Notice of Council Assessment Panel Meeting · Council Assessment Panel Meeting - 21 May 2019 Page 3 CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 21 MAY 2019 AGENDA 1. Attendance

Notice of Council Assessment Panel Meeting

Tuesday 21 May 2019

MEMBERSHIP

Mr R McBryde Independent Member (Presiding Member) Mr P Dungey Independent Member Mr G Salmon Independent Member Ms B Merrigan Independent Member Mr D Wyld Elected Member

NOTICE is given pursuant to Sections 87 and 88 of the Local Government Act 1999 that the next COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING will be held in the Council Chambers, 571 Montague Road, Modbury on TUESDAY 21 MAY 2019 commencing at 10:00AM

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied

JOHN MOYLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: 16 May 2019

Council Assessment Panel Meeting - 21 May 2019 Page 3

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 21 MAY 2019

AGENDA

1. Attendance Record:

1.1 Present 1.2 Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting

That the Minutes of the Council Assessment Panel Meeting held on 16 April 2019 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

3. Business Arising from Previous Minutes - Nil 4. Reports and Recommendations

4.1 CAP.070/115093/2018 - Deferred Item - Telecommunicaiton Facility (Non-Complying) at 172-178 Lyons Road, Holden Hill ......................................... 5

Recommended to Grant Development Plan Consent 4.2 CAP.070/116238/2018 - Two-Storey Integrated Medical Centre at

Lot 903 The Golden Way, Golden Grove ......................................................... 137 Recommended to Grant Development Plan Consent Deputations:

Grant Croft on behalf of Phil Monfries ................................... (Representor) David Hutchison .................................................................... (Representor) Representative from Evo Arc Adelaide .......................................(Applicant)

4.3 CAP.070/116418/2018 - Demolition of Existing Primary School Buildings

and the Construction of an Early Learning Centre and Reception Building and the Construction of New and Upgraded Car Parks at 4-28 Carignane Street, Wynn Vale ................................................................... 307

Recommended to Grant Development Plan Consent Deputations:

Wlodzimierz Kozlowski .......................................................... (Representor) Nickolas Brenton Horenko ..................................................... (Representor) Representative from Swanbury Penglase Architects ..................(Applicant)


4.4 CAP.070/116552/2019 - Removal of a Significant Tree (River Red Gum) at

68 Littler Drive, Fairview Park........................................................................... 471 Recommended for Refusal 4.5 CAP.070/116253/2018 - Removal of a Regulated Tree (River Red Gum) and

Removal of a Significant Tree (SA Blue Gum) at 2B Kinnaird Crescent, Highbury ....................................................................... 523

Recommended for Refusal

5. Other Business

5.1 E.R.D. Court Matters Pending

5.1.1 CAP.070/115705/2018 - Land Division (1 into 2) and Construction of a

Single Storey Detached Dwelling and Associated Earthworks at 2-4 Honey Lane, Greenwith

Conference to resume on 24 June 2019 to allow for receipt of details for a compromise, and for these details to be presented to CAP at its meeting on 18 June 2019.

5.2 Policy Considerations Planning policy considerations will be recorded in the minutes following discussion

by members 5.3 Pending State Commission Assessment Panel Concurrence - Nil

6. Information Reports - Nil

7. Date of Next Meeting

18 June 2019


Item

4.1

REPORT NO: CAP.070/115093/2018 RECORD NO: D19/29359

TO: COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 21 MAY 2019

FROM: Daniel Oest Senior Planning Officer

SUBJECT: DEFERRED ITEM - TELECOMMUNICAITON FACILITY

(NON-COMPLYING) AT 172-178 LYONS ROAD, HOLDEN HILL

SUMMARY

Applicant: Telstra Nature of Development: Telecommunication Facility (Non-Complying)

Address: 172-178 Lyons Road HOLDEN HILL SA 5088 Application No: 070/115093/2018

Lodgement Date: 04 May 2018 Development Plan: 29 September 2016 Zone and Policy Area: Residential Zone (No Policy Area) Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives

Residential Zone 3 Infrastructure 1, 2, 4 Interface between Land Uses 1, 2

Telecommunication Facilities 1, 2

Principles of Development Control Residential Zone 1, 2, 4 Infrastructure 11 Interface between Land Uses 2 Telecommunication Facilities 1, 2

Public Notification: Category 3 Number of Properties Notified: 50 Number of Representations Received: 9 Names and Addresses of Representors: Joan Connelly* 10 Cortina Avenue, Holden Hill Dorota Dudzinski 153 Lyons Road, Dernancourt and

13 Brabham Avenue, Holden Hill


Item

4.1

Robert and Stephanie Noyce* 6 Chrysler Drive, Holden Hill Coralie Scales 8 Chrysler Drive, Holden Hill Adam Serotzki 3/12 Cortina Avenue, Holden Hill Rebecca Snell* 8 Cortina Avenue, Holden Hill Fiona and Neville Turnbull* 1/12 Cortina Avenue, Holden Hill John Moyle – CEO City of Tea Tree Gully 13 – 15 Cortina Avenue, Holden Hill Nicola Winkworth 1 Chrysler Drive, Holden Hill * representors wishing to be heard by the

Panel. Number of Representors wishing to be heard: 4 Schedule 8 Referral: Not required

Was a request for additional information made? Yes

Issues: Appropriateness of land use, devaluation of properties, impact on

visual amenity, health impacts Recommendation: Development Plan Consent subject to conditions and

concurrence of the State Commission Assessment Panel

1. PROPOSAL

The application is for a telecommunication facility including monopole with headframe, antennae, and compound comprising an equipment shed and fencing.

The monopole is to attain a height of 35.6m, with a maximum height of 36.45m inclusive of the affixed antennae.

A compound to the base of the tower will measure 5.0m in width and 10.0m in length with a 2.6m high chain mesh fence to its perimeter.

The compound will accommodate the tower and an equipment shed 3.15m in length, 2.38m in width and height of 2.7m.

The proposed equipment shelter and monopole is to be painted “pale eucalypt” (green) with a black PVC coated perimeter fence.


Item

4.1

2. BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 16 April 2019, the Council Assessment Panel (CAP) resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide the following:

Further information demonstrating the need for the proposed telecommunication facility in the proposed location, whilst discounting the feasibility of other sites within the adjacent Infrastructure Zone.

The original CAP report can be found within Attachment 1, and minutes of the meeting within Attachment 2.

3. FURTHER / AMENDED INFORMATION

The applicant has supplied an aerial plan of the locality designating a ‘target area.’

A ‘prime candidate’ (proposed location) and a ‘reservoir candidate’ (the nearest portion of land within the Infrastructure Zone to the east of the locality) have been shown on alternate aerials.

The percentage of the target area that could be serviced by a facility at each candidate has been highlighted on the respective plans.

This additional detail can be found in Attachment 3.

Visionstream (Telstra) has offered a technical consultant to meet with Council to alleviate concerns, however, staff have requested that the technical consultant to be available at the meeting for the benefit of the CAP members.

4. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

4.1 Colour and Finish

Since the outcome of the 16 April 2019 CAP meeting, the Chief Executive Officer of Council has confirmed that the colour scheme nominated in the lease agreement is to be amended to a more desirable colour at the discretion of the CAP. The tower is no longer limited to pale eucalypt. The colour of the tower and headframe is therefore recommended to be Wattyl blue-grey (N53) in satin finish. This colour and finish will mirror the outcomes of a number of Environment and Resource and Development Court and Supreme Court decisions where minimisation of visibility were considered. Subsequently Condition 2 of the recommendation has been amended to reflect the suggested colour change. Condition 2 has also been amended to consider attachments to the shelter or tower, and any future expansions of the facility including third party infrastructure. This is considered necessary to further minimise visibility of the facility.


Item

4.1

4.2 Location of Infrastructure

The applicant has provided detail (see Attachment 3) that demonstrates an identified target area in which it seeks to improve the telecommunication service.

The detail highlights the percentage of the target area that can be serviced by either facility options (prime candidate or reservoir candidate) on respective plans.

From the information supplied, it is demonstrated that the prime candidate will service 88% of the target area, whereas the alternate reservoir candidate will service 69% of the target service area. Neither option will provide 100% service to the target area.

The applicant has advised that the prime candidate is able to deliver a greater percentage of service to the target area, and this is why the selected site is ideal. A facility at the reservoir candidate will be unable to achieve the level of service required for the target area.

5. CONCLUSION

With the ability to condition a colour, visibility of the structure will be considered to be minimised as far as practically possible given the height of the proposed structure and location. The information submitted in response to the deferral is considered to adequately demonstrate that the level of service provision will be greater in the facility’s proposed location.

The recommendation remains for Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions and concurrence by the State Commission Assessment Panel.

6. RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to the authority delegated to the Council Assessment Panel by Council, the Council Assessment Panel:

A. RESOLVES that the proposed development is not seriously at variance with the

policies in the Tea Tree Gully (City) Development Plan.

B. RESOLVES to GRANT Development Plan Consent to the application by Telstra to Construct a Telecommunication Facility at 172-178 Lyons Road Holden Hill as detailed in Development Application No. 070/115093/2018 subject to the concurrence of the State Commission Assessment Panel, and the following conditions and advisory notes:

(1) The development shall be undertaken, completed and maintained in

accordance with the plan(s) and information detailed in Application No. 070/115093/2018 except where varied by any condition(s) listed below: In particular—

The site plan site works and elevations submitted by Telstra Drawing Number S107277, Sheet numbers S1, S1-1, S1-2, S3, S3-1, and G8, and

The Tree Report by Tree Environs Dated 09 July 2018.


Item

4.1

(2) The tower and headframe and all attachments to the tower including cable

trays, cabling and future third party attachments shall be painted “Wattyl blue-grey (N53)” in a satin finish. The equipment shelter including all attachments or any future third party equipment shelters shall be painted “pale eucalypt” in a satin finish. The perimeter security fence is to comprise black PVC coated chainmesh, with all fence supports painted black to match. All paintwork and finishes shall be completed prior to the commencement of use of the facility and shall be maintained in good condition at all times, subject to the ongoing reasonable satisfaction of Council. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the subject site and locality.

(3) All landscaping proposed shall be planted and in place prior to the

commencement of the use of the facility, and shall remain in place for the life of the facility. All landscaping is to be maintained in good condition and be replaced should it become diseased or dies subject to the ongoing reasonable satisfaction of Council. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the subject site and locality.

(4) Barrier fencing or bunting is requires around designated work zones to

prevent workers and machinery coming too close to the trees and to avoid machinery contact with tree trunks and branches Reason: To maintain the health and integrity of existing vegetation.

(5) The trees affected by the development or within the development site area

shall be well protected during all phases of the construction process. Areas for parking, storage, waste disposal, mixing and wash out areas shall be clearly defined, well away from the tree protection zones. No material shall be stored against trees. Reason: To maintain the health and integrity of existing vegetation.

(6) Trenching shall be undertaken adjacent to the trees with care, in a controlled

fashion in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. A qualified arborist shall be on site to assist with this work. Any large

roots encountered shall be cleanly cut by hand sharp using tree pruning tools. Excavation shall be kept to the minimum required to install the pipe. Reason: To maintain the health and integrity of existing vegetation.

