Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda · Applicant: Arka Building Design Location: 30 Windsor Road, Glenunga Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including incidental fill,

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 06 October 2015 at 6pm

Council Chambers, 401 Greenhill Road, Tusmore

Members: Bill Chandler (Presiding Member)

Donald 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 Kuarna people.

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 01 September 2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

4 APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

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: 5699.1

Page: 1

Application Number: 180\0126\15

Applicant: Mr J Panveliwala

Location: 4 Berry Crescent, Burnside

Proposal: Tennis court lighting

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent be granted

Representors: 270 The Parade, Kensington Park

10 Ringmer Drive, Burnside

5A Berry Crescent, Burnside

Applicant: 4 Berry Crescent, Burnside

(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.

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 06 October 2015


Page: 62


Applicant: Arka Building Design

Location: 30 Windsor Road, Glenunga

Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including incidental fill, double garage, alfresco, balcony and front and side fencing (hebel)


Representors: 2 Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga

1/C Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga

Applicant: 3 McQueen Court, Paralowie


Page: 95


Applicant: Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd

Location: 31 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens

Proposal: Three, two-storey group dwellings including associated garages, porches, verandah and fencing.


Representors: U4/29 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens

34 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens

Applicant: PO Box 191, Torrensville

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)


Page: 144


Applicant: Taking Care of Trees

Location: 35 Hauteville Terrace, Eastwood

Proposal: Retrospective - Tree damaging activity (tree pruning) Council owned tree adjacent rear boundary of 35 Hauteville Terrace, Eastwood


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


Page: 178


Applicant: Access Planning

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 06 October 2015

Location: 21 Stirling Street , Tusmore

Proposal: Retrospective - Brush fencing to portion of western boundary.



Page: 197




Proposal: Retrospective- 1.8m high eastern boundary fence (brush)


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 06 October 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

Nil

Development Assessment Panel Agenda

NOTES FOR THE READER

Purpose

The purpose of each report prepared for the Development Assessment Panel is to assist the applicant, those assessing the application and members of the public alike, to understand all of the relevant factors and considerations involved in the assessment of each particular development application.

Development Plan Assessment

Development in South Australia is regulated under the Development Act, 1993 and the Development Regulations, 2008.

This legislation requires Council, which is a relevant planning authority under this legislation, to assess most applications for development against the provisions of Council’s “Development Plan”.

The Development Plan is a policy document. The policy is formulated by the Council. It uses some “planning language” but is intended to form a useful and practical guide for the public and those responsible for the assessment of development. It is a practical policy document which the planning authority must apply to development assessment in a practical way.

When assessing development, the relevant provisions within the Development Plan are identified. The planning authority will then usually be required to consider whether those provisions speak for or against a proposed development. Quite often the assessment task will require the planning authority to weigh the “pros and cons” of a proposed development by reference to the relevant policies within the Development Plan.

The process involved in the assessment of each development application is contained within the above legislation. Depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the development and the Zone within which it is proposed, applications may be classified as “complying”, “non-complying” or “merit” development. The classification of the application will determine the procedure to be followed under the legislation. Classification will also determine the public notification protocol, that is, whether the planning authority is able to provide public notification and if so, the extent of the public notification.

Representations

Representors will usually be provided with an opportunity to address the planning authority at its relevant meeting if they wish to be heard. In this case the relevant planning authority will hear and consider the representations prior to making its decision. It is the role of the planning authority to act as a mediator or arbitrator between representor(s) and applicant.

The reports prepared by the Council’s staff will not separately address the content of each representation, but rather will deal with relevant town planning issues raised in any representation, together with all other relevant considerations involved in the assessment of a proposed development.

this page is left intentionally blank


06 October 2015

Report Number: PR 5699.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION


Applicant: Mr J Panveliwala

Location: 4 Berry Crescent, Burnside

Proposal: Tennis court lighting

Zone/Policy Area: Residential Zone

Residential Policy Area 27

Development Plan consolidated 30 January 2014

Kind of Assessment: Merit

Public Notification: Category 3

Three (3) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant and third party appeal rights

Referrals – Statutory: N/A

Referrals – Non Statutory: Lighting Engineer

Delegations Policy: Unresolved representations


Recommending Officer: James Moss

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

Internal agency referral report

Representations received

Applicant’s response to representations

Photographs


06 October 2015


1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks development plan consent for the installation of four (4) 7m high light poles and associated luminaires on an existing outdoor tennis court in the rear yard of a residential property at 4 Berry Crescent, Burnside.

2. BACKGROUND

The subject land benefits from two previous approvals relating to the tennis court in the northeast corner of the site. DA 180\1349\14 for boundary retaining walls and fencing along the north, east and south borders of the court was granted development approval in January 2015. DA 180\0150\15 for tennis court fencing on all four sides of the court was granted development approval in April 2015.

The current proposal, DA 180\0126\15, was lodged in February 2015 by the registered owner of the land and determined to be a category 3 development for the purposes of public notification, to be assessed on merit against the current provisions of the Burnside (City) Development Plan.

The application documents were made available for public viewing in early August 2015, during which time Council received three written submissions identifying concerns relating to (amongst others) light spill, visual impacts associated with the height of the light poles, noise disturbance and hours of operation. A copy of all representations was forwarded to the applicant, who has provided a written response and additional information concerning compliance with the relevant Australian Standards for obtrusive light. As part of the assessment process, Council also sought advice from Secon Consulting Engineers to determine compliance with the Australian Standard. The proposal is now presented to the Panel as a Category 3 development with unresolved representations and a staff recommendation of approval subject to conditions.

3. SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY ATTRIBUTES

3.1. Subject Land

The subject land is an irregular shaped allotment of approximately 1788 square metres, with a single frontage to Berry Crescent of approximately 16 metres. The land is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling constructed in 1977 in the Contemporary style. The rear private open space area features an in-ground swimming pool, landscaped areas and recently constructed tennis court and associated fencing on a raised platform in the northeast corner of the site. During an inspection of the site it was observed that two of the four light poles have been erected on the eastern side of the court, albeit without the light fittings (as can be seen in the photos attached to this report).

3.2. Locality

The locality forms part of Residential Policy Area 27 and is characterised by irregular shaped residential allotments fronting narrow, curving roads, with dwellings of both single and two storey construction on elevated land. Due to the foothills location, the variation in


06 October 2015


topography has resulted in a 'stepping' of building platforms throughout the area and a range of boundary retaining wall heights and forms.

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: 10 Ringmer Drive, Burnside (wish to be heard)

5A & 5B Berry Crescent, Burnside (do not wish to be heard)

21 Royal Avenue, Burnside (wish to be heard)

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

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

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7.1. Land Use

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

The development comprises domestic structures associated with an existing residential allotment within the Residential Zone;

The development facilitates and enhances the continued use of the land for residential purposes;

The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the Zone 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.

