FROM: Assessment Manager DATE: 20 December 2017 … 3... · up of both detached and semi-detached single storey dwellings being a mix of contributory items and contemporary infill

City of Charles Sturt 152. CAP Report 20/12/17

TO: Council Assessment Panel

FROM: Assessment Manager

DATE: 20 December 2017

HINDMARSH WARD

3.75 37 GREEN STREET BROMPTON SA 5007

Applicant Ms G Stojanovic

Development Application No 252/1485/17

Proposal Land Division - 252/D183/17 creating two allotments from one and Demolition of existing contributory

dwelling and construction of two, two storey detached dwellings

Owner of land Hugo La kin Pty Ltd

Legal Description Lot 94 FP 119512 Vol 5221 Fol 778

Additional Properties No related Properties

Additional Legal Descriptions No related Land

Zone Residential Character

Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton

Historic Conservation Area

Form of assessment Merit

Public notification category Category 1

Agency consultations Nil

Author Anthony bib - Development Officer (Planning)

Attachments Development Plan provisions table

Application documents

Internal comments

Development Plan 5 May 2016

Recommendation Refusal


Report

Background

The subject site has an existing contributory item with associated outbuilding to the rear. A previous application (Development Application 252/1577/16) received Development Plan

Consent for the demolition of the existing contributory dwelling and construction of a single storey detached dwelling and front fence. This application was granted consent in

September 2016 and in August 2017 was granted an extension of time by council for building rules consent to be issued (therefore the application is still current).

Proposal

The proposal seeks the demolition of the contributory dwelling and the large outbuilding to the rear, the creation of two new allotments in a hammer head formation with a front allotment of 250m2 and a rear allotment of 274m2 and the construction of two, two storey detached dwellings, to each of the new allotments.

Dwelling 1 to the front new allotment is proposed to be a 3 bedroom dwelling with the main

bedroom to the lower level and 2 bedrooms and bathroom to the upper level. A kitchen,

family and dining room all form the remaining portion of the lower level. The single garage

to the street frontage is setback behind the main face of the dwelling and the materials and

finishes to the front façade of the dwelling are of a sandstone finish and brick quoin. The side and rear lower level and upper level walls are finished in a paperbark render.

Dwelling 2 to the rear new allotment is proposed to be a 3 bedroom dwelling with all bedrooms to the upper level, with a bathroom, study nook and balcony that cantilevers out

over the rear private open space with a kitchen, dining and lounge room to the lower level.

A single carport to the dwelling is well setback behind the building line and all lower and upper level walls are finished in a paperbark render.

Site/Locality

The site is made up of a regular shaped allotment with a total area of 524 square metres. It

has a Street frontage of 12.19 metres and an allotment depth of 43.03 metres.

The site is located in Residential Character Zone Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton and

currently has a single storey dwelling located on the site. The locality is predominately made

up of both detached and semi-detached single storey dwellings being a mix of contributory

items and contemporary infill development in the form of group dwellings to the north of

the subject site (No. 43, No. 47 and No. 49 Green Street Brompton). Whilst there are some

two storey infill developments in close proximity to the locality (south of Hawker Street)

they are located in the Integrated Medium Density Policy Area 20 and do not contribute to the locality specific to this proposal.


Site and Locality Plan

Subject Site shown in blue, Locality in red


I

., .

j -

Site photo: 37 0 een Street B ompton - 27 June 2017 - Anthony Zollo Planning Officer

I - T.

Site photo: No. 35, 37 & Unit 1/39 Green Street Brompton— 20 November 2017— Subject site

highlighted with red square - Anthony Zollo - Planning Officer


Internal Consultation

Department/Staff Response

Douglas Alexander - Heritage Advisor When assessed, The traditional pattern of

development that was maintained in the

previous approval is disturbed by this land

division and is not supported. The proposed development does not reasonably Comply

with the relevant provisions of the

Development Plan. The development does

not warrant support in its Current form. The

intimate and Consistent small scale

character has been disturbed and is lost through the proposed pattern and

increased density. The design of House two

is a poorly designed functional response to

meet quantitative standards. It has an awkward bulky form, a lack of visual cohesion within itself

Recommendation - Refusal Mark Schuppan - Development and Permit The addition of the 2.7m roller door allows Officer greater manoeuvrability when exiting the

carport for dwelling two.