(7) Open trenching is acceptable past those trees that have been determined to

have a minor or moderate impact rating. Open trenching within a TPZ shall be undertaken with extreme caution, and shall only be undertaken under in the presence of the project arborist as follows:

Mark out proposed works on the soil.

o A spotter shall work in conjunction with the excavator to avoid

tree damage. o Assess the potential for contact by machinery on tree crowns

above.

o Take action as necessary to prevent damage to the crown.

Position machinery away from the trees and avoid contact with the trunk and branches.

Excavations shall be carried out in conjunction with the project arborist to observe and advise on management of tree roots.


Item

4.1

Avoid over-excavation beyond the defined trench.

Where necessary, it is acceptable to cut tree roots within the TPZ (but not in the SRZ) below 30mm diameter with sharp tools such as secateurs, long handled pruners or handsaws.

Trenches to be backfilled as soon as possible to prevent roots drying out, and the backfilled trench irrigated with a water tanker.

Reason: To maintain the health and integrity of existing vegetation. Note(s)

(1) This consent does not obviate the need to obtain any other necessary

approvals from any/all parties with an interest in the land. (2) The applicant/developer is reminded of its general environmental duty, as

required by section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure the activities on the site (including during construction) do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. This includes being mindful of and minimising off site noise, dust and vibration impacts associated with development.

(3) The cost of rectifying any damage or conflict with existing services or

infrastructure arising out of this development will be borne by the applicant.

(4) Any works undertaken on Council owned land (including but not limited to works relating to reserves, crossing places, landscaping, footpaths, street trees and stormwater connections and underground electrical connections),require a separate authorisation from Council. Further information and/or specific details can be obtained by contacting Council’s Civil Operations department on 8397 7444.

Attachments 1.⇩ CAP Report - Meeting 16 April 2019...................................................................... 11 2.⇩ Minutes of CAP Meeting (Extract) - 16 April 2019................................................ 127 3.⇩ Submission by Applicant ..................................................................................... 131

Report Authorisers

Daniel Oest

Senior Planning Officer 8397 7370

Nathan Grainger

Manager City Development 8397 7200

Carol Neil

Director Community & Cultural Development 8397 7341


Item

4.2



FROM: Chelsea Tully Senior Planning Officer

SUBJECT: TWO-STOREY INTEGRATED MEDICAL CENTRE AT

LOT 903 THE GOLDEN WAY, GOLDEN GROVE

SUMMARY

Applicant: Evo Arc Adelaide Nature of Development: Two-storey Medical Centre with associated Undercroft Car Park,

Café, Pharmacy, Landscaping and Earthworks Address: Lot 903 The Golden Way, Golden Grove SA 5125

Application No: 070/116238/2018 Lodgement Date: 20 November 2018 Development Plan: Consolidated 29 September 2016 Zone and Policy Area: District Centre Zone

Golden Grove District Centre Policy Area 2 Golden Grove Mixed Use Precinct 5 Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives:

Building Near Airfields 1 Centres and Retail Development 1, 2, 3, 5 Crime Prevention 1 Design and Appearance: 1, 2 Energy Efficiency 1 Interface between Land Uses: 1, 2, 3 Landscaping, Fences and Walls: 1, 2 Natural Resources: 1, 5, 6, 7 Orderly and Sustainable Development: 1, 2, 3, 4 Transportation and Access: 2, 4 District Centre Zone 1, 2, 5 Policy Area 1, 2, 3, 7, 10

Principles of Development Control: Building Near Airfields 1, 9 Centres and Retail Development 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 Crime Prevention 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Design and Appearance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 Energy Efficiency 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Interface between Land Uses: 1, 2, 3, 6


Item

4.2

Landscaping, Fences and Walls: 1, 2, 3, 4 Natural Resources: 5, 7, 9, 14 Orderly and Sustainable Development: 1, 6, 8 Transportation and Access: 5, 8, 9, 14, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 50, 51 District Centre Zone 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 Policy Area (and Precinct) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

Public Notification: Category 2

Number of Properties Notified: 15 Number of Representations Received: 3 Names and Addresses of Representors: John Moyle, CEO City Tea Tree Gully

571 Montague Road, Modbury Grant Croft on behalf of Phil Monfries,* Centre Manager Grove Shopping Centre Lot 1037 The Golden Way, Golden Grove David Hutchison on behalf of Helping Hand,* Lot 902 The Golden Way, Golden Grove

* representors wishing to be heard by the Panel.

Number of Representors wishing to be heard: 2 Schedule 8 Referral: Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and

Regional Services (Airport Building Heights) Was a request for additional information made? Yes Issues: Built form, landscaping and verge encroachment

Recommendation: Development Plan Consent subject to conditions

1. PROPOSAL

This application seeks consent for the development of a vacant allotment by constructing a two-storey medical centre building with associated under croft car park, café, pharmacy, landscaping and earthworks. The layout and design of the building comprises the following:

Upper Level - Eight (8) consulting room tenancies (2263m² total floor area).

Ground Level - Medical Centre (694m² floor area) - Pharmacy (353m² floor area) - Café (84m² floor area)


Item

4.2

- Consulting room tenancy (442m² floor area) - Car park comprising 58 vehicle spaces and 21 bicycle spaces - Waste storage and loading area.

Semi-basement level - 141 vehicle parking spaces.

Exterior wall finishes constructed using precast rendered panels, timber cladding (or similar), Colorbond fascia/cladding, brick facing and powder coated aluminium screening. External colour finishes range in colours such as white, dark grey, browns (timber), and sandstone.

Colorbond roofing with 3 degree pitch. The centre will operate during the hours of 7:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 1:00pm Saturday, and will be closed on Sundays. The anticipated number of staff members for the centre in its entirety is 48 people. Access is via an existing common driveway running along the western boundary. This road provides access by way of multiple right of way easement rights across adjoining sites Lot 901 (child care centre), Lot 902 (Helping Hand Aged Care Facility) and Lot 904 (vacant). Landscaping is proposed as part of this development and located primarily within the adjoining council-owned screening reserve. Site works required for this development comprise up to 3.5m cut at the north-eastern corner and 1.5m fill at the south-western. Site works are to be retained by the building as opposed to separate retaining wall structures. Stormwater is to be directed to the internal roadway via an underground detention facility. The applicant has confirmed that outdoor advertising does not form part of the current application and will be subject to a separate development authorisation.

2. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Kind of Development

The Development Plan does not assign a medical centre, consulting room or shop as a ‘non-complying form of development, nor is the development listed as ‘complying’ in the Development Plan or the Development Regulations 2008 (‘the

Regulations’). The application has therefore been assessed on merit. Having regard to the zoning of the site and the proposed commercial land use, it is considered that the development is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (‘the Act’).


Item

4.2

2.2 Schedule 8 Referral(s)

The subject site is located within Area D on Overlay Map TTG/1 Development Constraints, which nominates a maximum building height of 15m.

The building has been designed with a small section which measures approximately 15.6m from the finished ground level to top of the roof. The application is therefore subject to a referral to the Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Adelaide Airport Authority reviewed the application and advised that there are no objections to this development, see Attachment 20. With respect to access, the application proposes a driveway off of the common roadway approved in the land division application 070/112042/2016, which also contemplated the proposed land use to an extent. Given this proposal does not include an additional access point, nor does it change the nature of access approved in the land division application, it did not warrant a referral to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that the Regulations or a Development Plan may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. The District Centre Zone of the Development Plan does not assign any development to a particular category. Clause 18(c) in Schedule 9 of the Regulations states that any development in a centre zone is assigned to Category 2 where the development is adjacent to land in a zone which is different to the zone which applies to the site of development. In this instance, as the subject site is located in the District Centre Zone and is adjacent land in the Residential Zone, the application was determined to be Category 2. Fifteen (15) properties were notified, and three representations were received during the notification period of which two wish to be heard. The concerns raised by representors include:

Landscaping within the screening reserve should enhance the area and be planted immediately after completion of the construction works

Formal approval needs to be sought for the legal arrangements over Council land, and the existing footpath to remain unaffected

A pharmacy use already exists in the nearby shopping centre, thus undermining the intent of Core Retail Precinct, which includes providing a range of shopping needs for the community

There are restrictions in place for the location of pharmacies as they need to be sufficiently distanced from other pharmacies, including the one in the shopping centre

This is a hypothetical application as the pharmacy separation requirements have not been met


Item

4.2

Only the café use is consistent with the Desired Character Statement for the Mixed Use Precinct

Development undermines the strong policy intent for the zone by placing shop and consulting room in the Mixed Use Precinct

Removal of vegetation and replacement landscaping to the screening reserve, along with building a canopy over the reserve, should be decided by the Council prior to assessing this planning application

Landscaping on the site is only 40m² plus small planter boxes, which is not sufficient having regard to the zone and policy area provisions, whilst the Helping Hand site next door has incorporated landscaping in its design

Views of the development from the Helping Hand site (and a thoroughfare, which is a public place) will be exacerbated by extensive car parking areas and limited screening that has a vivid white finish, unscreened waste storage and collection areas, and unrelieved views across the car park to the extensive building areas standing over 19m at highest level

Waste collection area has limited screening

Car park design does not achieve the requirement for avoiding large areas of hard paved surfaces, and is visually dominant, projecting some 5m above ground level

The use of highly reflective gloss white finishes to screening panels exacerbates the visual impact

There should be a reduction in number of car parks as they are well above the minimum and could achieve more meaningful landscaping and soften the appearance presenting to the Helping Hand building

The raised entry treatment to the corner stands above the roofline and will be visible from the Helping Hand site. The scale of this is not compatible with adjoining land uses

The shortcomings of the design results in an overdevelopment of the site.

In response to the representations, the applicant has offered the following:

The applicant is undertaking the suggested requirement for obtaining formal approval and legal arrangements

The proposed use reflects the intent of the land division documentation, and the pharmacy use is integral to operation of the facility

Competition is not a planning issue and expected patrons are not likely to be generated from the nearby shopping centre

Separate legislative requirements for pharmacy separation distances will be dealt with outside the planning application

Landscaping has been provided as part of the proposal and developed by a Landscape Designer. The landscaping also reflects the intent illustrated as part of the land division and Land Management Agreement documentation

Helping Hand designed their complex with the full knowledge of the proposed development and were part of the initial master planning process

The Helping Hand building only has five (5) windows that face toward the site

To soften the appearance of the medical centre, landscaping has been incorporated to a height of 1.2m above ground level, and this complements extensive landscaping along the Helping Hand development

Location of the waste collection facility was also nominated on the master plan, and with most Helping Hand bedrooms having a north south orientation, these rooms will not overlook the waste storage area


Item

4.2

The applicant rejects the assertion that the private roadway is a public space, and the assertion that extraneous materials will be stored in the open particularly given there are strict requirements for managing medical waste

The car park has been located at the rear in order to achieve the landmark corner policy objectives, and screening has been provided to substantially diminish the visual impact of the parking area

The building height has been reduced from the original concept, and the building will not be visible from most of the windows in the Helping Hand building

It is acknowledged that the development occupies 100% of the total site area, which reflects the master planning details provided at the time of land division.

4. SITE AND LOCALITY

Figure 1: Location Plan

The subject site is Lot 903 The Golden Way, Golden Grove, and is located in Precinct 5 (‘the Precinct’) of the Golden Grove District Centre Policy Area 2 (‘the Policy Area’), within the District Centre Zone. The site originally formed part of a parent allotment known as Lot 504, which takes up a considerable amount of the Precinct. This allotment was divided to create Lots 901, 902, 903 (subject site) and Lot 904. The site is generally regular in shape with an area comprising 4792m², a frontage of approximately 59m to The Golden Way and a frontage of approximately 62m to The Grove Way. Located between the site boundaries and the road verge is approximately 4m wide Council-owned screening reserve (Lot 1004), which restricts vehicle access to and from the arterial roads. Access is gained using the internal roadway which runs along the western boundary of this site. The roadway was created as part of the division of Lot 504 and maintains access rights to the four allotments via a series of rights of way and servicing easements.