7.2. Character and Amenity

The proposed lighting will have minimal impact on streetscape character and amenity due to the location of the tennis court within the rear yard of the subject land, approximately 45 metres from the road boundary and concealed behind the dwelling. Tennis courts are a common residential feature across the City of Burnside, particularly so in lower density suburbs such as Burnside. Given the location of the court adjacent two external boundaries and the proximity of neighbouring dwellings to those boundaries there is potential for the proposed lighting to adversely impact other properties external to the subject land. The main forms of


06 October 2015


potential disturbance are light spill, glare and noise and the visual appearance of the poles themselves. With regard to light spill and glare, the applicant has provided calculations from the lighting manufacturer confirming the maximum vertical illuminance to the side of the court will be 9 lux, while the maximum level at the end of the court will be 2 lux. The applicant has also confirmed the luminous intensity, or ‘glare’, does not exceed 2500 cd at any viewing angle external to the site. Based on this information, the proposal has been deemed to comply with the permissible levels established under Australian Standard AS 4282 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, which is commonly held as the appropriate benchmark for determining acceptable levels of light spill and glare in residential settings. With regard to noise disturbance, the tennis court is an existing feature of the land and suitable for domestic use only. Although outdoor lighting will permit use of the court for greater periods in the evening, hours of operation will be restricted to 10pm on weeknights and 11pm on weekends at the absolute latest, in accordance with standard Council practice. The lighting poles themselves are a slim design and painted black to minimise their visual appearance and reflectivity. Although they are 7 metres tall that measurement is taken from the court surface, which sits approximately 2-3 metres below the adjacent dwelling and thereby limits the overall extent of visibility. The luminaires themselves will sit above the gutter line of the adjacent dwelling and as such are not readily visible when viewed from inside the building or around its curtilage. The development is therefore considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Development Plan with respect to character and amenity.

7.3. Public Notification

Council received three written submissions during the public consultation period, two of which expressed an opposition to the development and one in favour, but with concerns. Primary concerns were related to light spill, visual impacts, noise disturbance and hours of operation. Council is satisfied that the planning matters raised through the public notification process are sufficiently addressed through the overall design of the development, insofar as they are to be determined under the Development Act 1993.

7.4. Agency Referrals

Although no statutory referrals were required under Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, Council did seek the advice of an independent lighting expert to assist in determining the suitability of the development against certain provisions of the Development Plan concerning character and amenity.

Council is satisfied that all matters arising through this process have been addressed and resolved.

7.5. 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


06 October 2015


seriously at variance with, and is generally in accordance with, the policies of the Development Plan.

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. Development Application 180\0126\15, by Mr J Panveliwala, 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 The tennis court lighting hereby approved shall not be operated outside of the following hours: Before 8.00am or after 10.00pm Sunday to Thursday; and

Before 8.00am or after 11.00pm Friday to Saturday. Reason: To ensure the amenity of the neighbouring properties is not adversely affected by the proposal.

RECOMMENDING OFFICER

James Moss Acting Team Leader – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land

Representor’s Land


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 2

DETAILED PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Summary of Policy Area Objectives and Principles

Primary Residential Policy Area 27 Objectives:

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

The development does not seek to alter the existing land use.

Domestic tennis courts and associated lighting are a common feature throughout the suburbs of the City of Burnside.

Local Compatibility PDC 1

The proposed tennis court lighting will not form a dominant part of the streetscape, being located beyond the ridgeline of the dwelling and, in the case of the light poles, more than 45m from the street.

Building Set-backs PDC 6

Satisfied.


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

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

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

See policy area comments.

Building Appearance PDC 2–4

See policy area comments.


06 October 2015


Summary of Council Wide Objectives and Principles

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

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.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Building Height PDC 164

Satisfied.

Private Open Space PDC 166, 169

Satisfied.

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

The proposed light poles are a slim design and finished with non-reflective materials to minimise visual presence.

The applicant has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the proposed lighting scheme will comply with the relevant Australian Standards concerning light spill and glare within residential settings.

The Australian Standards are viewed as an appropriate benchmark for determining acceptable levels of light spill and glare in this instance.

Lighting hours of operation shall be restricted in accordance with established Council practice to ensure impacts to adjoining neighbours are minimised within reason.


06 October 2015




Applicant: Arka Building Design

Location: 30 Windsor Road, Glenunga

Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including incidental fill, double garage, alfresco, balcony and front and side fencing (hebel)


Residential Policy Area 24 – Glenunga (North)




Two (2) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights


Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer



Recommending Officer: Troy Fountain

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:



- Appendix 3 – Development Data Table




Internal agency referral reports



Photographs


06 October 2015



The Applicant seeks Development Plan Consent for the following:

Construction of a two storey detached dwelling including incidental fill, double garage, alfresco, balcony and front and side fencing – hebel in material.

2. BACKGROUND

The application was lodged with Council on 7 May 2015 by Arka Building Design on behalf of the registered owner of the subject land Siu Tsui Clara Leung. The application was determined to be a merit type of development, pursuant to Section 35(5) the Development Act 1993. As the application involves the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling with one habitable floor level directly above another, the application was placed on Category 2 public notification pursuant to Residential Policy Area 24 Principle of Development Control 11(a). The application was placed on public notification for a period of 10 business days, commencing 31 July 2015 and concluding at close of business on 18 August 2015. As part of the public notification period, all adjacent land owners/residents were notified of the development and were provided with an opportunity to lodge a written representation to Council. Two representations were received during the public notification period from adjoining land owners/residents. During the assessment of the application obscure glazing to upper level windows were introduced to the southern elevation windows with a potential for overlooking to the neighbouring property. No application for demolition of the existing dwelling has been submitted at this stage. As a number of the representations received indicated that they wish to be heard by the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel), the application is now presented before the Panel for a decision.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises a large corner allotment at the intersection of Windsor Road and Kingsley Avenue. The subject land is located wholly within the Residential Zone and more specifically Policy Area 24 – Glenunga (North). A conventional single storey detached dwelling including two storey component is currently located on site. The subject land is surrounded by a small stone plinth wall with existing 1800mm high fence to the southern and eastern boundaries. The subject land has an overall area measuring 731m2 and a frontage to Windsor Road measuring 20.7m. The site experiences a 1.3m rise from the front north western corner to the rear south eastern boundary. Existing retaining walls are located on site generally to the southern and eastern boundaries.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises properties on both sides of Windsor Road, Kingsley Avenue and Kyle Street within a 100m radius from the subject land. The locality is located wholly within


06 October 2015


the Residential Zone, specifically Residential Policy Area 24 – Glenunga (North) (RPA 24). Detached dwellings of the interwar and post-war styles are the dominant form, however examples of semi-detached dwellings and two-storey dwellings in a conventional architectural style can also be found. The subject land is located at the intersection of Windsor Road and Kingsley Avenue where a slightly larger than normal verge width increases the setback of the allotment from the street.


Kind: Merit





Reason: Residential Policy Area 24 Principle of Development Control 11(a)

Cut / Fill: Any cut/fill proposed on site is incidental to he dwelling construction.

Representations Received: 2 Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga (wish to be heard)

1C Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga (Does not wish to be heard)

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: No



6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The proposal is for residential development in the Residential Zone, a zone which

reflects residential development of the City of Burnside; The proposed dwelling replaces an existing residential property; The proposal is not listed as a non-complying development in the relevant zone

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.

7.2. Character and Amenity The proposed dwelling is considered to be an appropriate addition to the locality based on its overall compliance with built form guidelines of the Development Plan. Residential Policy Area 24 – Glenunga (North) envisages detached dwellings of a low-scale, low density character. The Development Plan seeks to retain the existing and stablished


06 October 2015


residential character of the area which is comprised primarily by interwar and post-war styles. Examples of two storey dwellings can be found within the policy area and locality. The existing dwelling includes a two storey component as part of the dwelling footprint. The dwelling is considered to adhere well with the relevant setback guidelines. The dwelling is to be reorientated to face Kingsley Avenue rather than Windsor Road as per the existing dwelling. The rear boundary would be considered to face east with the upper level to be setback 4.79m rather than 8m as listed within the Development Plan. This element of the proposal is not considered to be fatal and could be considered to be a side boundary setback when viewed from Windsor Road, therefore compliant with the 4m upper level setback requirement. In terms of streetscape impacts and compatibility, the proposal contributes to the “wide variety of styles” envisaged for RPA 21 as a new contemporary home of high quality.