Council would approve a 3m driveway in this case to serve dwelling two.

Development Assessment

The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The

Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant

provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.

Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered

relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in further detail below.


The following table provides a summary of the proposal against the relevant provisions of .the Development Plan:

House 1 House 2 Development Plan DPP Provisions

______________ Met?

Site Area per 250m2 274m2 250m2 Yes Dwelling

Street Frontage 9.19m 3m 18m - RCZ PDC 10(a) No Width

Building Height 7.03m 7.4m RCZ - PDC 8— new No dwellings should be of similar height,

scale and

proposition of

existing dwellings.

Setbacks Front 5.40m N/A No. 39 (North East Yes

property) is 6.8m

setback

No 35 (South West property) is 3.0m

setback—Average is

4.9 metres.

Side (lower) 0.9m on On boundary RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes - House 1 North East to North East from boundaries No - House 2 Boundary & & 3.5m to when dwelling does 1.15m to South West not adjoin a public South West Boundary. road Boundary.

Side (upper) 2.0m to 1.1m to RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes - House 1 North East & North East from boundaries No - House 2 2.25 to Boundary & when dwelling does South west 2.0m to not adjoin a public boundary. South West road

Boundary.

Rear (lower) From 5.14m RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes existing rear from boundaries boundary when dwelling does 22.46m and not adjoin a public from new road proposed

rear

boundary 7.16m

Rear (Upper) From 6.om RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes existing rear from boundaries


House 1 House 2 Development Plan DPP Provisions

Met? boundary when dwelling does 21.5m and not adjoin a public from new road proposed

rear

boundary 6.24m

Private Open 62m2 57m2 25% of allotment House 1 - Space 24.8% 20.8% size which equates Reasonably

to the following - Complies House 1 62.5m2 House 2 - 68.5m2 House 2 - No

Coverage of POS 3.5m2 6m2 House 1 - 18.75m2 Yes (7%) (10.5%) (30%)

House 2 - 20.55m2 (30%)

Carparking/Access 1 1 1undercover&1 Yes Undercover Undercover visitor 1 Visitor 1 Visitor

Qualitative Standards

Development Plan Met? Scale & Visual Impact Buildings should reflect the desired character for the No

locality and should be built to similar heights, scale and proportions.

Appearance Buildings should be constructed of materials that No complement and reinforce the character and design of the existing locality

Desired Character

The subject site is located in Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton within the Residential Character Zone. The land is also shown to be within a Historical Conservation Area.

The zone embraces areas of historic residential character which have a high level of amenity.

The Bowden/Brompton Precinct contains some of the oldest houses. The subdivision

pattern is one of small narrow allotments. The existing significant buildings are primarily

small, single storey attached and detached single and double fronted working cottages. New

development needs to respond to the special attributes of the respective precinct, including views, vistas, existing vegetation and landmarks.

An increase in the density of housing may take place on corner sites or where dwellings replace a non-complying use or an existing building not listed as a contributory item. Existing

industrial or commercial uses in the zone ought to be replaced with residential uses as development opportunities arise.


It will be important to retain the amenity and character of the area by respecting the existing development pattern of the precincts.

The proposed demolition of the existing contributory dwelling and the construction of two,

two storey detached dwellings does not preserve the existing development patterns within

the locality as Objective 1 requires. While the proposed dwelling to the front can be seen as

reflecting the traditional character elements of the area particularly to the street scape the

upper level component does not. Further to this the hammer head land division proposal

does not provide for adequate driveway width to access the proposed rear dwelling, it does

not reinforce the traditional patterns of development in the immediate locality and an

increase in house density cannot be seen to achieve Objective 2 and 3. The design, bulk and

scale of the proposed dwellings and the land division elements do not contribute to the desired character of the zone as per Objective 6.