Item

4.2

The land has a notable slope from the north-eastern corner down to the south-western corner of up to 4.6m, with the natural ground level having changed over time due to fill being placed on the land. The land is currently vacant. There are no regulated trees on the land, and a number of easements exist on the site for servicing purposes. The locality comprises land both within the District Centre Zone and Residential Zone, with land to the south and west comprising a number of commercial uses such as aged care (nursing home), child care, and recreational uses. Land to the north comprises shopping centre, retail, restaurant and consulting room land uses. Land to the east is entirely residential comprising medium density housing. The combination of land uses in the surrounding area is reflective of the nearby boundary between the District Centre and Residential zones. The scale of the built form within the locality ranges from single storey commercial buildings, a three storey aged care facility, two storey commercial building and up to three storey residential flat buildings. There is a moderate level of landscaping in the locality, particularly in the form of dense plantings and decorative rocks along the public road frontages and at the intersection of The Golden and The Grove Ways. The centre otherwise comprises low level landscaping, with mature low scale plantings in nearby residential areas. The subject site is located within the Mixed Use Precinct of the Policy Area, with the Retail Core Precinct located on the northern side of The Golden Way, the Golden Grove Community Precinct located further south, and the Golden Grove Commercial Precinct to the north east. These precincts are illustrated on Precinct Map TTG/11.


5.1 Land Use

The provisions of the Precinct with the Policy Area envisage land uses in the form of dwellings with non-residential development, entertainment venue, office, and shop, see Policy Area Principle of Development Control (PDC) 37.

Policy Area PDC 38 also states that development in the Precinct should achieve an integrated transit-oriented precinct (TOD), and Policy Area PDC 45 calls for any shop development to be developed as part of a TOD, having direct linkages to Precinct 3 (Core Retail) and having a maximum floor space of 150m² per tenancy. The intent for the Policy Area of this particular District Centre Zone is reflected in Concept Map TTG/1. The core and peripheral areas of the northern section are

earmarked for retail land uses, while the southern section where this site is located is intended for mixed use and community/educational/recreational in conjunction with the Park and Ride public transport facility. More generally, a wide range of land uses are sought in the District Centre Zone, which includes consulting room, health facility, hospital and shop, as detailed in District Centre Zone Objective 1 and PDC 1.


Item

4.2

Whilst not achieving the intent for the Policy Area and Precinct, the development proposes a medical centre comprising consulting room and shop facilities which is consistent with the zone generally. It is considered that this development does not compete with the northern (Core Retail) section of the Zone, and as such the development of a medical facility on land adjacent to aged care and child care facilities does not contravene the intent of the concept for the Zone, as sought in Policy Area PDC 2. It is also worth noting that the original vision for the Precinct is unlikely to be realised in accordance with the policy for the following reasons:

The developer of the parent land at Lot 504 (and current applicant) has indicated that the development of a TOD with entertainment precinct is not feasible and not intended for the land.

The Precinct provisions also contemplate direct pedestrian access between the Precinct and neighbouring Core Retail Precinct in the form of a grade-separated walkway across The Golden Way. This walkway will not be constructed by any of the relevant parties for a range of funding, maintenance, safety and topographic reasons.

Panel Members are also advised that a review of Land Management Agreements (LMA) over the parent property Lot 504 was undertaken as part of the recent land division approval in 2017. A copy of the current LMA has been included as Attachment 28 to this report. The original LMAs were rescinded and the new LMA created as part of a number of Council resolutions. The proposed land use is consistent with the Parties Obligations of the LMA as the use does not replicate an approved land use on adjoining properties at Lots 901, 902 and Lot 904. Land uses such as a medical centre, consulting room and shop are encouraged where not exceeding 250m² so as to achieve a mixture of uses within the Precinct.

5.2 Design and Appearance

5.2.1 Building Height

Policy Area PDC 46 states that development on this site should achieve a maximum building height of 12m, and that any portion of building exceeding 12m in height should be located behind the front section of building facing the road at a minimum distance of 3.0m behind the main building line. Furthermore, Building Near Airfields PDC 9 states that buildings should not exceed the airport building height listed in Concept Map TTG/13, being 15m for

this site. The proposed development consists of a two storey building (above ground level) ranging in height from 14.17m at the corner of The Golden and Grove Ways, reducing to 11.9m at the western end of the Golden Way frontage, and reaching 13.2m at the southern end of the Grove Way frontage. The height of the building within the allotment adjacent the south-western corner reaches a height of approximately 15.5m.


Item

4.2

The building exceeds the building height envisaged for the Precinct. However, noting the roof line and facades are angled, the building does not present as a large bulky building and is not considered unsympathetic to the scale of development in the locality. The portion of building height exceeding 15m in height resulted in the need for a formal Airport Building Height referral. As noted in Section 2 of this report, the advice provided on behalf of the Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and Regional Services confirmed that there are no issues with the proposed development as there are surrounding buildings of similar height, see Attachment 20.

The design also includes roof plant room facilities, which are located in three areas, and all are located at least 8.0m from all boundaries and approximately 6.0m behind the main face of the building. This is considered appropriate having regard to Policy Area PDC 46 in that they are setback more than 3.0m from the

front of building along the road frontage. Council’s Urban Design Consultant also reviewed the design and advised that the building is an appropriate height and scale for the landmark corner (Attachment 23). In recognising the scale of the development it is appropriate within the context of the local area and will not impact nearby airfields, therefore the proposed building height is considered acceptable.

5.2.2 Building Facades and External Materials

As noted in Section 1 of this report, the building is to be constructed using a variety of materials including precast rendered panels, timber cladding (or similar), Colorbond fascia/cladding, brick facing and powder coated aluminium screening. The use of multiple materials on the external facades creates visual interest, reduces the overall perception of bulk, and avoids large blank walls presenting to the public realm. This is consistent with Design and Appearance PDCs 1 and 16.

The proposed materials are not considered to be highly reflective in nature, and therefore will not result in glare for neighbouring properties or road users. In particular, white powder-coated permeable screening is not considered unreasonable in this location, particularly facing south away from the direction of the sun. As such, the development has been assessed as meeting the intent of Design and Appearance PDC 3. The proposed development occurs on a major corner site at the intersection of The Golden and The Grove Ways. Policy Area PDC 16 states that development on major corner sites should define

and create a landmark building which addresses all street frontages, and incorporates articulation into the design of the building.


Item

4.2

Policy Area PDC 44 for the Precinct also states that buildings fronting the corner of The Golden Way and the Grove Way should address the corner, be built to the front property boundaries, incorporate verandahs and create a landmark building. The building has been designed with appropriate materials, and having regard to the varying building heights and projecting elements, it is considered that this building has been designed to a high standard which presents well to the corner.

This has been reflected in the advice of Council’s Urban Design Consultant, see Attachment 23. The building also provides a defined entry at the corner and incorporates a high level of window glazing to the public road frontages. The proposal also includes canopy overhang over the road verge, subject to a separate approval from the Council elected body, which recently underwent community consultation. Council’s Urban Design Consultant also recommended the extent of canopy be further extended to be more functional in sheltering pedestrians, however this approach is inconsistent with the decision of the Council (see Section 5.3 below and Attachment 29).

The high level of detailing is focused on the two road frontages as encouraged in the above provisions, however it is also noted that the two internal elevations still achieve a sufficient amount of detailing and visual interest as presented to adjoining land and the common roadway. In particular, the west and south elevations include a variety of materials, windows to both levels and varying building setbacks to reduce the overall bulk of this large building. Service areas have also been screened along the western side of the building where facing the adjoining aged care facility. In light of the above, it is considered that the design of external facades is appropriate in this location, being a landmark site. It also achieves the general intent of Design and Appearance Objective 1 in that the development is

considered to be high standard and reinforces the positive aspects of local built form.

5.2.3 Building Design and Layout

As noted above, the building provides a visible entry which presents to the corner, with an additional building entry at the rear adjacent the ground level car park. The building comprises a number of tenancies on the ground and upper levels, most of which are all accessible via the main lobby area adjacent the ground level car park. The building provides two car parking levels, one semi-basement level and one street-level car park. It is considered that the design of semi-basement car parking, in response to the natural topography of the land, is an appropriate design solution that achieves a high number of on-site car parking spaces without being visible from the two road frontages. The car park has also been integrated into the design of the building, thus reducing its visual dominance as viewed from adjoining allotments. It also has a


Item

4.2

level that does not project above street level by more than one metre, as sought in Centres and Retail Development PDCs 2 and 6.

As such, it is considered that the design of the car parking areas does not detract from the visual quality and amenity of adjacent areas.

In addition to the main lobby, pedestrian paths and car parking, the ground level incorporates a small area of outdoor seating. All outdoor seating is to be contained within the boundaries of the site and located undercover primarily for the use of café patrons. One of the seating areas is adjacent the road intersection and therefore achieves Policy Area PDC 12(a) and 12(d) in that it encourages viewing into public space

at ground level for surveillance purposes as a crime prevention technique. As noted in a section above, the Policy Area contemplates the construction of a grade-separated walkway as a means of connecting the northern and southern sections of the Zone, see Policy Area PDC 13. This has not been incorporated into the design of this development as it has been determined to be unfeasible from an economic, technical or safety perspective. The need for this walkway has also been removed from any legal obligations of affected parties, such as deeds and LMAs. The provision of such a walkway is not considered warranted for the reason that there are two signalised intersections that provide access between the two sections of the zone, and as noted previously, the proposed use does not directly compete with the Retail Core Area in the northern section.

The building has been designed to link in with the existing pedestrian network around the site and does not impact access of patrons utilising the Park and Ride facilities or the nearby bus interchange.

5.3 Setbacks

Policy Area PDC 8 states that buildings addressing arterial roads should reinforce a

presence to the street frontage at ground level by having zero setbacks to the street. In addition, Design and Appearance PDC 20 states that where zero or minor setbacks

are desirable, development should incorporate shelter over footpaths to enhance the quality of the pedestrian environment. The development originally proposed a zero setback at the corner with a canopy extending some 4.0m over the screening reserve. The design has since changed following the review of the proposed screening reserve encroachment at a recent Council meeting. In response to feedback at that meeting, the building setback from the front boundary was increased at the ground and upper levels (excluding semi-basement), and the canopy width reduced from 4.0m to 2.6m. Due to the presence of the wide screening reserve between the property boundary and the road verge/footpath, it is very difficult to achieve Design and Appearance PDC 20. Shelter is therefore limited to a small portion of the connecting pedestrian link to the footpath. This is not ideal but considered acceptable under the circumstances in noting Council’s reluctance to a significant amount of encroachment over the reserve.


Item

4.2

The District Centre Zone otherwise does not nominate any setback requirements for built form in the area. It is recognised that the semi-basement car park level extends across the majority of the site to maximise use of the land. While full site coverage is generally not encouraged, the development is consistent with the front setback expectations of the policy. The setbacks of the building are therefore considered to be consistent with what is intended for the subject site, and therefore acceptable.