RPA 24 is a low-to-medium density residential area with a character derived from detached dwellings, in a wide variety of styles, predominantly of the interwar period and the post-war period, with moderate building set-backs to the streets and generally open and well-established front yards. The proposed dwelling is considered appropriate within this context, given the modest proportions of the first floor component as viewed from the street, the incorporation of common yet contemporary materials, the comparable external wall heights and roof form, and high level of design and building appearance.

7.3. Amenity As the development involves the construction of a two-storey dwelling, it has the potential to impact on the amenity of adjoining residents in terms of overshadowing and overlooking. Given the development’s orientation and the location of the land, it is not expected to overshadow adjoining land to any significant degree. This is further supported by the shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant. All upper level windows that could overlook adjoining land associated with the side and rear elevations of the proposed development, entail high window sills or fixed obscured glazing, and as such prevent direct overlooking. A condition of planning consent is included in this recommendation to ensure overlooking from side and rear upper level windows is negated. As the dwelling adheres to the natural topography of the subject land, and given existing retaining walls and fencing development on the side boundaries of the land, the development will not create any unreasonable overlooking from the ground level. The proposed fencing and retaining walls are not overly large or dominant so as to adversely impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties. The front fencing proposed consists of a maximum height of 1.8m for a small section facing Windsor Road and 1.2m for the remaining boundaries of the site and is to be (Hebel in material). The fencing is not overly large or dominant and provides both privacy and maintains an open well vegetated front garden area.

7.4. Site Functionality The proposed development is considered to constitute an appropriate planning outcome for the subject land and wider locality.


06 October 2015


The building largely satisfies site coverage guidelines within the Development Plan, providing open space areas on all sides of the property with an emphasis on the rear yard. Private open space to the rear of the dwelling satisfies the minimum requirements and affords reasonable visual privacy and access to sunlight. The configuration of the floor plan provides main living areas with north-facing windows as well as a generous rear yard so as to maximise exposure to natural sunlight. The design does not require notable earthworks and utilises existing retaining walls to achieve a consistent finished floor level, and achieves a benched area which relates well with the neighbouring dwellings to the east and south. The proposed development includes off-street parking facilities for as many as four (4) vehicles with 2 located undercover. The off-street parking proposed is in accordance with the guidelines for residential development set out in Table Bur/5. Suitable access is achievable in the proposed location being a slight movement south of the existing crossover while maintaining a 1m setback to the existing stobie pole. The applicant will need to formalise this when applying for approval under Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999.

7.5. Public Notification During the public notification period the Application received a response from two (2) adjoining land owners. The representations were received from the land owners at the following addresses: 2 Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga 1C Kingsley Avenue, Glenunga One of the representations indicated an opposition to the proposal and a desire to be heard by the Development Assessment Panel. The opposition to the proposal is based on the following reasons: Two storey design of the dwelling; Privacy from upper level windows; Fencing and retaining walls issues; and Architectural style. The proposed dwelling is considered to achieve a harmony with both the existing and desired character of the policy area and Residential Zone. A response from the applicant has responded to the concerns raised by the representations.

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 generally in accordance with, the policies of the Development Plan.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS




06 October 2015


2. Development Application 180\0416\15, by Arka Building Design, 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 Fixed obscure glazing to a height of 1600mm above the finished floor level of the upper level shall be installed to the southern side elevation windows and study eastern elevation window as depicted on the stamped and approved plans granted Development Plan Consent. The 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 approved works may not commence until such time as the applicant has secured written authorisation for the construction of the new driveway crossover from the Council pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999. Reason: To ensure the applicant has secured all relevant consents/authorisations required prior to the commencement of development.

4 The establishment of all landscaping shall be undertaken within 3 months of the substantial completion of development and in any event prior to the occupation or use of the development. Such landscaping shall be maintained in good health and condition to the satisfaction of the Council at all times and any dead or diseased plants or trees shall be immediately replaced to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. Reason: To provide amenity for the occupants of buildings and those of adjacent buildings through the provision of landscaping as part of the development.

Engineering Requirements

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.

Obsolete driveway crossover or part of it is to be closed and reinstated with upright kerbs to match surrounding area.

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.


06 October 2015


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.


Troy Fountain Development Officer – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



06 October 2015


APPENDIX 2



Primary Residential Policy Area 24 Objectives:

Objective 1:

Enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from:

(a) one-storeyed detached dwellings in a wide variety of styles, but predominantly from the interwar and post-war periods; and

(b) moderate building set-backs from roads, 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) in Webb Oval and Margaret Bond Reserve, large open spaces catering for a range of passive and active recreation;

(b) on land with frontage to Portrush Road and to Glen Osmond Road; and

(c) adjacent to the Business (Glen Osmond Road) Zone, the Local Centre Zone and the Community Zone.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.

The proposal involves the construction of a single dwelling on an existing allotment, which is consistent with the existing and desired low density land use.

Although not of the interwar or post-war styles, the contemporary design contributes to the “wide variety of styles” present within the policy area.

The dwelling is sited in a manner that conforms to the moderate building setbacks of the policy area (5.77 metres) and facilitates an open and well-landscaped front garden.


Satisfied.

The proposed dwelling will be one of the limited two storey buildings within the locality, but exhibits appropriate proportions through height and boundary setbacks so as not to dominate its surroundings.

The proposed siting places the greatest mass towards the centre of the allotment to provide visual balance from a streetscape perspective, while the bulk of the façade is adequately broken up by generous fenestration and articulation.

The 5.77 metre minimum front set-back is an acceptable medium between the neighbouring dwellings to the east and south, while the garage, which represents a substantial portion of the building’s mass, sits further back at 8.83 metres.

The use of a moderately pitched roof form with overhanging eaves takes cues from the dominant roof form of the locality.


06 October 2015







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

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:


Satisfied.


Satisfied.

The proposed building envelope permits the establishment and long-term health, growth and stability of substantial landscaping on all sides to soften the visual impact of hard surfaces and enhance local amenity.

The proposed building materials are typical of contemporary residential development and are not considered highly reflective or otherwise likely to cause unreasonable nuisance to residents in the locality.

The development is generally sited to maintain the rhythm of the street by achieving the medium of neighbouring dwellings.

The greater proportion of floor space is confined to the ground floor of the building, thereby reinforcing the single storey character of the streetscape.

The front façade is adequately detailed using a combination of varying setbacks, an open-sided entry portico, a range of building materials and finishes to differentiate the ground floor from the second floor and generous fenestration proportions.

The front entrance is centrally located and clearly apparent from the street.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6

Satisfied.

The finished floor level of 101.25 produces an appropriate balance between both the slope of the land and the siting of neighbouring dwellings either side.

Although raised above the public road the front fence, landscaping and substantial setback from Kingsley Avenue minimises any bulk and scale issues.


06 October 2015






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.



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:

Zoning and Land Use O 52–60

Satisfied.

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

Satisfied.

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

Satisfied.

The associated portico with the dwelling is to be setback 5.77m from the front property boundary, whereas the main façade of the dwelling is to be setback 7.59m.

Side Set-backs Satisfied.