The proposal is considered to be unreasonably at variance with the provisions within the

Development Plan relating to desired character.

Land Use/Land Division

The proposal seeks to continue the residential use of the land by way of infill development, with the demolition of the existing contributory item and outbuildings.

Detached dwellings are an envisaged form of development within the Zone. The size of the

land currently of 524m2 can accommodate the minimum site area of 250m2 per detached dwelling required in the precinct. If it was divided in a side by side layout with narrow

frontages to the street this would more closely align with the Desired Character for the area

which seeks to reinforce the pattern of subdivision with small narrow allotments. The form

of the division proposed, placing one allotment to the rear of the other with the front site being 250m2 and the rear site being 274m2 is not in keeping with the traditional pattern of

development that the plan seeks to reinforce.

Principle of bevelopment Control 13 requires a minimum site area of 250m2 and a frontage

of lOm for a detached dwelling with frontages of 7 metres for a semi-detached dwelling and

6 metres for a row dwelling. The proposal does not achieve the minimum 10 metre frontage

requirements for a detached dwelling even if the lots were side by side but would more

closely reflect the established character if the allotments were offered in this way with each

having a frontage of just over 6 metres. The proposed 3 metre frontage for the dwelling

located to the rear is out of character with the locality and desired character and also fails to

achieve a suitable driveway width if landscaping is also provided in this space.

Residential Character Zone PDC 10 also outlines that a new dwelling should not be

developed to the rear of another dwelling where its access relies on a driveway adjacent

to/alongside an existing dwelling unless the site has a minimum width of 18 metres. The

existing allotment has a total width of 12.19 metres, which is well short of this provision.

While the intended land use for detached dwellings may fit with those envisaged for the

zone and precinct the pattern of division, street frontages achieved and access

arrangements to the allotment at the rear fail to do so.


Visual Appearance/Built Form

The proposed dwelling to the front allotment is of a bulk and scale that is reasonably

consistent with the locality at ground level. The setback to the front façade of the lower

level of the dwelling provides for a reasonable design and setback that does not dominate

the streetscape and integrates with older built form in the locality. The upper level has

potential not to compliment the streetscape in the locality as there are no other two storey

dwellings present. This element however has been setback a considerable distance, at some

12 metres back from the front boundary, and well behind the neighbouring buildings that

are setback 3metres to 6.5 metres, so as to not have a detrimental impact on the locality.

The proposed dwelling to the rear has a significant cantilever of the upper level over its rear

yard space. Such a construction technique is not consistent within the locality. Two storey

dwellings to the rear in general are not consistent in the locality, with recent infill

development being only single storey in height and fronting the primary street frontage (not

in a hammerhead configuration). The proposal is therefore considered not to be of a similar

height, scale and proportions along with materials that complement the character and design of existing buildings. The setback provisions of 2.5m to all boundaries are also not

achieved, further exacerbating the visual dominance of the structure.

The proposal is therefore considered to be at variance with the relevant provisions of the

Development Plan with respect to build form, bulk and scale especially for the rear dwelling.

Private Open Space/Landscaping

Private open space areas for each dwelling have been designed to the rear, with dwelling 1 achieving a private open space of 62m2 or 24.8% of the site area, which reasonably complies with council's requirements. Dwelling 2 has only provided 57m2 or 20.8% for private open space, which does not comply with Council's Development Plan Provisions.

The site for the rear dwelling provides for a small 300mm strip of landscaping to the right

hand side of the driveway. The design of this landscaping is well short of the 1.0m wide strip

sought by the Development Plan. This is a result of trying to meet the Australian Standard width of 3.Om with a 300mm overhang for access to the rear allotment.

Therefore the proposed development in regards to provision of private open space for the

rear dwelling is inadequate and landscaping to the handle of the rear allotment does not achieve the policy intent of the Development Plan.

Overshadowing

The proposal of two, two storey detached dwellings has been designed to minimise

overshadowing into neighbouring windows and ground level private open space to the

south-west. The upper level the proposed front dwelling has an upper level setback of 2.25m and would overshadow the rear site's driveway.