5.4 Visual Privacy

The proposed facility is a two storey building that faces The Golden Way and The Grove Way, and has windows and/or balconies at all external elevations. The upper level facing The Grove Way and the nearby Residential Zone consists of four different consulting rooms with windows, and a small shared balcony. The windows are unscreened while the balcony is located behind a powder coated aluminium screen extending the full height of the building. It is worth recognising that the inclusion of windows, screening and a staggered building line is important from an urban design perspective, however Design and Appearance PDC 12 states that development should be designed to minimise direct overlooking of

habitable rooms and private open spaces of dwellings. Design measures to achieve this include off-setting the location of balconies through building design, building setbacks that provide spatial separation, and having integrated screening devices. The nearby residential properties all back onto The Grove Way such that their backyards are oriented toward this site.

Notwithstanding the orientation of these properties, the development complies with the above provision in that a permanent screen is provided to the balcony area which has been integrated into the building design, and the building is setback some 40m from the rear boundary of the closest dwelling. In particular, it is considered that the development does not directly overlooking the nearby residential properties as it is separated by a wide arterial road consisting of five lanes, and the screening reserve abutting the residential properties is densely landscaped so as to protect views into these properties. In addition, landscape screening is already provided by residents within their own properties as an additional privacy measure. It is also worth noting that as part of the Category 2 notification process, Council did not receive any comment or objection from the nearby residential properties.


Item

4.2

5.5 Vehicle Access and Parking 5.5.1 Vehicle Access

The subject site gains vehicular access via a common roadway with right-of-way easement permissions for all relevant adjoining properties. The section of common roadway running along the western boundary of this site is located on an abutting parcel of land, Lot 904.

This application seeks to construct two ‘driveways’ which are located on the subject site and connects to the common roadway. One provides access to the ground level car park, while the other provides access to the semi-basement car park. Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the proposed car park design and the applicant’s traffic report, and confirmed that the design is suitable for all vehicular access to the site, including rubbish and delivery vehicles (see Attachment 21). This is consistent with Transportation and Access PDC 32 and 33 in that it

complies with Australian Standard 2890.2004 and ensures suitable access for all intended users of the site.

Furthermore, Policy Area PDC 2 and 39 state that vehicle parking areas should

be easily identified and accessible without being visually dominant, and should provide safe and convenient access. The development obtains access from the common roadway as intended as part of the original land division concept and LMA, and given no direct public road access is proposed, the development is considered to be consistent with the above provisions.

5.5.2 Car Parking

District Centre Zone PDC 11 states that off-street car parking should be provided in accordance with either Table TTG/2 or Table TTG/2A of the Development Plan,

whichever applies. The subject site is located within 200m of a high frequency public transit service and within 400m of a bus interchange serviced by a high frequency transit service. As such, Table TTG/2A applies which nominates a car parking rate of three (3) per 100m² gross leasable floor area (GLA). The development comprises approximately 4480m² of GLA which equates to a total demand of 135 on-site vehicle spaces. The ground floor car park caters for up to 58 spaces and the semi-basement car park caters for 141 spaces, resulting in a total of 199 on-site parking spaces.

The development therefore has a surplus of 64 spaces, and importantly, does not exceed the maximum rate of six (6) spaces per 100 GLA as listed in the above table.


Item

4.2

5.5.3 Bicycle Parking

Transportation and Access PDC 19 also nominates on-site bicycle parking to be provided in accordance with the rate set out in Table TTG/3 and listed as follows:

Consulting room – 1 per 8 practitioners for employees plus 1 per 4 practitioners for visitors

Shop – 1 per 300 GLA for employees in relation to the shop use

Café – 1 per 25m² public floor area plus 2 visitor spaces

As demonstrated in the applicant’s traffic report, the demand for bicycle spaces for this development totals 21 spaces (9 employee and 12 visitor) based on details provided by the applicant. The design of the ground level car park has included bike racks for up to 21 bicycles, and therefore complies with the above minimum requirement.

5.6 Landscaping, Retaining Walls and Fencing

5.6.1 Landscaping

The extent of landscaping proposed within the boundaries of the allotment is limited. The applicant has provided a Landscape Concept Plan, which demonstrates extensive planting within the adjoining screening reserve (Attachment 16). The matter of encroachment is discussed in Section 5.6.2 below. The overall landscaping concept along The Golden and The Grove Ways does not distinguish between public and private land so as to integrate the landscaping between the private and public realms. Furthermore, climbing plants, low feature plants and a medium tree are all proposed along the western boundary adjacent the internal roadway and where facing adjoining land. The Policy Area Desired Character Statement encourages the use of

landscaping at the interface between buildings and open space, and in order to enhance the public realm. The proposed landscaping is intended to enhance the built form development of the land, as also sought in Landscaping, Fences and Walls Objective 1.

Noting that the land immediately abutting the road boundary is a Council screening reserve and that there are other similarly-landscaped screening reserves throughout the centre, it is appropriate that this reserve also be planted for consistency. Subject to final approval of the Council Elected Body, it is considered that the planting of landscaping within the screening reserve is consistent with the intent of how the Policy Area should be developed and how it interacts with the public realm.


Item

4.2

The Landscape Concept Plan proposes three focal trees along the frontage, screening trees adjacent the loading area, and provides low shrubs and decorative rocks along the majority of the frontage. The use of shrubs and decorative rocks is consistent with the landscaping character of the immediate locality at major corner sites fronting The Golden Way and The Grove Way intersection. Policy Area PDC 11 does encourage the retention of existing trees and landscape

areas, however this development seeks to remove existing vegetation in the verge and reserve areas.

Council’s Urban Design Consultant also encouraged the retention of existing landscaping, see Attachment 23. In response, the applicant advised that existing trees are sought for removal for holistic purposes in landscaping a large area of screening reserve. The consistent approach of establishing the screening reserve will achieve a sense of compatibility and consistency for the local area, as sought in Centres and Retail Development PDC 2.

5.6.2 Verge Encroachment

As noted in previous sections, the applicant is proposing canopy overhang and landscaping in the adjoining screening reserve known as Lot 1004. This requires a separate assessment and approval process by the Council Elected Body. This process requires a change to the Community Land Management Plan (CLMP) as there will be additional easements and rights of way granted over the reserve. Additional changes relating to access for services is also being captured in this process. Community consultation has recently been completed in relation to the CLMP changes and the results will be presented to Council at a future meeting for a final decision on the proposed encroachments under the Local Government Act 1999.

5.6.3 Site Works and Retaining

To accommodate the semi-basement car park, the applicant requires both cut and fill earthworks around the boundaries of the site. The proposal involves cutting up to a maximum of 3.5m in the north-eastern corner, and filling up to a maximum 1.5m in the south-western corner adjacent the internal roadway.

The land generally has a fall of some 4.6m across the length of the allotment, and as such the provision of up to 1.5m high fill is not considered unreasonable. Furthermore, the control of the 1.5m high fill has been captured in the design of the car park rather than a separate retaining wall structure, thus ensuring the natural fall of the land is maintained where possible. The large sections of cut will not be visible from outside the site and will appear as internal walls along the edge of the semi-basement ground level.


Item

4.2

The development is therefore considered to appropriately respond to the natural fall of the land and not unreasonably impair the streetscape amenity of this locality. The proposed level of the semi-basement car park is consistent with Centres and Retail Development PDC 3, which states that they should not project above

natural or finished ground level by more than one (1) metre. The development does not propose any fencing as part of the current design, but rather incorporates balustrading as part of the screening along the southern side of the ground level car park, where raised above natural ground level.

5.7 Stormwater Management

The development proposes to collect all surface and roof area and direct this to the above-mentioned underground detention facility, which has been designed to cater for the 1 in 100 year flood event. Stormwater is to be discharged to the connection point in the adjoining internal road network, as detailed and approved in the original land division application. Council’s stormwater engineer has reviewed and endorsed the stormwater management plan for this development (see Attachment 22). In terms of water sensitive design, the management of stormwater on site includes the provision of a gross pollutant trap in the car park which is a design measure used to maintain the quality of water runoff in this area before it enters the detention tank. This measure will assist in maintaining the quality of water collected in this area, and coupled with a management plan that is designed to avoid any external run off, it is considered that the development achieves Natural Resources PDC 7(a)(b) and 14(b)(i)(iii). The applicant has not nominated the reuse of any on-site storm water, noting any water reuse for landscaping areas relates to the proposed screening reserve plantings of which maintenance obligations have not yet been confirmed.

5.8 Waste Management

The applicant has provided a detailed waste management plan for this development, having regard to the needs of individual land uses and individual tenants (see Attachment 26). The development has been designed to accommodate shared ground level waste (non-medical) and recycling storage which is to be screened from view. Individual tenancy waste storage (including medical and confidential waste) is also proposed within the confines of individual tenancies and therefore not externally visible. Waste will be collected by a private contractor and removed from the site using the loading area of the waste storage area, with up to nine (9) collections per week. The applicant’s traffic consultant had confirmed the loading area is sufficient to accommodate refuse vehicles up to 10m in length, see Attachment 24. This has been reinforced in a recommended condition should Panel Members support this application.


Item

4.2

The waste management proposal for this development is therefore considered reasonable.

5.9 Site Contamination

The applicant has submitted a contamination report, which includes initial testing of the site to determine the potential for contamination on the land (see Attachment 27). The report has been attached without the appendices as they contain lengthy logs and data tables not considered relevant to this assessment. This information is available to Panel members upon request if required. The report provides a summary of the results and states that likely historic contamination activities on the land would be through the use of pesticides and imported fill. There was no evidence of waste disposal activities or buried waste on the land.

It was found that soil contaminants tested were present at concentrations below the adopted health and environmental screening guidelines for sensitive land uses such as residential and child care. The proposed development is for a commercial land use which seeks to cover the majority of land surface to accommodate the building and car parking areas. Given the use is not a sensitive use, and having regard to the site investigation report confirming that any contaminants found in the soil are within acceptable limits, the occupiers and visitors to the site will not be at risk to soil contamination. On this basis, a further certification from an auditor has not been required as part of this development application to demonstrate the suitability of this commercial land use.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered to be high quality and responsive to the natural topography of the land. The land use is appropriate having regard to the overall development of the precinct and the objective of the LMA and the intent of the zone in general. Functionally, the development connects with nearby road and pedestrian links, and provides sufficient on-site parking designed to suit the needs of all intended users and visitors to the site. Matters raised during the public notification process relating to encroachment approvals and pharmacy licence approvals are subject to a separate assessment beyond the scope of this planning application. On balance, it is considered that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, and will not undermine the intent of the Development Plan policy. The applicant has therefore been presented to CAP Members with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.


Item

4.2

7. RECOMMENDATION




B. RESOLVES to GRANT Development Plan Consent to the application by Evo Arc Adelaide to construct a two-storey medical centre with associated undercroft car park, café, pharmacy, landscaping and earthworks at Lot 903 The Golden Way, Golden Grove as detailed in Development Application No. 070/116238/2018, subject to the following conditions and advisory notes:

(1) The development shall be undertaken, completed and maintained in accordance with the plan(s) and information detailed in Application No. 070/116238/2018 except where varied by any condition(s) listed below.

(2) The materials used on the external surfaces of the development and the pre-

coloured steel finishes or paintwork shall be maintained in good condition at all times. All external paintwork shall be completed within 2 months of the erection of the structures herein consented to. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the site and locality.

(3) The premises shall be kept tidy and all buildings, fences, landscaping and

paved or sealed surfaces shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Reason: To maintain the amenity of the site and locality.