The dwelling is setback a minimum of 1.5m to all property boundaries with the lower level completely compliant with the relevant requirements of the Development Plan.

The upper level is setback at least 4m from side boundaries. If the eastern boundary is considered as the rear boundary the setback discrepancy of 3.2m is not considered fatal and does not result in any adverse impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring property or the locality.


06 October 2015


Rear Set-backs

The rear setbacks are considered satisfactory in creating a separation of space between properties and the removal of any adverse impacts to the amenity of the abutting properties.


Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165

Satisfied.

The proposal comfortably achieves two of the three site coverage guidelines prescribed by PDC 165.


Satisfied.

The proposal comfortably enables for greater than 50% of the total floor of the dwelling to be available for private open space area.

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

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

Although two-storey in nature, the maximum height of the proposed building will sit comfortably within the Council Wide guideline of 9m.

The upper level has been set in from each side boundary at a distance that is compatible with the guideline distance.

The appropriate use of building setbacks on all sides of the proposed building also enables an opportunity for future landscaping to soften the appearance of the building.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176

The proposal includes high level windows which will prevent direct overlooking from the upper level. A condition of planning consent is included ensuring all side and rear upper level windows adhere to Development Plan privacy guidelines.

Access and On-Site Car Parking PDC 177–182

The existing crossover is to be slightly moved to the south of the subject land and is considered of a reasonable length and width.

The proposal allows for two vehicles to be located within the garage, and an additional two spaces being provided within the 8.83m long driveway.

Access to Sunlight PDC 21, 183–186

Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant suggest the extent of shadow cast over the abutting southern property accords with PDC 184.

Fences and Retaining Walls PDC 190–194

Existing fencing and retaining walls to the side and rear boundaries are to be maintained under the proposal.

Safety and Security PDC 195–198

Satisfied.

Water Conservation PDC 200–201

Satisfied.

Energy Conservation PDC 31-32

Satisfied.

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

No significant/regulated trees exist on the subject land.


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 3

DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE

Site Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Area 731m2 550m2

Street Frontage 20.7m 15m

Design Characteristics Proposed Guideline

Site Coverage

- Buildings only 34% 40%

- Buildings and driveways 42% 50%

- Total floor area 53% 50%

Building Height

- storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys

- metres 8.1m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- front boundary 5.77m 8m

- side boundary 5.5m (N), 4.5m (S) 2m

- rear boundary 1.5m 4m

Upper Level

- front boundary 6m 8m

- side boundary 5.5m (N), 12.5m (S) 4m

- rear boundary 4.79m 8m

Boundary Wall

- length N/A 8m

- height N/A 3m

Private Open Space

- percentage 84% 50%

- dimensions 11m x 8m 5m x 8m

Car Parking and Access

- number of parks 4 (2 undercover) 2

- width of driveway 4.5m 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door 30% 33%


06 October 2015




Applicant: Rivergum Homes Pty Ltd

Location: 31 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens

Proposal: Three, two-storey group dwellings including associated garages, porches, verandah and fencing.


Residential Policy Area 2




Two (2) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights

Referrals – Non Statutory: Traffic Management Engineer / Tree Management Officer



Recommending Officer: James Booker

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:



- Appendix 3 – Development Data Table







Photographs


06 October 2015




Construction of three, two-storey group dwellings each including:

Double garage;

3 bedrooms;

4th bedroom (Dwelling 1 only)

Living/kitchen area;

Laundry;

Ensuite;

Upstairs bathroom;

Rumpus room;

Fencing; and

Verandah (Dwelling 1 only)

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0560\15 was lodged with Council on 16 June 2015, by Rivergum Homes on behalf of the owner of the subject land. The application seeks Development Plan Consent for the construction of three, two storey dwellings on an allotment which currently contains one single storey dwelling. The subject land only has one previous application registered for pruning of a significant tree (180/0485/09). As the tree was a pine tree within 10m of a dwelling an application was not required to remove this tree after 28 February 2013. It would appear this tree has since been removed.

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 2 Principle of Development Control 7(a),(b),(c) & (d) of the Burnside (City) Development Plan, due to the two-storey form of the dwellings, boundary walls, finished floor level height and multiple dwellings being located on the site. During the public notification period two (2) written representations were received in relation to the proposal; one being opposed to the development and one being in favour of the proposal but with some concerns. Concerns from all representations focused on issues of density, two storey development, streetscape amenity and front set-back.

During the course of assessment the proposal was also referred to Council’s Traffic Management Engineer and Tree Management Officer to assess the suitability of access arrangements on the Council verge and existing street trees. 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.


06 October 2015



3.1. Subject Land

The subject land consists of a single allotment described as allotment 2 in Filed Plan 2010 in the area named Kensington Gardens within the Hundred of Adelaide, as recorded on Certificate of Title Volume 5837 Folio 778. The subject land is wholly contained within Residential Policy Area 2 – Northern. The subject land is an existing residential allotment on the western side of Sandford Street, within the suburb of Kensington Gardens. The allotment is rectangular in shape and has an area of 1208.7m² and a frontage to Sandford Street measuring 18.62m. An existing single storey conventional style dwelling occupies the land. The land has a gradual slope of approximately 1.5m from front to rear. Existing vehicular access is obtained via a crossover to Sandford Street on the northern side of the allotment. Both adjoining dwellings to the north and south of the site are set on higher ground than the subject land. This has resulted in high retaining walls and fencing on the common boundaries of the site.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises those properties with frontage to Sandford Street from Cuthero Terrace to the south to Magill Road to the north. The locality contains a diverse mix of dwellings of a variety of architectural styles. The locality includes various examples of residential flat buildings including on property abutting the subject land to both the north and south. Detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings are also commonplace. The street has an inconsistent dwelling set-back to the street. Directly to the north of the subject land is a residential flat building with a front set-back of 10m while the dwelling to the south has a front set-back of 4m.

The vast majority of dwellings within the locality are single storey in nature with a variety of fencing styles. As this locality is located within a Residential Code area, the number of two storey dwellings is expected to increase over the coming years.


Kind: Merit

Reason: Section 35(5) the Development Act (1993)




Reason: Residential Policy Area 2 Principle of Development Control 7(a),(b),(c) and (d)

Cut / Fill: Although a degree of cut and fill is to be undertaken, the proposed dwellings with exception of Dwelling 3 largely adhere to the existing bench level of the site. Dwelling 3 is elevated further above the natural ground level of the site which will result


06 October 2015


in higher than usual retaining walls and fencing on the common boundary at the rear of the site but puts the land at a similar level to the adjoining properties north and south. The proposed earthworks are considered to be incidental to the construction of the three dwellings and are not expected to cause significant amenity disturbance to the adjacent properties or the streetscape.

