelling on a site that has

13

a frontage to a public road, or to a road proposed in a plan of land division that is the subject of a

current development authorisation and does not make use of facilities shared with other dwellings.

The definition of Educational establishment already captures pre‐school and other institutions for the

care and maintenance of children so why is preschool then given a separate definition later. It could

just be captured here without it needing to be linked to another school.

The definition of an office uses the term profession to define its use and as this is very broad the

exclusion list should be expanded to include Shop and Industry to ensure these professions aren’t part

of an office activity because they have different impacts and parking requirements.

There is no definition of tourist accommodation and yet this is envisaged in the policy within the Code

and this needs to be addressed. This could include motel, caravan park, tourist park and residential

park.

The row dwelling and semi‐detached dwelling definition needs to remove the phrase ‘held exclusively

with that dwelling and’ to avoid the need for titles. Refer to comments for detached dwelling.

Service trade premises definition should be removed and these should fall under bulky goods outlet

definition.

The shop definition should not include restaurant which has a much higher demand for parking than

that associated with other forms of shop. This should be a separate stand alone activity with its own

parking rate based on patron numbers rather than floor area.

The store definition should be removed and combined with warehouse where it may or may not involve

sales as they are essentially the same in function and form.

There is a lack of definition for outbuildings which is referenced in the Code and this should be provided

as the term is used to define assessment pathways such as deemed to satisfy.

PART 7– ADMINISTRATIVE DEFINITIONS

Building line definition excludes verandahs, carports, bay windows from setting the building line

however where there is a large verandah or portico that takes up a dominant part of the elevation this

should be a factor is establishing the building line. The current wording should include ‘minor’ after

‘existing’ to allow for this interpretation.

The density definition on page 307 should refer to ‘net density’ and be consistent with the definition

outlined in the 30‐Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, 2017 Update.

Page 307 – the definition of high density should be ‘more than 70 du/ha’ consistent with the 30‐Year

Plan for Greater Adelaide, 2017 Update.

Page 310 – Private Open Space definition should not include the minimum dimension in part (b)

because Table 1 within the Residential Liveability section sets these and they vary.

The definition of site should be amended to add the words ‘or title’ the word allotment in each of the

brackets to make it clear this is not required to fit within a definition of dwelling to address case law

around definitions of dwellings.

The definition of wall height references eave but incorrectly spells it as eve.

PART 8 – REFERRALS TO OTHER AUTHORITIES OR AGENCIES

No comment. Consistent with the current Regulations.

PART 9 — TABLE OF AMENDMENTS

No comment – not applicable until the commencement of the Code.

14

Section three: Evaluation of this engagement

Please tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements: 1. I feel well‐informed about the proposed Planning and Design Code for the outback (land not within a council

area). Strongly agree

2. The information provided on the new Planning and Design Code for the outback was clear and understandable and enabled me to take an informed view. Strongly agree

3. I understand how the Planning and Design Code may affect me and/or my community. Strongly agree

4. I understand how my feedback will be used in the preparation of the final Planning and Design Code for the outback (land not within a council area). Somewhat agree

5. I feel that I have had a genuine and adequate opportunity to have my say on the proposed Planning and Design Code for the outback (land not within a council area). Strongly agree

6. I would be willing to participate in future consultations related to the Planning and Design Code.

Strongly agree If not, please tell us what would prevent you from participating in future consultations related to planning policy. N/A

Documents

Jim Gronthos Wednesday, 27 March 2019 12:16 PM To: … · 2019. 6. 18. · 1 From: Jim Gronthos Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2019 12:16 PM To: DPTI:Planning Engagement Subject: Council