(4) The hours of operation herein approved are as follows:

7:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday

8:00am to 1:00pm Saturday Any variation to these hours of operation will require a further consent. Reason: To minimise the impact on adjoining properties.

(5) All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas shall be formed, sealed with

concrete, bitumen or paving, and be properly drained. They shall be maintained in good condition thereafter. Reason: To ensure useable and safe carparking.

(6) All off-street carparking spaces shall be linemarked, in accordance with the

approved plans and Australian Standards AS 2890.1:2004 and 1742.2.2009. The linemarking, signposting and directional arrows shall be maintained to a clear and visible standard at all times. Reason: To maintain safety for users.

(7) Driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas and footpaths shall be lit in

accordance with the Australian Standards Association Code AS 1158 during the hours of darkness that they are in use. Such lights shall be directed and screened so that overspill of light into nearby properties is avoided and motorists are not distracted. Reason: To minimise the impact on adjoining properties and provide a safe environment for users during darkness.


Item

4.2

(8) The planting and landscaping identified on the Landscape Concept Plan dated 26 April 2019 herein consented to, subject to a permit under the Local Government Act 1999, and submitted with the application shall be completed in the first planting season concurrent with or following commencement of the use of the land. Such planting and landscaping shall not be removed nor the branches of any tree lopped and any plants which become diseased or die shall be replaced by suitable species. Reason: To maintain amenity and site of locality.

(9) No materials or equipment are to be stored outdoors.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the site and locality.

(10) The size of waste collection vehicles shall be limited to 10 metres long. Reason: To maintain safety for users

Reserved Matter(s):

(1) The following matter(s) have been reserved pursuant to section 33(3) of the

Development Act 1993, and sub-delegated to the Senior Planning Officer for a determination, prior to the issue of Development Approval:

The provision of a permit granted under the Local Government Act 1999

for the landscaping and building encroachments over the screening reserve fronting The Golden Way and The Grove Way.

Note(s):


approvals from any/all parties with an interest in the land.

(2) Any works undertaken on Council owned land (including but not limited to works relating to reserves, crossing places, landscaping, footpaths, street trees and stormwater connections and underground electrical connections), shall require a separate authorisation from Council. Further information and/or specific details can be obtained by contacting Council’s Civil Operations department on 8397 7444.

(3) The granting of this consent does not remove the need for the applicant to

obtain all other consents that may be required by other statutes or regulations.

(4) The development (including during construction) must not at any time emit

noise that exceeds the relevant levels derived from the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

(5) The applicant/developer is reminded of its general environmental duty, as

required by section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure the activities on the site (including during construction) do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. This includes being mindful of and minimising off site noise, dust and vibration impacts associated with development.


Item

4.2

(6) The cost of rectifying any damage or conflict with any existing services or infrastructure arising out of this development will be borne by the applicant.

(7) The Council has not surveyed the subject land and has, for the purpose of its

assessment, assumed that all dimensions and other details provided by the Applicant are correct and accurate.

(8) NBN Co. is responsible for the installation of National Broadband Network

(NBN) fibre for all developments in areas where NBN Co. has already rolled out fibre. To ensure services are available when residents move in, developers and builders must register their developments and apply to NBN Co. before building has commenced. To determine if your site is in an NBN area and to register your development, please complete the pre-qualifier forms located at www.nbnco.com.au/newdevelopments. For more

information, please contact the NBN Co. New Developments Team on 1800 687 626 or email [email protected].

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph .............................................................................................. 158 2.⇩ Development Application Form .......................................................................... 159 3.⇩ Certificate of Title .............................................................................................. 160 4.⇩ Master Plan ....................................................................................................... 169 5.⇩ Existing Site Plan .............................................................................................. 170 6.⇩ Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 171 7.⇩ Basement Plan .................................................................................................. 172 8.⇩ Ground Floor Plan ............................................................................................. 173 9.⇩ Upper Floor Plan ............................................................................................... 174 10.⇩ Roof Plan .......................................................................................................... 175 11.⇩ Elevations .......................................................................................................... 176 12.⇩ Streetscape Elevation and Materials Schedule .................................................. 178 13.⇩ Artists Impression .............................................................................................. 179 14.⇩ Medical Centre Layout Plan (Indicative) ............................................................ 182 15.⇩ Storm Water Management Plan ........................................................................ 183 16.⇩ Landscape Concept Plan .................................................................................. 184 17.⇩ Correspondence from Applicant ........................................................................ 185 18.⇩ Representations ................................................................................................ 189 19.⇩ Response to Representations ........................................................................... 208 20.⇩ Airport Building Heights Referral ....................................................................... 214 21.⇩ Internal Referral Traffic ...................................................................................... 215 22.⇩ Internal Referral Engineering ............................................................................. 216 23.⇩ Internal Referral Urban Design .......................................................................... 217 24.⇩ Applicant's Traffic Report ................................................................................... 219 25.⇩ Applicant's Storm Water Management Report ................................................... 238 26.⇩ Applicant's Waste Management Report ............................................................. 247 27.⇩ Applicant's Site Contamination Investigation Report .......................................... 265 28.⇩ Land Management Agreement .......................................................................... 288 29.⇩ Council Resolution ............................................................................................ 304

mailto:[email protected]


Item

4.2

Report Authorisers

Chelsea Tully

Senior Planning Officer 8397 7223

Nathan Grainger


Carol Neil



Item

4.3



FROM: Timothy Bourner Planning Officer

SUBJECT: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PRIMARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND

THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARLY LEARNING CENTRE AND RECEPTION BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AND UPGRADED CAR PARKS AT 4-28 CARIGNANE STREET, WYNN VALE

SUMMARY

Applicant: Mr Nathan Purdie c/o Swanbury Penglase Architects

Nature of Development: Demolition of Existing Primary School Buildings and the

Construction of an Early Learning Centre and Reception Building and the construction of new and upgraded car parks.

Address: 4-28 Carignane Street, Wynn Vale, 5127

Application No: 070/116418/2018

Lodgement Date: 21 December 2018 Development Plan: Consolidated 26 September 2016 Zone and Policy Area: Residential Zone (No Policy Area) Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives

Community Facilities 1 Crime Prevention 1 Design and Appearance 1and 2 Energy Efficiency 1 Interface between Land Uses 1 and 2 Landscaping, Fences and Walls 1 Natural Resources 1, 5 and 6 Orderly and Sustainable Development 1, 3 and 6 Regulated Trees 1 and 2 Significant Trees 1 and 2 Siting and Visibility 1 Transport and Access 2 Residential Zone 3 Principles of Development Control

Community Facilities 1, 2 and 3 Crime Prevention 1, 5, 6 and 7 Design and Appearance 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23


Item

4.3

Energy Efficiency 1 and 2 Interface between Land Uses 1 and 2 Landscaping, Fences and Walls 1, 2 and 3 Natural Resources 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 32, 38 Orderly and Sustainable Development 1 Regulated Trees 1 Significant Trees 1, 2, 4 Siting and Visibility 1, 2, 4 and 8

Transport and Access 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 Residential Zone 1, 4 and 6

Public Notification: Category 3

Number of Properties Notified: 50 Number of Representations Received: 2 Names and Addresses of Representors: Wlodzimierz Kozlowski* 2 Cabernet Avenue, Wynn Vale Nickolas Brenton Horenko* 7 Carignane Street, Wynn Vale * representors wishing to be heard by the

Panel. Number of Representors wishing to be heard: 2 Schedule 8 Referral: No Referral Required Was a request for additional information made? Yes

Issues: Staff Numbers, Operating Hours, Traffic Management,

Landscaping, Stormwater Recommendation: Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions

1. PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Regional Catholic School, which currently operates as a primary school for Reception to Year 7 students, and incorporates an Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) program. The proposal consists of the following:

Construction of a new building to accommodate an Early Learning Centre (ELC) and reception teaching spaces

Renovation of an existing transportable classroom

Construction of new car parking

Formalisation of existing ad-hoc car parking areas

Comprehensive landscaping

Construction of outdoor nature play areas

Demolition of a transportable classroom, three sheds, shade sails and playground.


Item

4.3

The new building will be a single storey structure with half the building dedicated to a new ELC and the other half dedicated to reception student learning spaces. The building is to be located on land currently utilised for car parking, storage sheds and play areas. The new building will have a maximum height of 4.5m and will be setback from Carignane Street approximately 10.5m. The floor area of the new building will be 1114m2. The existing transportable to be renovated will receive external upgrades, an internal fit-out and will be used as an interim administration building. The existing car parks are to be modified to reduce the size of car parking adjacent Carignane Street whilst re-organising and formalising sections of the car parking fronting Park Lane Drive. The number of car parks will increase from 145 to 162. Landscaping will be undertaken to all the areas forming part of this proposal including all onsite car parking and the areas surrounding the new school building. This landscaping includes the construction of an extensive outdoor nature play area for the school’s students. Plans of the proposed development can be found within Attachment 4, 5 and 6.


Pre-schools and primary schools are neither listed as complying or non-complying in the Residential Zone of Council’s Development Plan. Further, the Development Regulations 2008 (‘the Regulations’) do not consider the proposed development as complying

development. Where a development is neither complying nor non-complying the application is to be assessed as on merit, pursuant section 35(5) of the Development Act 1993 (‘the Act’).

Having regard to the zoning of the subject site, the proposed addition of an Early Learning Centre (pre-school) and the continuation of the existing primary school use, are uses envisaged within the zone. The proposal therefore is considered to not be seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Act.


Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. The Residential Zone does not list a pre-school or primary school as either Category 1 or Category 2 for public notification purposes. Having regard to the Regulations, neither a pre-school or primary school are listed as Category 1 or Category 2, and therefore defaults to Category 3 pursuant to section 38(2)(c) of the Act.


Item

4.3

Category 3 public notification was undertaken where 50 adjacent land owners and occupiers, and others potentially affected by the development, were notified in writing. A public notice was also placed in The Advertiser. Two representations were received as a result of this process and are included within Attachment 10. Of the two representations, one has elected to be heard by the Council Assessment Panel (CAP), and one has not nominated either way. The following lists the concerns expressed within the representations:

Environmental damage

Property devaluation

Removal of vegetation

Visual impact

Concerns regarding traffic management and parking

Safety

Road closures during construction

Dust suppression

Hours of operation

Noise impacts to birdlife, wildlife and residents

Compaction and vibration impacts

Construction impacts of dust and mud being dragged onto the street network.

For the benefit of CAP, the location of representors in relation to the development are demonstrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – Representors in relation to development area


Item

4.3

The applicants full response to the concerns raised are contained within Attachment 11 In summary, the following was provided:

The proposal will significantly enhance the appeal of the locality due to the following factors:

Removal of existing sheds

Removal of existing poor quality transportable building

Recladding and enhancement of existing transportable building

Construction of high quality permanent structures

Reduction in size of car park on Carignane Street

New landscaping to all affected areas including new nature play areas around the new buildings

Formalising of Park Lane Drive car park which improves the visual appeal of this area and allows formal landscape opportunities.

The applicant’s response was sent to both representors for consideration. Only one further response by a representor was received, with the initial concerns reiterated stating the applicant’s response did not address these concerns.