Representations Received: Lee Chong – 34 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens (do not wish to be heard)

Nicole Ditty – 4/29 Sandford Street, Kensington Gardens (wish to be heard)




6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use

In relation to the current proposal, the following comments are made: The development involves the construction of three dwellings on one existing

residential allotment within the Residential Zone; The nature of the proposed built form is consistent with the medium density

residential character envisaged for the policy area;

The proposed allotments are of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate the proposed dwellings in and are consistent with other allotment sizes within the locality;

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



7.2. Character

The proposed development involves the construction of three, two-storey dwellings on an allotment which currently contains one single storey detached dwelling. Council is satisfied that the proposal has been designed to contribute to and be consistent with the primary objectives of Residential Policy Area 2. This position is based on the following considerations:

The proposed buildings are residential dwellings as envisaged by the Policy area and reflective of the density of allotments within the locality and consistent with Objective 1 of the policy area in terms of medium density residential character;

Two storey development, although not commonplace within the locality is not prohibited by the policy area and is easy to gain Development Plan Consent via the Residential Code;


06 October 2015


Although proposed Dwelling 1 does not meet the prescribed front setback guideline, the locality does not exhibit a consistent set-back pattern and proposed Dwelling 1 is set further back than the dwelling located on the adjoining property to the south;

As the dwellings step down towards the rear of the allotment they are not expected to be visually obtrusive to the streetscape. Furthermore the two storey section of Dwelling 1 is set-back a greater distance from the road than the single storey portion of the dwelling reducing its streetscape impact;

Set-back discrepancies to Development Plan guidelines are commonplace amongst existing development throughout the locality as a result of the higher density of the locality;

The dwellings are centrally sited on the land to provide visual balance and maintain siting patterns within the locality;

Whilst the proposal fails to achieve a suitable degree of private open space when compared to total floor areas of the dwellings, it maintains acceptable dimensions of private open space available to the occupiers of the land;

Although the proposed dwelling will result in a degree of total floor area in excess of the Council wide guideline, the level of coverage is consistent with most allotments within the locality as a result of the higher density of the area.

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

Although two storey development is not dominant within the locality, the proposal is consistent with recently constructed two storey development found throughout the suburb of Kensington Gardens.

7.3. Amenity

Due to the replacement of a single storey dwelling with the two storey dwellings, nearby properties and public spaces will have increased views of the development. The impacts to the adjoining properties and the amenity of the locality are considered acceptable based on the following considerations:

The proposed development is consistent with the building density found within the locality considering the many residential flat buildings on small allotments located nearby;

Although the proposal does not strictly adhere to the two storey side and rear set-back guidelines, the adjoining properties to the north are buffered by a wide communal driveway while the dwelling to the west is located a substantial distance from the common boundary. As such there is a visual disconnection between the adjoining sites and the subject land. Additionally there are numerous other examples of set-back discrepancies on adjoining properties;

It is not expected that the proposal will create any stormwater management issues affecting adjoining properties as prior to the issuance of Development Approval the proposal is required to meet the standards of the Building Code of Australia;

Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that removal of the southern street tree is acceptable provided the owners cover the cost of removal and re-planting. Details of this have been laid out in the Section 221 authorisation supplied by Council’s Engineering Services;

The design of the dwellings have been executed to an acceptable standard in terms of materials which are considered appropriate for the locality;

The proposed boundary development largely adheres to the guidelines contained within the Development Plan;

The proposal allows appropriate car parking spaces in accordance with Council’s off- street parking guidelines;


06 October 2015


The proposed boundary fencing and retaining walls are not considered to be unacceptable in terms of visual appearance and height;

The use of varied building set-backs and appropriate articulation on all sides softens the visual impact of the built form when viewed from adjoining properties;

The proposal includes appropriate privacy treatments to the upper level to ensure adjoining properties are not adversely impacted by the development; and

Due to the location of the common driveway and the substantial southern built form set-back the shadow cast by this development is not considered to be unacceptable.

7.4. Site Functionality

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

The proposal includes appropriate car parking space in line with the Development Plans off-street car parking guidelines;

Council’s Engineering Services Technical Officer has reviewed the proposal and has not raised any issues regarding either the proposed vehicular access or stormwater runoff from increased impervious surfaces; and

Each dwelling is benched lower towards the rear of the allotments in order to adhere closer to the natural ground level of the site.

7.5. Public Notification

The proposal was determined to be a Category 2 type of development pursuant to Residential Policy Area Principle 2 of Development Control 7(a),(b),(c) & (d) as the proposal is two storey in nature and includes boundary development. During the public notification period two representations were received from adjoining land owners. The representors have raised concerns about the following:

Set-back from street;

Overshadowing;

Building dominance;

Increased density; and

Building height.

The applicant responded to the concerns of the representors by noting that the proposal meets the site area requirements of the development plan and stating that the locality currently accommodates medium to high density dwellings with many units being located nearby. Further justification of the proposal is also given:

Future development within the area is expected to be of greater density and likely to be two storey in nature especially as the site is located within a Residential Code area;

Articulation of the facade softens the appearance of the dwelling and is similar to the completed development at 9 Sanford Street;

The front dwelling has a greater upper level set-back reducing its streetscape impact;

The buildings are located central to the allotment increasing separation from adjoining buildings;

No overshadowing will occur on 29 Sandford Street; The proposed fencing has a lattice extension to increase privacy; Privacy has been addressed to Council standards.

The applicant also provided shadow diagrams, a landscaping plan and 3 dimensional streetscape drawings to provide further perspectives of the proposal.


06 October 2015


Council is satisfied that although the proposal does not meet all of the guidelines contained within the Development Plan, the proposal has been designed in a manner which sufficiently provides negligible impact to both adjoining properties and the greater locality. The proposed privacy features are suitable to ensure overlooking of adjoining properties will not occur. Although the floor level and resulting retaining walls and fencing to the western boundary of Dwelling 3 are not considered ideal, they are not to a degree which warrants refusal of the application. The applicant has sought to equalise the site levels of the rear of the block to meet the standard set by the adjoining properties north and south. Overall, the proposed fencing is not of a size which would be considered visually dominant or would unreasonably adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining property or locality. 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. Final fencing details, treatments and vegetation removal can be negotiated between the parties via the standard procedures under the Fences Act 1975.

7.6. Agency Referrals

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 or any issues regarding the built form. The recommendations of Engineering Services have been included as advisory notes. Additionally, Council’s Tree Management Officer has confirmed that the tree proposed to be removed is allowable at the applicant’s expense. The final details of this have been confirmed through the Section 221 process.

7.7. 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.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. that Development Application 180\0560\15, by Rivergum Homes 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.


06 October 2015


Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.

2 All side and rear upper level windows (excluding the eastern widows of Dwelling 1) 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.

Engineering Requirements

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

works. Stormwater Detention

Due to the significant 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: - 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 the roof catchment shall be discharged to the street water table

through a sealed system to the satisfaction of the Council.


James Booker Development Officer – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land



06 October 2015


APPENDIX 2



Primary Residential Policy Area 2 (Northern) Objectives:

Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of a residential character that is derived particularly from: (a) dwellings of low-scale and low to medium density, widely varied in age but predominantly of the interwar

and post-war periods; and (b) single-storeyed, detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings, moderately set-back from road

boundaries and similar in scale, that are the dominant built-form features in most streetscapes.

Acknowledged significant variations from the predominant, desired character, forming, nevertheless, part of the character that is to be maintained and enhanced, are found: (a) in an area of recent housing south of Lossie Street, west of Toowong Avenue and north of Beulah Road;

and (b) on land with frontage to Magill Road and to Glynburn Road; and (c) adjacent to the Local Business Zone, the Local Centre Zone and the Community Zone.

Residential Policy Area 2 (Northern) Principle of Development 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:


Satisfied. The proposal maintains the medium density residential character that the policy area displays.


Satisfied. The proposal is not expected to have an adverse impact upon the existing streetscape. The applicant has submitted 3 dimensional diagrams which illustrate that the view of the second storey from the front of the allotment is integrated well in the design of the dwelling.

Site Areas and Frontages PDC 2–5

Satisfied. The proposal meets the site areas and frontage guidelines stipulated by the Policy Area.