The rear dwelling has proposed an upper level setback to the south-west of 2.0 metres

which again would overshadow the proposed driveway and carport and have minimal effect

on the neighbouring land to the south-west of the site.


The proposal addresses the relevant provisions within the Development Plan in terms of

minimising overshadowing.

Overlooking/Visual Privacy

Both dwellings are two storey in form and as such, there is potential for overlooking from

the upper levels to the side and rear of dwelling 1 and in all direction for the rear dwelling.

Most of the upper level windows to the dwellings are shown to be treated with fixed and

obscure glass or sill heights to a height of 1.5 metres above the finished floor level to ensure

that overlooking is minimised from the development.

Therefore, the relevant Development Plan provisions relating to overlooking are considered to be satisfied.

Heritage

The proposal seeks to demolish an existing contributory item and replace it with two, two

storey detached dwellings in a hammer head configuration via the land division that forms

part of this proposal.

The existing contributory item has previously been approved for demolition under an

existing Development Plan Consent which is still valid (DA 252/1577/16). The contributory

item is in poor condition. The applicant has provided a report by NGS Engineers stating that

to make the building habitable would be extremely expensive and not economically viable.

An inspection of the site was conducted by Council's Heritage Advisor (Douglas Alexander) who concurs with this conclusion. The proposed demolition of the contributory item can

therefore be supported because it achieves Principle of Development Control 4 within

General Section, Historical Conservation Area as the condition of the dwellings is unsound

and cannot reasonably be rehabilitated.

The proposed dwellings being two storey in nature and being designed with a cantilevered

upper storey does not achieve Principle of Development Control 1 of General Section,

Heritage Conservation and Objective 5 and Principle of Development Control 1 of General

Section Historical Conservation Area within councils Development Plan in that the

significance of the upper level design is considered to be over development and too large for

the locality.

Dwelling 1, does achieve a number of Principles of Development Control within the

Development Plans Historic Conservation Area requirements in that it generates a

reasonable balance of Contemporary design along with the table ChSt/4 Development

Guidelines for Residential Character Zones in that the scale proportion and mass along with

materials and setbacks is reasonably sympathetic in the locality. While the upper level

design does not achieve PDC 13 in its nature, it is setback at a reasonable distance from the

road frontage to be supported. The proposal for dwelling 1 reasonably complies with

Principle of Development Control 5 and Principle of Development Control 9 in that at ground level it takes appropriate cues from the locality in its façade design and conserves the

existing streetscape.


Dwelling 2 has been designed as a contemporary dwelling to the rear allotment. Whilst there is cues within the locality of development taking place to the rear of existing dwellings,

the proposed dwelling being two storeys in nature does not contribute to the desired

character and does not compliment the historic significance of the area. The design of the

upper level cantilever has been proposed due to the large size of the dwelling.

As outlined earlier in this report, the two storey dwelling to the rear does not reflect

traditional character elements within the locality. The Development Plan promotes an

increase in housing densities within the Precinct, however the proposed bulk and scale of

dwelling 2 does not achieve Objectives 3 and 6 within the Zone section, Residential Character Zone within the relevant Development Plan.

The proposed land division being a hammerhead in its design does achieve the minimum

site areas requirements however, it does not maintain the traditional patterns and scale of

allotments with the locality that are typically narrow and face he primary street. Therefore,

the hammerhead formation is not supported.

The proposal for new dwellings, specifically in relation to dwelling 2, is not of a height, scale

and proposition that reinforces the older style residential buildings contained within the

locality and is considered to be an over development for the locality. As such, the proposal is considered at variance with the provisions within the Development Plan and is not

supported in its current design.

Stormwater Management

A stormwater management plan has not been provided during the amendment stages of the

proposal. Council agreed with the applicant should an approval be granted the stormwater

management could be set as a reserved matter.