The subject site incorporates seven (7) allotments comprising St Francis Xavier Regional Catholic School. The development area is approximately 1.2 hectares accounting for approximately 29% of the total site area of 4.1 hectares. The development site currently accommodates a substantial formal and informal carpark, two transportable classroom buildings, three sheds, shade sails and playground. The development site is extensively landscaped and vegetated with a mix of small shrubs and groundcovers to large trees, some of which are regulated or significant. The development site is located between Carignane Street to the south and Park Lane Drive to the east. To the north of the site is the extended school grounds which subsequently abuts the Wynn Vale Dam public open space area and the Wynn Vale Community House Kindergarten. To the west is an area of residential streets and further areas of the Wynn Vale Dam public open space area. The entirety of the development site is within the Residential Zone with the northern boundary of the allotments abutting the Open Space Zone.


Item

4.3

Figure 2 provides a demonstration of the zoning context of the locality.

Figure 2 – Zoning context

The locality applicable to the development is considered to be the area delineated in Figure 3, as defined by the red dashed line.

Figure 3 - Locality


Item

4.3

The locality comprises the following:

The existing St Francis Xavier Regional Catholic School

An existing kindergarten to the north of the site

Large area of public open space associated with Wynn Vale Dam and Dry Creek Linear Park to the north and west.

Residential land comprising residential dwellings to the west abutting the development site

Residential land to the south and east fronting Carignane Street and Park Lane Drive respectively with further residential land in the streets beyond.

The landscape is generally flat with an overall fall towards the Dry Creek and Wynn Vale Dam public open space areas. Landscaping is a predominant feature of the locality. The residential allotments are generally well landscaped with numerous medium and large street trees of a variety of species. The area of public open space to the north and west is extensively vegetated with predominantly native vegetation from small shrubs to large trees.


5.1 Land Use

As detailed within the application, future school operations will not include Year 7 students from 2020, with this year level being moved into the secondary school system at an alternative school. This has allowed the inclusion of the Early Learning Centre (ELC) into the school’s operations.

The proposal therefore is to compromise two land uses, the primary school and pre-school (ELC), but will be effectively a co-ordinated and integrated learning facility. For clarity, the two land uses will be distinguished in the assessment. 5.1.1 Primary School

The primary school is the existing use on the subject site and is consistent with Residential Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1.

5.1.2 Early Learning Centre (ELC)

The ELC is to form part of the greater primary school teaching environment and is considered to be integrated into the school. An ELC is not defined in the Regulations however a pre-school is. This definition is as follows:

‘pre-school means a place primarily for the care or instruction of children of less than primary school age not resident on the site, and includes a nursery, kindergarten or child-care centre;’

This definition includes reference to the care or instruction of children of less than primary school age; the core function of an ELC. Therefore, the ELC is considered to be a pre-school. Within this definition, a pre-school also includes a child care centre.


Item

4.3

In referencing Residential Zone PDC 1, a child care facility is used as an example of an envisaged use. In extrapolating these definitions, it is considered that the ELC is an envisaged use with the Residential Zone.

The proposal of incorporating an ELC into the existing primary school use satisfies Residential Zone PDC 4 in so far as it is of a use and scale which serves the

needs of the local community. The integrated ELC and primary school land use is directly envisaged by the Residential Zone and is accepted.

5.2 Built Form

The proposal includes the construction of a new building to contain the ELC and reception classes and the renovation of one existing transportable classroom. The overall floor area of the new building will be 1,114m2 consisting of 548m2 for the ELC component and 566m2 for the reception classrooms. The form of the building is a low scale skillion roofed building of an irregular shape, which is effectively two rectangles joined at an obtuse angle. The visible façade of the building from Carignane Street is approximately 48m wide and is articulated through multiple setbacks. The proposed materials and finishes are similar to, and will complement the existing school buildings, including:

Scyon Stria wall cladding in pale blue and pale orange (alternated throughout the building)

Aluminium framed windows

Fibre Cement cladding to the entry portal in burned orange and soft blue

Roof cladding in corrugated steel in a Surfmist colour

Pre-coloured steel guttering and flashing to match the roofing

Aluminium slat screening (mechanical plant enclosure)

Timber frames for planter boxes and other highlights. The building is of contemporary style with low angled roof and substantial overhanging eaves providing large verandah areas satisfying Design and Appearance PDC 1. The

walls are well articulated with the cladding and colour variations providing visual relief from any large areas of uninterrupted walling, satisfying Design and Appearance PDC 14 and 16.

The new building is to be sited on an area currently used for car parking, a playground and storage sheds. The building is to be set down into the landscape with only the upper portions of the building visible to Carignane Street. This is demonstrated in the suite of plans, particularly the Streetscape – Carignane Street elevation (Attachment 4).

The renovations to the existing transportable building include internal upgrades to classrooms and recladding the building to match and complement the new building. This will aid in ensuring the older building is well integrated into the visual language of the school, satisfying Design and Appearance PDC 15.

The entire development site is to be comprehensively landscaped, which is to be discussed in section 5.6 of this report. The new landscaping will aid in reducing any


Item

4.3

visual impact the new building may have and replace the vegetation removed to facilitate the construction of both the new building and car parking. This landscaping component satisfies Design and Appearance PDC 15.

Overall, the design of the proposed new building, the renovations to the existing building and the inclusion of comprehensive landscaping satisfies Design and Appearance Objective 1, which aims for development of a high design standard and appearance

which responds and reinforces the positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

5.3 Interface and Impacts Interface between Land uses Objectives 1, 2 and 3 provide guidance for development

to minimise potential impacts and conflicts between land uses. Interface between Land uses PDC 1 seeks development that does not detrimentally

affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable interference; listing numerous elements for consideration. PDC 2 requires development to be sited to ensure negative impacts are minimised on existing and future land uses in the locality. Elements noted in PDC 1 include dust, noise, vibration, hours of operation and traffic impacts. Traffic and car parking impacts are discussed in section 5.4 of this report with other possible impacts discussed below. 5.3.1 Hours of Operation

The applicant provided details regarding the proposed operating hours of the facility by email (Attachment 12). The current operating hours of the primary school, including the operation of Out of Hours School Care (OHSC), are Monday to Friday and as follows:

Primary School – 8:45am to 3:15pm

OHSC – 7:15am to 6:00pm

The proposed operating hours of the primary school, OHSC and ELC are Monday to Friday between the following times:

Primary School – 8:45am to 3:15pm

OHSC – 7:15am to 6:00pm

ELC – 7:00am to 6:00pm

The proposed hours of operation only vary slightly from the current situation and with the enrolled student numbers anticipated to increase by 12 which is an increase of 1.9% over current numbers. The change in hours is unlikely to place any additional demand on the surrounding road network nor cause any additional operational impact (which is discussed in section 5.4 of the report).


Item

4.3

5.3.2 Noise

The potential sources of noise from the primary school and ELC are children playing in the outdoor areas and noise generated by children being dropped off and collected.

Interface between Land Uses PDC 7 provides guidance to appropriate noise

levels: ‘Development that emits noise (other than music noise) should include noise attenuation measures that achieve the relevant Environment Protection (Noise) Policy criteria when assessed at the nearest existing noise sensitive premises.’

It is considered there will be no appreciable increase in noise generated from the development. With the location of outdoor play spaces being intrinsically the same, student numbers and standard operation hours remaining similar to the current, the activities on site are unlikely to alter to any great degree.

5.3.3 Dust

The proposal includes the formalisation of an existing area used for parking to the north-eastern corner of the site. This area is currently unsealed gravel and is proposed to be included in the resurfacing and redesign of the existing carparks. This will remove a potential source of dust once the proposal is complete.

The applicant provided a response to the concerns raised by the representors in regards to activities during construction. This response is as follows:

‘In relation to the construction concerns regarding road closures, dust suppression, hours of operation, noise limits, compaction, truck movements and debris we confirm that all these items will be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of all Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), State Government and Local Council environmental management practices and requirements.’

Activities that may impact the environment by way of noise, dust and vibration during construction are subject to the controls within the Environmental Protection Act 1993 and Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016. An advisory note is

recommended to remind the applicant of their obligations under these statutes.

Having regard to the above, the potential interface issues relating to the proposed development are considered to be reasonable if not otherwise considered and addressed.


Item

4.3

5.4 Traffic and Parking

5.4.1 Traffic and Access

Pre-schools and primary schools have the potential to impact local traffic conditions which can manifest in the form of traffic congestion and on-street parking issues. The applicant considers that with reducing the size of the Carignane Street car park whilst increasing and formalising the Park Lane Drive car park, parking impacts will reduce. The applicant also highlighted with the removal of Year 7 students from the school operations there will be a reduction in peak hour traffic associated with the site. A traffic report prepared by CIRQA Pty Ltd has been submitted to discuss the likely peak hour traffic generation (Attachment 8). The rates used for primary schools and ELC’s are 0.8 and 0.48 trips per student respectively. ELC traffic generation is set lower as set-down/pick-up movements are spread over a longer time period than that associated with primary students. Using these rates the current teaching years and student numbers would generate 505.6 trips with the proposed teaching years and student numbers generating a total of 489.6 trips (451.2 for the primary school and 38.4 for the ELC). The consultant states that whilst there is a slight increase in student numbers the proposal will result in a reduction in overall traffic generation. Part of the proposal is to reconfigure the multiple access points to the subject site to service the alterations to the car parking provisions. The western-most car park accessed from Carignane Street is to be reduced in size and volume with access points being reduced to two. The eastern-most car park is to be re-configured with the car park’s access point to remain unchanged. The car park currently accessed from Park Lane Drive is to be expanded to include the current informal parking area with the existing three access points to be reduced to two. The car parking has been confirmed compliant with Australian Standards AS 2890 by Council’s traffic engineers ensuring Transport and Access PDC 32 is

satisfied. The reduction in crossover points will increase the area for on-street parking satisfying Transport and Access PDC 33.

Council’s traffic engineer concurred with the traffic generation calculations within the CIRQA report.

5.4.2 Car Parking Provision

The traffic report by CIRQA determined the likely parking demand for the school. The report provides a summary of the proposal in comparison to the existing conditions specifically discussing the current enrolments and the enrolment projections for the primary school and the capacity for the ELC and the changes to the car parking volumes in each of the separate car parks.


Item

4.3

With the changes in the school student make up, the removal of Year 7 students, the projected enrolments for Reception to Year 6 in 2020 are to be 564 students. The capacity of the ELC facility will be 80 students. This leads to a maximum anticipated enrolment number of 644 students. The current enrolments for Reception to Year 7 is 632. The alterations to the car park will yield the following changes:

Carignane Street car park to be altered to accommodate the site of the ELC/reception building and will result in a loss of 21 car parks to a total of 37 car parks

The north-eastern car parks, accessed from Park Lane Drive and the eastern end of Carignane, will be extended and formalised to provide 125 car parks; an increase of 38 parks

The total resulting number of car parks is to be 162.

When considering the car parking requirements listed in the Development Plan Table TTG/2 the required rates for a pre-school and primary school are one (1)

car park per full time employee plus one space for wheelchair users plus an additional 10 per cent of the total for visitors.

The applicant provided details regarding the current and anticipated staffing numbers. Currently the school has 47.1 full time equivalent (FTE) staff members. The proposal will require 40.1 FTE staff for the primary school and 12.5 FTE staff for the ELC. This is a total of 52.6 FTE staff members. Based on the above staffing numbers, the school and ELC will require 52.6 car parks for staff, one (1) car park for wheelchair users and 5.4 car parks for visitors. The total number of car parks required pursuant to Table TTG/2 is 59 car parks. With 162 car parks proposed the requirements are exceeded by some margin and satisfying Transport and Access PDC 31.