06 October 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.


Council is satisfied that the development has been designed to be consistent with the primary objectives for Residential Policy Area 2, having due regard to siting, mass and proportion, materials, roof form and pitch, façade articulation and built form features.

The proposed dwellings are sited on an appropriately sized parcel of lands which are consistent with allotment sizes within the locality. Although the proposal doesn’t meet all of Council’s set-back guidelines, the dwellings have been designed in accordance with the prevailing patterns of space observed throughout the locality and wider policy area.

Design for Topography PDC 5–6

Satisfied. The subject land sloped down towards the rear of the site. The finished floor levels of the three dwellings follow this topography. Ideally the westernmost dwelling would be set at a lower level than proposed however on balance the dwellings achieve an acceptable outcome regarding the topography of the site.


06 October 2015






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.



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:

Zoning and Land Use O 52–57

Satisfied

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

Satisfied. The contemporary appearance of the proposed dwellings in not in conflict with other dwellings within the locality and is expected to make a positive contribution to the locality with the replacement of the existing dwelling on site which has been in disrepair for a number of years.

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

Minor variance. The proposal fails to achieve the 6m minimum set-back guideline. This is not considered fatal to the application as the locality exhibits varying existing set-backs and the proposed upper level is set well behind the facade of the building.

Side Set-backs Minor variance. The proposed dwelling do not meet all northern side set-back guidelines. This is not considered to be of a major concern as the common driveway of the northern property to the north acts as a buffer between the built form.

Rear Set-backs Minor Variance. Dwelling 3 falls short of the 8m rear upper level set-back guideline. This is not considered to be fatal to the application considering the many set-back discrepancies of existing dwellings within the locality.


06 October 2015



Satisfied.

Site Coverage PDC 165

All three dwellings marginally exceed the 50% total floor area guideline. This excess of total floor area however is not considered an overdevelopment of the site as the ground site coverage calculation is within Development Plan guidelines (excluding Dwelling 1 with 0.9% excess) and the built form is not considered to be of an unreasonable scale.

Additionally Council’s Technical Officer of Engineering Services has reviewed the proposal and has not raised any site functionality concerns regarding the proposed site coverage.


Minor variance. All dwellings meet the dimensional private open space guideline but fail to have an area of private open space equal to 50% of the total floor areas of the dwellings. Many residential flat buildings within the locality do not meet the

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

The proposal is not expected to have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity or either occupiers of adjoining land or visual amenity to the streetscape due to the proposed façade treatments and varied set-backs. Additionally, the proposal includes appropriate privacy treatments to ensure minimal interference with adjoining land.

Privacy PDC 22, 174–176

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

The proposal includes appropriate obscure glazing to upper level windows facing adjoining properties; and

The proposal includes suitable fencing height.

Access and On-Site Car Parking PDC 177–182

The proposed access arrangements have been by Council’s Technical Officer and have been determined to be acceptable.

Access to Sunlight PDC 21, 183–186

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposal meets the solar access guidelines contained within the Development Plan. The majority of the shadow cast by the development to the south will be onto the boundary fencing.

Fences and Retaining Walls PDC 190–194

Satisfied. The proposed retaining walls and fencing is considered suitable to maintain privacy to the adjoining property whilst not appearing unacceptably visually dominant.


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 3

DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE

Site Characteristics Proposed

Dwelling 1

Proposed

Dwelling 2

Proposed

Dwelling 3

Guideline

Site Area 402.9m2

(averaged)

402.9m2

(averaged)

402.9m2

(averaged)

375m2

Street Frontage 18.62m 18.62m 18.62m 14m

Design Characteristics Proposed

Dwelling 1

Proposed

Dwelling 2

Proposed

Dwelling 3

Guideline

Site Coverage

- Buildings only 40.9% 34.2% 35.4% 40%

- Buildings and driveways 60.2% 60.2% 60.2% 50%

- Total floor area 65.9% 53% 52.1% 50%

Building Height

- storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys

- metres 7.7m 7.9m 7.8m 9m

Set-backs

Lower Level

- front boundary 4.2m 28.7m 49.3m 6m

- side boundary 0m, 6m 1m, 1m (internal to site)

0m, 1m 1.5m

- rear boundary 4m 4.01m 4.18m 4m

Upper Level

- front boundary 9m 32m 51.5m 6m

- side boundary 8m, 3m 4m, 7m (internal to site)

4.77m, 6.09m 4m

- rear boundary 4.5m (internal) 7m (internal) 4.018m (internal)

8m

Boundary Wall

- length 6.5m N/A 6.15m 8m

- height 2.9m N/A 2.9m 3m

Private Open Space

- percentage 34.5% 28.1% 39% 50%

- dimensions 7.8m x 6.5m 13.1m x 4.01m 6.09m x 5.019m

4m x 6m

Car Parking and Access

- number of parks 2 2 2 2

- width of driveway 5m 5m 5m 4.5m

- width of garage/carport door 25.9% N/A N/A 33%


06 October 2015




Applicant: Taking Care of Trees

Location: 35 Hauteville Terrace, Eastwood

Proposal: Retrospective - Tree damaging activity (tree pruning) Council owned tree adjacent rear boundary of 35 Hauteville Terrace, Eastwood


Residential Policy Area 18 - Eastwood




Nil (0) representations received

Appeal Opportunity Applicant only, no third party appeal rights (C2)


Referrals – Non Statutory: Independent arboricultural expert

Delegations Policy: Development Delegations Policy 6.2.1.5

Recommendation: Development Plan Approval be granted

Recommending Officer: Troy Fountain

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:






Photographs


06 October 2015



The Applicant seeks Development Approval for the following:

Retrospective - Tree damaging activity (tree pruning) Council owned tree adjacent rear boundary of 35 Hauteville Terrace, Eastwood

The subject tree is a 20 metre tall River Red Gum which is part of a corridor of trees in Trust Lane with selected pruning required as identified in the report from Council’s Arboricultural consultant.

2. BACKGROUND

Development Application 180\0432\15 was lodged by Taking Care of Trees on 11 May 2015 and identified as a Category 2 development pursuant to Development Regulations 2008, Schedule 9, Part 2, Clause 25. The tree in question is located between trees one and two identified by markings on Trust lane for tree pruning purposes. The tree in question was not identified by Council staff as requiring pruning, however through error by Council contractors substantial pruning was undertaken to the tree canopy. Council requested the appointment of the DAC (Development Assessment Commission) to act as the relevant planning authority. The DAC did not believe there to be sufficient justification for their appointment as the relevant planning authority. The DAC stated that given the application is to be presented before the DAP (Development Assessment Panel) which provides expert independent decision-making, there was a clear separation between the planning and administrative functions of a local authority. The application was placed on Category 2 public notification for a period of two weeks from 15 June 2015 to 26 June 2015. No representations were received from the notification period. The application is now presented to the Development Assessment Panel (the Panel) as a Category 2 development with a staff recommendation for approval subject to conditions.


3.1. Subject Land

The subject land comprises the public land adjacent to Trust Lane along the rear of the properties facing Hauteville Terrace to the south and Greenhill Road to the north. The public land is wholly located within Residential Policy Area 18 – Eastwood.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the residential laneway known as Trust Lane, characterised by single storey detached and semi-detached dwelling of a single-storey nature generally obtaining primary access from Trust lane.