Traffic Management and Parking

The proposed development has two access points off Green Street, one to each proposed

dwelling. The driveway and access for dwelling one complies with the relevant provisions within the Development Plan.

Dwelling 2 provides for at least 1 undercover car parking and 1 visitor car park. The driveway

access is to 2.7m in width with a 300mm landscaping strip. This is not supported by council's

traffic engineers as the width does not comply to with Australian Standards 2890.1 which

indicate a minimum width of 3.0 metres for low volume traffic movements. An additional

1.0 metre landscape strip should be provided in addition to the 3.0 metre wide driveway. (A total width should be 4.0 metres).


Conclusion

This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 5 May

2016.

The proposed land division includes the demolition of an existing contributory dwelling and

construction of two, two storey detached dwellings in a hammerhead arrangement.

The land division proposal does not achieve the relevant sized handle to the rear allotment

to provide safe and convenient access and has not.been supported by Council's traffic

engineer. The hammerhead pattern of development is also not supported by Council's

heritage advisor as it is at odds with the traditional pattern of allotments in the locality.

The proposed two storey dwellings are considered an over development for the locality as

the bulk and scale of the dwellings particularly dwelling 2, are not in keeping with the relevant Principles of Development Control which seek development that reflects the single

storey narrow frontage traditional workers cottage built form.

The proposed dwellings are not consistent with the locality and nature of past infill

developments within the street and does not contribute to the desired character within the

Historic Conservation Area.

Overall the proposal is considered to be significantly at variance with the Development Plan.

Refusal is therefore recommended.

Recommendation

Reason for Decision

The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer -

Planning and agrees with the assessment outlined in that report.

That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is

considered to be unreasonably at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles

Sturt (City) Development Plan consolidated 5 May 2016.

That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Approval be

REFUSED to Development Application Number 252/1485/17 for the following

reasons:

• General Section - Land Division - Objective 2; Principle of Development Control 2(a);

Principle of Development Control 4(b); Principle of Development Control 5(b)

• General Section - Heritage Conservation - Objective 1; Principle of Development

Control 1 (a) and (d)

• General Section - Historic Conservation Area - Objective 2; Objective 3; Objective 5;

Principle of Development Control 1; Principle of Development Control 2; Principle of

Development Control 13(a) and (b); Principle of Development Control 17


• General Section - Transport and Access - Principle of Development Control 33; Principle of Development Control 39

• Zone Section - Residential Character Zone - Objective 1; Objective 3; Objective 6;

Principle of Development Control 7; Principle of Development Control 8; Principle of

Development Control 10(a)(d); Principle of Development Control 12; Principle of Development Control 14

In that:

• The size of the proposed allotments is not of a sufficent size and dimensions to

accommodate dwellings that meet Development Plan requirments.

• The design of the land division does not provide for a safe or convenient access to the rear allotment

• The heritage conservation of the area and place has not been achieved.

• The proposal adversely impacts on the aeshetic and architectural culture of the place and area.

• The proposal does not promote, conserve andenhance the significance and historic

character of the area and place.

• The proposal does not compliment the historic significance of the area.

• The proposal does not contribute to the desired character.

• The proposal does not fulfil the guidelines set out in table ChSt/4 - Development

Guidelines for Residential Character Zone and Local Heritage Places.

• The proposals two storey component does not attempt to reduce the impacts on the locality via utilisation of the roof space.

• The land division proposed does not maintain a traditional pattern of allotments.

• The overall width of the existing site is not sufficent to accommodate a hammerhead development.

• The proposed driveway to the rear allotment is not consistent with Australian

standards AS 2890.

• The proposal does not preserve the existing development patterns and built form.

• The proposal does not contribute to the character of the zone and therefore should not be undertaken.

• The new dwellings, particularly dwelling 2, are not of a size, bulk and scale that is

consistent with the character and design of existing buildings.

• The overall frontage is less than that required for a detached dwelling when it replaces a contributory item.

Documents

FROM: Assessment Manager DATE: 20 December 2017 … 3... · up of both detached and semi-detached single storey dwellings being a mix of contributory items and contemporary infill