The report prepared by CIRQA, however, has used differing parking rates derived from previous surveys conducted both by CIRQA and other consultancies. The rate applied is one (1) car park per four (4) students and has been determined to be appropriate to both primary schools and ELC facilities. The communication from CIRQA regarding this determination can be seen in Attachment 12. With the above rate considered appropriate, the consultant has determined the required car parking provision to be 161 car parks. As is noted above, the proposal provides for 162 car parks, marginally above the required number.

The proposed car parking is to be fully sealed and line marked with incorporated landscaping, this satisfies Transport and Access PDC 36, 38 and 40.

The proposed car parking is therefore acceptable and appropriate.


Item

4.3

5.5 Stormwater Management The proposal includes a comprehensive stormwater management plan. This plan can be found in Attachment 7.

The proposal was prepared with advice sought from Council prior to lodgement. This advice informed the design and has ensured the following is provided:

Post-development peak discharge for the 20-year average recurrence interval (ARI) storm events do not exceed the equivalent pre-development storm event within the development

Principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design are adopted and integrated into the design where possible

The development includes stormwater management systems to protect it from damage during a minimum of a 1-in-100-year average return interval flood

The development has adequate provision to control any stormwater over-flow runoff from the site and should be designed to improve the quality of stormwater and minimise pollutant transfer to receiving waters

The development includes stormwater management systems to mitigate peak

flows and manage the rate and duration of stormwater discharges from the site to ensure the capacities of downstream systems are not overloaded

The development includes stormwater management systems to minimise the discharge of sediment, suspended solids, organic matter, nutrients, bacteria, litter and other contaminants to the stormwater system.

Council’s stormwater engineers were generally satisfied with the initial proposal however discharge locations and water quality control required more detailed resolutions. Amendments were recommended and the revised plans provided have been endorsed by Council’s stormwater engineer. The proposal therefore is considered to satisfy Natural Resources Objectives 2 and 6

and generally all the principles relating to water sensitive design. 5.6 Landscaping

The proposed development requires the removal of existing vegetation. As such as comprehensive landscape plan was considered essential. This landscape plan can be found in Attachment 5. In preparing the plan, a thorough arboricultural survey of the site was undertaken by Mr Duncan McGregor of TreeVision Arboricultural Consultants, with a subsequent report provided with the application (Attachment 9). The TreeVision Report identified all the existing vegetation on site and provided recommendations for the care and maintenance of this vegetation. The report identified 136 individual trees and 12 groups of trees growing on the site. Twelve (12) trees were identified as being regulated or significant as defined by the Act.


Item

4.3

The proposal requires the removal of 19 trees and five (5) groups of trees, or part thereof, on the site and two street trees. No regulated or significant trees are required to be removed nor are any regulated or significant trees impacted by the proposed works. The street tree removals will be discussed in the following section. The landscaping plan demonstrates extensive plantings throughout the site including plantings within the car parking areas and the inclusion of a large well-vegetated nature play area to the west of the new building. The landscaping plan has proposed the use of a wide range of native species ranging from a large number of small to medium shrubs and groundcovers to 55 larger shade providing trees. These plantings will substantially compensate for the removal of vegetation being proposed. The comprehensive landscaping plan is considered to satisfy Landscaping, Fences and Walls Objective 1 which states:

‘The amenity of land and development enhanced with appropriate planting and other landscaping works, using locally indigenous plant species where possible.’

The plans also satisfies Landscaping Fences and Walls PDC 1 and 2 and is considered to be appropriate and acceptable. 5.6.1 Street Trees

The proposal includes the removal of two street trees to facilitate the alternate crossover locations for the new car park adjacent Carignane Street. The application was referred to Council’s City Arborist who found the trees were suitable for removal with the cost of removal borne by the applicant in accordance with the Tree Management Policy. Further to this, the City Arborist requires the applicant to provide a method statement for the reinstatement of kerbing as a consequence of the crossover alterations to ensure this can with no damage to remaining street trees. A note will be added reminding the applicant of their obligations in this regard.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the land use, interface matters, car parking and traffic, and landscaping objectives and provisions of the Development Plan. Although two representations have been received regarding this proposal, the concerns raised are considered to have been adequately addressed by the proposal and supporting documents. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances relevant to the development application and all the relevant Development Plan provisions, the development warrants Development Plan Consent.


Item

4.3

7. RECOMMENDATION




B. RESOLVES to GRANT Development Plan Consent to the application by Nathan Purdie c/o Swanbury Penglase Architects for the demolition of existing primary school buildings and for the construction of an early learning centre and reception building and the construction of new and upgraded car parks at 4-28 Carignane Street, Wynn Vale, as detailed in Development Application No. 070/116418/2018 subject to the following conditions and advisory notes:

(1) The development shall be undertaken, completed and maintained in

accordance with the plans and information detailed in Application No. 070/115601/2018 including:

- Plans and Elevations prepared by Swanbury Penglase Architects

Plans DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04 and DA05 dated December 2018

- Siteworks and Drainage Plans prepared by FMG Engineering

Drawings C001-T2, C002-T5, C003-T2, C005-T3, C006-T2, C004-T3, C008-T3, SMP001-A, C007-T3, CATCH001-A;

except where varied by any condition(s) listed below.

(2) The premises shall be kept tidy and buildings, fences, landscaping and

paved or sealed surfaces shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Reason: To maintain the amenity of the site and locality.

(3) The materials used on the external surfaces of the buildings and the pre-

coloured steel finishes or paintwork shall be maintained in good condition at all times. All external paintwork shall be completed within 2 months of the completion of the buildings. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the site and locality.

(4) All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas shall be formed, sealed with

concrete, bitumen or paving, and be properly drained. They shall be maintained in good condition thereafter. Reason: To ensure useable and safe carparking.

(5) All off-street carparking spaces shall be linemarked, in accordance with the

approved plans and Australian Standards AS 2890.1:2004 and 1742.2.2009. The linemarking, signposting and directional arrows shall be maintained to a clear and visible standard at all times. Reason: To maintain safety for users.


Item

4.3

(6) Stormwater generated on the site during the construction period and for the life of the development, shall be collected, treated as necessary to ensure contaminated stormwater does not discharge directly or indirectly to any waters. Discharged water shall not contain suspended solids in excess of twenty milligrams per litre (20mg/L). Note: The Environment Protection Authority ‘Handbook for Pollution

Avoidance on Building Sites’ details a range of strategies to collect, treat, store and dispose of stormwater during construction. Reason: To assist and maintain water quality entering Council’s drainage network.

(7) The planting and landscaping shall be undertaken, completed and

maintained in accordance with the plans prepared by Swanbury Penglase Architects, plans LA.101, LA.201, LA.201, LA.203, LA.301, LA.302 and LA303 dated 30 April 2019. The planting and landscaping shall be completed in the first planting season concurrent with or following commencement of use of the buildings and construction of the car parking areas. Such planting and landscaping shall not be removed nor the branches of any tree lopped and any plants which become diseased or die shall be replaced by suitable species. Reason: To maintain the amenity of the site and locality.

Note(s):

(1) The cost of rectifying any damage or conflict with any existing services or infrastructure arising out of this development will be borne by the applicant.

(2) All earthworks shall be confined to and contained entirely within the property boundaries and shall not encroach on or over the roadside verge/reserve.


approvals from any/all parties with an interest in the land.

(4) You are advised that it is an offence to undertake tree damaging activity in relation to a regulated or significant tree without the prior consent of Council.

A tree damaging activity means:

The killing or destruction of a tree; or

The removal of a tree; or

The severing of branches, limbs, stems or trunk of a tree; or

The ringbarking, topping or lopping of a tree; or

Any other substantial damage to a tree including severing or damaging any roots; and

Includes any other act or activity that causes any of the foregoing to occur but does not include maintenance pruning that is not likely to affect adversely the general health and appearance of a tree.

(5) Please be advised that any retaining walls exceeding one metre in height

and any fencing attached to a retaining wall where the combined height exceeds 2.1 metres requires Development Approval from Council by way of a separate application.


Item

4.3

(6) The applicant/developer is reminded of its general environmental duty, as required by section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, to take all

reasonable and practical measures to ensure the activities on the site (including during construction) do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. This includes being mindful of and minimising off site noise, dust and vibration impacts associated with development.

(7) The development (including during construction) shall not at any time emit

noise that exceeds the relevant levels derived from the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

(8) The removal of the street trees located on the Council verge adjacent to the subject site has been approved as part of this application. Removal of the existing street tree is at the applicant/owner’s cost. Further information and/or specific details can be obtained by contacting Council’s Civil Operations department on 8397 7444.

(9) The Applicant/Owner is advised that any works undertaken on Council

owned land (driveways, stormwater connections, etc) will require formal approval under the Local Government Act through Council’s Civil Operations Department, prior to any works being undertaken. Please find attached the relevant application form for your convenience. For further information on this process, or the specifications and conditions relating to works on Council land, please contact Council’s Civil Operations Department on 8397 7444. Any application submitted shall include a method statement for the reinstatement of kerbing as a consequence of the crossover alterations to ensure this can with no damage to existing street trees.

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................. 325 2.⇩ Development Application Form ......................................................................... 326 3.⇩ Certificate of Title .............................................................................................. 330 4.⇩ Site Plans and Elevations.................................................................................. 333 5.⇩ Landscaping Plans ............................................................................................ 338 6.⇩ Siteworks and Drainage Plan ............................................................................ 346 7.⇩ Stormwater Engineering Report ........................................................................ 357 8.⇩ Traffic Report .................................................................................................... 390 9.⇩ Arborist Report .................................................................................................. 396 10.⇩ Representations ................................................................................................ 458 11.⇩ Response to Representations ........................................................................... 462 12.⇩ Additional Communications ............................................................................... 464


Item

4.3

Report Authorisers

Timothy Bourner

Planning Officer 8397 7251

Nathan Grainger


Carol Neil



Item

4.4




SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE (RIVER RED GUM) AT

68 LITTLER DRIVE, FAIRVIEW PARK

SUMMARY

Applicant: Mr Cameron Bobridge Nature of Development: Removal of a Significant Tree (River Red Gum)

Address: 68 Littler Drive FAIRVIEW PARK SA 5126 Application No: 070/116552/2019

Lodgement Date: 01 February 2019 Development Plan: Consolidated 27 December 2018 Zone and Policy Area: Residential (No Policy Area)

Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives

Natural Resources: 1 and 8 Significant Trees: 1 and 2 Residential Zone: 3 Principles of Development Control Natural Resources: 1, 30 and 33 (d) Significant Trees: 1, 2, 3 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Residential Zone: 6 Public Notification: Category 1

Schedule 8 Referral: Not required Was a request for additional information made? Yes

Issues: Supporting Evidence Recommendation: Refusal


Item

4.4

1. PROPOSAL

The application seeks to remove a significant Eucalyptus camalduensis (River Red

Gum) located within the rear of the subject land, and is one of two large trees on the land. Specifically, the tree in question is located 1.0m from the rear boundary, approximately 5.0m from the northern boundary and approximately 15.0m from the southern boundary. The tree is 12.0m from the dwelling, directly adjacent the shed and 3.0m from a swimming pool on the land. The subject tree measures 3.45m in circumference at 1.0m above ground level, and therefore in accordance with Regulation 6A(2) of the Development Regulations 2008

(the ‘Regulations’), the tree is significant. The tree has an estimated height of 25.0m and a crown spread of approximately 16.0m. The applicant is the owner of the adjoining property to the west of the subject site at 15 Locke Drive, and cites the following grounds for removal:

The tree poses a threat to our house and young family

The tree is located too close to the swimming pool

The tree is causing easement blockages.