Kind: Merit




06 October 2015




Reason: Clause 25, Part 2, Schedule 9 the Development Regulations (2008)

Cut / Fill: N/A

Representations Received: Nil (0)



6.1. Land Use


The proposal is for retrospective tree pruning in the Residential Zone in an area which is dominated by residential development; and

Significant tree pruning is not listed as non-complying development for the Residential Zone provisions within the Development Plan;


6.2. Tree Discussion

The subject of this application is a mature River Red Gum located on Trust Lane and determined to be a significant tree for assessment purposes under the Development Act 1993. Given its size, location and age, the tree is considered to make a positive contribution to the character of Trust Lane and amenity of the locality. The Burnside (City) Development Plan places an emphasis on the conservation of regulated and significant trees that provide aesthetic and environmental benefit to the community, yet acknowledges that pruning may also be an appropriate outcome under certain circumstances, such as poor health or risk to public or private safety. In this instance, Council’s contractor was engaged to undertake pruning to five trees located in Trust Lane. Taking Care of Trees (TCT) is seeking authorisation for pruning undertaken incorrectly to a tree not listed under the proposed pruning schedule. On initial review the works appeared to be a tree-damaging activity and therefore required an authorisation under the Development Act 1993. Council engaged an independent arborist assessment carried out by Ben Seamark - Arborman Tree Solutions. Mr Seamark believes 45% of the crown has been lopped which was not undertaken in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard (AS4373-2007). Mr Seamark has also suggested some minor additional pruning which has been listed within Appendix C of his report. Ongoing bi-annual inspection of the tree is required to ensure the crown has been restored. The pruning undertaken incorrectly is considered to be an unacceptable practise in assessment against Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 doe the following reasons:

Increase in the rate of shoot production and elongation;

Weakens regrowth attachment;

Stubs may decay;

Natural tree habitat is opportunity reduced;

May reduce lifespan of the tree;


06 October 2015


Predispose the subject tree to fungal infection and insect attack.

Tree health is considered to be fair at this point in time as a result of the lopping undertaken. There is no need for tree removal at this stage, suggested pruning and ongoing maintenance can maintain the tree in its current state and there is no reason to support its removal at this time.

6.3. Conclusion


7. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0432\15, by Taking Care of Trees, is granted Development Approval subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1 The development granted Development Approval 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.


Troy Fountain Development Officer – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject tree


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 2



Primary Objectives and Principles relating to Significant Trees:

Objective 27: The conservation of significant trees (including significant trees identified in Table Bur/4 and as shown on 1Figures Bur(ST)/1 to 8 inclusive) in Metropolitan Adelaide which provide important aesthetic and environmental benefits.

Objective 28: Development sited and undertaken to retain and protect a significant tree or group of significant trees.

Principle of Development Control 84: Where a significant tree: (a) makes an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area; or (b) is indigenous to the local area and its species is listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a rare or

endangered native species; or (c) represents an important habitat for native fauna; or (d) is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation; or (e) is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment; or (f) forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area; development should preserve these attributes.

Principle of Development Control 90(a): Significant trees should be preserved and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken unless: (a) in the case of tree removal;

(1) (i) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short; or (ii) the tree represents an unacceptable risk to public or private safety; or (iii) the tree is within 20 metres of a residential, tourist accommodation or otherwise habitable building

and is a bushfire hazard within the Bushfire Protection Area shown on Figure BurBPA/1; or (iv) the tree is shown to be causing or threatening to cause, substantial damage to a substantial

building or structure of value; and all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective.

(2) it is demonstrated that all reasonable alternative development options and design solutions have been considered to prevent substantial tree-damaging activity occurring.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Significant Trees O 27-28 PDC 83-92

The tree makes a significant contribution to the local area which although reduced by the lopping is still apparent

Council’s Technical Support Officer has reviewed the pruning undertaken and does not believe there is any risk resulting from the lopping with ongoing maintenance and inspection. Tree health has not been compromised by the pruning undertaken.


06 October 2015






Proposal: Retrospective - Brush fencing to portion of western boundary.

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Policy Area 5 - Tusmore



Public Notification: Category One

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


06 October 2015




Construction of 1.8m high solid brush fencing to 15.6m of the western side boundary.

2. BACKGROUND

In August 2015 the subject development application was lodged with Council. This application was considered a merit type application pursuant to Section 35(5) the Development Act, 1993. The application was referred to Council’s heritage advisor who reviewed the application and advised that the application for fencing could not be supported as it does not display a taper at 4.6m from where it meets the front boundary. Council planning staff relayed the heritage concerns to the Applicant, to which they responded and advised they would not be altering the application details, and the application should be assessed as submitted. 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 comprises a large, rectangular shaped allotment located on the northern side of Stirling Street, Tusmore. The land is located within the Historic Conservation Zone, Policy Area 5 – Tusmore. The land has an overall area of 1326.65m² and a single frontage to Stirling Street measuring 20.7m. Existing on the site is a large, two-storey Bungalow style dwelling, identified as a Contributory Item within the Development Plan. The land is generally flat, and is fenced with masonry pillars and open infill to the front boundary.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Stirling Street where it meets Northumberland Street to the east and Portrush Road to the west. The southern side of the central portion of Stirling Street includes a number of secondary frontages and garaging, due to the configuration of allotments fronting Brandreth Street, Lynington Street and Kennaway Street. Most dwellings within the locality described above are listed as Contributory Items. Buildings with their primary frontage to Stirling Street illustrate deep building set-backs to front boundaries. Due to Stirling Street comprising a secondary frontage to many allotments, particularly on the southern side of Stirling Street, several garages form part of the built form character.


Kind: Merit



06 October 2015




Category: Category One

Reason: Historic Conservation Zone Principle of Development Control 26

Cut / Fill: N/A

Representations Received: N/A

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: N/A

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use


The proposal is for fencing in the Historic Conservation Zone, a zone primarily of residential land uses;

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




The proposed development comprises brush fencing along the front portion of the western side boundary of the land, to where it meets dark grey Hebel some 15.6m from the front boundary. The proposed fencing will constitute 1.8m high solid brush fencing for a distance of 15.6m. With respect to fencing in the Historic Conservation Zone, Table BUR/1 is used as a guide to determine whether particular fencing is appropriate or not. These guidelines highlight that except on the frontage to an arterial road, high masonry or timber walling is not appropriate, as it is likely to obscure a dwelling from the street. This policy is referring to front boundary fencing, as the remainder of the relevant guidelines encourages solid side boundary fencing, noting that

“Solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as timber, corrugated iron (pre-painted if desired), brush or well-detailed masonry.”

As the proposed solid side fencing is to be built of brush fencing, it satisfies the relevant guidelines with respect to side boundary fencing within the Historic Conservation Zone. Council’s independent heritage advisor seeks for side boundary fencing to taper down along the side boundary, at a set-back of 4.6m from the front boundary to where it meets the front boundary, as they believe the proposed fencing as is currently presented will obscure views of dwellings either side. An inspection of the site and locality in general, reveals that views of dwellings are apparent despite side boundary fencing.


06 October 2015


Many dwellings are grand dwellings, and as such 1.8m high fencing is not likely to obscure views of these buildings. Furthermore, such minimal taper length to the front portion of side boundaries is unlikely to result in any significant increase in the visual presence of buildings, as dwellings generally entail deep building set-backs. Given these characteristics, a 4.6m taper to the front portion of the side boundary is unlikely to allow additional views of building that display deep set-back, particularly the dwelling on the subject land that is set-back 11m from the front boundary. The proposed 1.8m high solid brush fencing is not uncharacteristic of side boundary fencing within the locality, and accords with the requirements specified within Table BUR/1 within the Development Plan.

7.3. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. 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. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.


Theresa James Development Officer – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


06 October 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.

Principle of Development Control 10: Fences should be consistent with the historic character of the particular Policy Area and in accordance with the conservation and development guidelines set out in Table Bur/1. Table Bur/1: Except on the frontage to an arterial road, the erection of high walling in concrete, masonry or timber is not appropriate where it is liable to obscure a dwelling from the street, or disrupt the existing open landscaped character of the locality. Relatively low and open fencing is appropriate to enable visually attractive detailing of the design of a dwelling to remain visible from a road. Solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as timber, corrugated iron (pre-painted if desired), brush or well-detailed masonry.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use/Character O 1

The proposed development does not negatively or significantly impact on the existing historic streetscape character. The maximum height of the fencing is not uncommon within the locality, and is lower in height than the existing masonry pillars that form part of the front boundary fencing.

The lack of taper to the front portion of the side boundary, for a distance of 4.6m at the southern end (front) of the side boundary fencing, as desired by Council’s heritage advisor, is unlikely to increase views of the dwelling located on the subject land or adjoining land due to their deep building set-back to Stirling Street.

Conservation Guidelines PDC 10

Table BUR/1 specifies appropriate fencing within the Historic Conservation Zone. It states that “solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as… brush….” As such, the proposed solid side brush fencing is appropriate for the Zone.


06 October 2015





Location: 21 Stirling Street, Tusmore

Proposal: Retrospective- 1.8m high eastern boundary fence (brush)

Zone/Policy Area: Historic Conservation Zone

Policy Area 5 - Tusmore



Public Notification: Category One

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.

Delegations Policy: Development Plan Consent be granted

Recommending Officer: Theresa James

REPORT CONTENTS

Assessment report:







Photographs


06 October 2015




Construction of 1.8m high solid brush fencing to 12.6m of the eastern side boundary.

2. BACKGROUND

In August 2015 the subject development application was lodged with Council. This application was considered a merit type application pursuant to Section 35(5) the Development Act, 1993. The application was referred to Council’s heritage advisor who reviewed the application and advised that the application for fencing could not be supported as it does not display a taper at 4.6m from where it meets the front boundary. Council planning staff relayed the heritage concerns to the Applicant, to which they responded and advised they would not be altering the application details, and the application should be assessed as submitted. 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 comprises a large, rectangular shaped allotment located on the northern side of Stirling Street, Tusmore. The land is located within the Historic Conservation Zone, Policy Area 5 – Tusmore. The land has an overall area of 1326.65m² and a single frontage to Stirling Street measuring 20.7m. Existing on the site is a large, two-storey Bungalow style dwelling, identified as a Contributory Item within the Development Plan. The land is generally flat, and is fenced with masonry pillars and open infill to the front boundary.

3.2. Locality

The locality comprises the streetscape of Stirling Street where it meets Northumberland Street to the east and Portrush Road to the west. The southern side of the central portion of Stirling Street includes a number of secondary frontages and garaging, due to the configuration of allotments fronting Brandreth Street, Lynington Street and Kennaway Street. Most dwellings within the locality described above are listed as Contributory Items. Buildings with their primary frontage to Stirling Street illustrate deep building set-backs to front boundaries. Due to Stirling Street comprising a secondary frontage to many allotments, particularly on the southern side of Stirling Street, several garages form part of the built form character.


Kind: Merit



06 October 2015




Category: Category One

Reason: Historic Conservation Zone Principle of Development Control 26

Cut / Fill: N/A

Representations Received: N/A

Third Party Appeal Opportunity: N/A

6. AGENCY REFERRALS



7.1. Land Use


The proposal is for fencing in the Historic Conservation Zone, a zone primarily of residential land uses;

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




The proposed development comprises brush fencing along the front portion of the eastern side boundary of the land, to where it meets a garage located on the boundary 12.6m from the front boundary. The proposed fencing will constitute 1.8m high solid brush fencing for a distance of 12.6m. With respect to fencing in the Historic Conservation Zone, Table BUR/1 is used as a guide to determine whether particular fencing is appropriate or not. These guidelines highlight that except on the frontage to an arterial road, high masonry or timber walling is not appropriate, as it is likely to obscure a dwelling from the street. This policy is referring to front boundary fencing, as the remainder of the relevant guidelines encourages solid side boundary fencing, noting that

“Solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as timber, corrugated iron (pre-painted if desired), brush or well-detailed masonry.”

As the proposed solid side fencing is to be built of brush fencing, it satisfies the relevant guidelines with respect to side boundary fencing within the Historic Conservation Zone. Council’s independent heritage advisor seeks for side boundary fencing to taper down along the side boundary, at a set-back of 4.6m from the front boundary to where it meets the front boundary, as they believe the proposed fencing as is currently presented will obscure views of dwellings either side. An inspection of the site and locality in general, reveals that views of dwellings are apparent despite side boundary fencing.


06 October 2015


Many dwellings are grand dwellings, and as such 1.8m high fencing is not likely to obscure views of these buildings. Furthermore, such minimal taper length to the front portion of side boundaries is unlikely to result in any significant increase in the visual presence of buildings, as dwellings generally entail deep building set-backs. Given these characteristics, a 4.6m taper to the front portion of the side boundary is unlikely to allow additional views of building that display deep set-back, particularly the dwelling on the subject land that is set-back 11m from the front boundary. The proposed 1.8m high solid brush fencing is not uncharacteristic of side boundary fencing within the locality, and accords with the requirements specified within Table BUR/1 within the Development Plan.

7.3. Conclusion


8. RECOMMENDATIONS



2. Development Application 180\0736\15, by Access Planning 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. Reason: To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the plans and details submitted.


Theresa James Development Officer – Planning


06 October 2015


APPENDIX 1

AERIAL LOCALITY MAP

Legend

Subject Land


06 October 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.

Principle of Development Control 10: Fences should be consistent with the historic character of the particular Policy Area and in accordance with the conservation and development guidelines set out in Table Bur/1. Table Bur/1: Except on the frontage to an arterial road, the erection of high walling in concrete, masonry or timber is not appropriate where it is liable to obscure a dwelling from the street, or disrupt the existing open landscaped character of the locality. Relatively low and open fencing is appropriate to enable visually attractive detailing of the design of a dwelling to remain visible from a road. Solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as timber, corrugated iron (pre-painted if desired), brush or well-detailed masonry.

Subject: DP Ref

Assessment:

Desired Land Use/Character O 1

The proposed development does not negatively or significantly impact on the existing historic streetscape character. The maximum height of the fencing is not uncommon within the locality, and is lower in height than the existing masonry pillars that form part of the front boundary fencing.

The lack of taper to the front portion of the side boundary, for a distance of 4.6m at the southern end (front) of the side boundary fencing, as desired by Council’s heritage advisor, is unlikely to increase views of the dwelling located on the subject land or adjoining land due to their deep building set-back to Stirling Street.

Conservation Guidelines PDC 10

Table BUR/1 specifies appropriate fencing within the Historic Conservation Zone. It states that “solid side fencing should be built of tradition materials such as… brush….” As such, the proposed solid side brush fencing is appropriate for the Zone.

Documents

Development Assessment Panel Meeting Agenda · Applicant: Arka Building Design Location: 30 Windsor Road, Glenunga Proposal: Two storey detached dwelling including incidental fill,