The applicant has provided an arborist report prepared by Mr Duncan McGregor of TreeVision Arboricultural Consultants (the ‘TreeVision Report’) in support of the application (Attachment 7) and has nominated to pay into Council’s Urban Tree Fund should the application be supported.


‘Tree damaging activity’, which includes the removal of a significant tree, is not listed as a ‘complying’ development within Table TTG/1 of the Development Plan, or in Schedule

4 of the Regulations.

The Development Plan also does not assign the removal of significant trees to a ‘non-complying’ form of development in a Residential Zone.

The application has therefore been assessed on its merits.

As the proposed removal of significant trees is a common form of development within all zones throughout the City, the proposal is not considered to be seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (the

‘Act’). Pursuant to Regulation 18 of the Regulations, if the owner of the tree is not a party to the application, the relevant authority must give notice to the owner of the property containing the tree. In this particular case, the application was accompanied by signed statement from the owner of the property supporting the application (Attachment 6). As such notification was not required.


Item

4.4


Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. Schedule 9, clause 13 states that except where the development falls within clause 25 of Schedule 9, any development which comprises a tree-damaging activity in relation to a significant tree is assigned to a Category 1 form of development. Clause 25 is not relevant in this case as the significant tree is on private land and its removal has not been undertaken under section 54A of the Act as urgent work. The proposed development therefore falls within clause 13 in Schedule 9 of the Regulations as a Category 1 form of development and does not require public notification.


Figure 1: Site and Locality

The subject site is located entirely within the residential zone on the western side of Littler Drive. The subject site is regular in shape and has a site area of approximately 765m2 with an approximate 21.0m frontage to Littler Drive.


Item

4.4

The site is serviced by Council’s Wastewater Management System (CWMS) with an onsite septic tank and the primary wastewater pipe located in the adjoining allotment to the rear, 15 Locke Drive. There are no easements protecting this pipe. The subject site contains a single storey detached dwelling with attached carports and verandahs, a domestic shed and an in-ground swimming pool. The adjacent allotment to the rear, is the applicant’s property, which contains a single storey detached dwelling and large domestic shed. The tree is shown to be approximately 13.0m from the dwelling and approximately 11.0m from the shed. The locality has a variety of vegetation with a mix of large gum trees in both front and rear yards, smaller street trees and various exotic trees planted on the private land. Directly opposite the subject site is a large area of public open space with areas of native vegetation including medium sized trees.


As noted previously the applicant provided a report written by Mr Duncan McGregor of TreeVision arboricultural consultants. This report however made assessments against the Regulated Tree provisions of the Development Plan as opposed to the Significant Tree provisions. In summary, the report determined the following:

The tree contributes to the visual amenity of the locality

The tree is locally indigenous but is not rare or endangered

It is not important for habitat or native fauna but the tree does have some limited potential to provide suitable habitat

The tree does not appear to be diseased nor does it show signs of a short life expectancy

The tree represents a very real material threat to public and private health and safety given the tree’s close proximity to the sewer easement and shed

No damage was observed to adjacent buildings

The tree is not precluding development that is reasonable and expected

Removal is recommended due to the expressed nuisance caused by the tree and risks to public and private safety.

No additional supporting evidence was provided by either the applicant or the consulting arborist. To assist with the assessment of this application, an external independent arborist, Mr Jason Williams of Arborman Tree Solutions (Attachment 8), and Council’s internal Landscape Architect were engaged to provide expert advice on the subject tree.


Item

4.4

5.1 Consideration against Tree Preservation Criteria

The desired character statement for the Residential Zone states:

‘Mature landscaping and large trees contribute positively to the amenity and character of the zone.’

Further to this, the Residential Zone contains several provisions that determine whether a significant tree possesses attributes that warrant it worthy of retention. Specifically, Significant Trees Objective 1 aims for the conservation of significant trees in Metropolitan Adelaide that provide important aesthetic and environmental benefit. Additionally, Significant Trees Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1 states:

‘Development should preserve the following attributes where a significant tree demonstrates at least one of the following attributes:

(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 1972 as a rare or endangered native species

(c) represents an important habitat for native fauna (d) is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation (e) is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment (f) forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area.’

The character of the locality is a generally well landscaped and vegetated area. As noted above, the locality is vegetated with a mix of large gum trees of both ‘regulated’ and ‘significant’ size. These trees rise above building roofs and are a notable element contributing to the character of the locality. Council’s Landscape Architect provided a summary report on the amenity and character contribution of the subject tree (Attachment 9).

It is the opinion of Council’s Landscape Architect that the tree makes a significant contribution to the visual amenity and landscape of the area, with the tree providing a significant landmark for the surrounding area. Council’s Landscape Architect states that the tree is likely to be remnant vegetation and contributes to the surrounding environment. It is also considered that, though located within the rear yard of the subject site, the tree is visually significant given it is highly visible along Littler Drive, Locke Drive, Palmer Street and Crampton Street. It is also important to note that the Environment, Resources and Development Court (the ERD Court) has considered the notability of a tree on numerous occasions, particularly Summers v City of Unley [2002] SAERDC 113 and Frayne v City of Burnside [2010] SAERDC 28. From this, it was determined that a significant tree is generally always going to be notable and when considering notability, it is suggested the contribution to the landscape, both positive and negative, should be identified.


Item

4.4

The tree is considered notable and provides an important contribution to the character and amenity of the locality. A further thorough assessment of the proposal for tree removal was considered necessary against the other relevant provisions of the Development Plan.

5.2 Arboriculture Removal Criteria

Significant Tree PDC 3 Significant Trees PDC 3 provides guidance on when a significant tree, notwithstanding its positive attributes, can be removed:

‘Significant trees should be preserved and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken, unless: (a) In the case of tree removal:

(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

habitable building and is a bushfire hazard within a Bushfire Prone Area; or

(iv) the tree is shown to be causing or threatening to cause substantial damage to a substantial building or structure of value; and

(v) all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective ’

Parts (i) through to (vi) will be discussed individually in the subheadings below. 5.2.1 Condition and Life Expectancy

The TreeVision Report has stated that the tree does not appear diseased and does not exhibit any signs of having a short life expectancy.

This opinion is supported in the Arborman Report with the statement that the tree has a long useful life expectancy in excess of 50 years due to its good health and structure. Based on these two expert opinions the tree does not warrant removal.

5.2.2 Risk

The TreeVision Report provided the opinion the subject tree represents a material threat to public and private health and safety due to the tree’s proximity of the sewer line and shed. No risk assessment however was provided as part of this report.

The Arborman report however, concludes that the tree represents a low risk. This conclusion is supported by a risk assessment included as an appendix in the report. The opinion of the Arborman Report is considered to hold greater weight in the assessment due to the inclusion of the risk assessment. As such, the tree is considered to pose a low risk to public and private safety and does not warrant removal based on this provision.


Item

4.4

5.2.3 Bushfire Hazard

The subject site is not identified as being in a Bush Fire Prone Area, as delineated by the Development Plan, nor is it located in a 500m buffer zone to any Bushfire Prone Area. Therefore, the tree should not be removed on the basis of bushfire protection

5.2.4 Damage to Property

The applicant has raised concerns regarding the risk the tree poses to the dwelling, and has noted plumbing blockages caused by the tree. However, the TreeVison Report advises that no damage was observed to adjacent structures. Likewise the Arborman Report did not identify any damage to structures caused by the tree, or any likely threats to cause damage. With no observed damage, the aforementioned low risk rating of the tree and no evidence to the contrary, the subject tree has not been shown to be causing, or threatening to cause, damage to a substantial building or structure of value.

5.2.5 Remedial Options

Even if the above removal criteria could be satisfied, significant tree applications are also subject to another test in Significant Tree PDC 3(a)(v),

in that reasonable remedial measures must be identified and discounted as effective solutions. The TreeVision report has stated that remedial action is likely to be restricted and generally ineffective given the nature of the risks posed to public and private safety and consequently recommends complete removal. The Arborman Report however, has stated that no remedial pruning options have been considered as the risk rating is low and no mitigation actions are required. It was recommended a further inspection be undertaken within the next five years. With the aforementioned low risk rating and general good condition of the tree, remedial actions are not considered necessary at this time.

The conclusion of the Arborman Report is such that the subject tree does not meet any of the criteria for removal and should be retained. The tree displays good health and structure with no signs of structural weakness or health decline with a low risk to public and private safety. The arborist recommends the tree’s risk should be reassessed in the coming five years by a suitably qualified arborist with qualifications in tree risk assessment and management. It is the opinion of the Planning Officer the subject tree does not satisfy Significant Trees PDC 3 (a) and removal is not justified.


Item

4.4

6. CONCLUSION

It is considered the development fails the Significant Tree provisions of the Development Plan. The tree forms a notable element of the landscape and makes a significant contribution to the visual amenity and landscape of the area. Removal of the tree would negatively impact the visual amenity and character of the landscape. The tree is in good health with no arboricultural defects, and it poses a low risk to public and private safety. No damage to substantial structures is evident, nor was any evidence provided. It is the Planning Officer’s opinion that the tree does not satisfy the relevant provisions of the Development Plan relating to significant tree removal. With no technical detail in support of the removal and the adverse impact on the character and amenity of the locality, the proposal to remove of this notable significant tree is recommended for refusal.

7. RECOMMENDATION




B. RESOLVES to REFUSE Development Plan Consent to the application by Cameron Bobridge to remove a Significant Tree (River Red Gum) at 68 Littler Drive, Fairview Park, as detailed in Development Application No.070/116552/2019 for the following reasons:

(1) The tree provides an important aesthetic and environmental benefit, and is worthy of preservation.

(2) The tree does not meet the criteria for removal under the current Development

Plan.

(3) In particular, the proposed tree removal is at variance with the following provisions of the Development Plan:

(a) Significant Tree Objective 1 which seeks the conservation of

significant trees that provide an important aesthetic and environmental benefit.

(b) Significant Tree PDC 1 which states that development should

preserve significant trees that demonstrate the attributes making an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area or forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area.


Item

4.4

(c) Significant Trees PDC 3 which seeks to preserve significant trees and avoid tree-damaging activity except where the tree is diseased and has a short life expectancy, or represents an unacceptable risk to safety, or is within 20m of a bushfire area, or causing or threatening to cause damage to a substantial building or structure of value, and it has been demonstrated that all reasonable alternative development options have been considered.

(d) Residential Zone Objective 3 and PDC 6 which required

development to contribute to and be undertaken in accordance with the desired character for the zone.

(e) Residential Zone Desired Character statement which notes the

contribution of mature landscaping and large trees contributing to the amenity and character of the zone and encourages development that contributes to the enhancement of the landscape character of the zone.

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph ........................................................................................... 480 2.⇩ Development Application Form ....................................................................... 481 3.⇩ Certificate of Title ............................................................................................ 482 4.⇩ Tree Proposal Form ........................................................................................ 484 5.⇩ Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 487 6.⇩ Owner's Letter ................................................................................................. 489 7.⇩ Applicant's Arborist Report .............................................................................. 490 8.⇩ External Consultant Arborist Report ................................................................ 500 9.⇩ Amenity Assessment....................................................................................... 520

Report Authorisers

Timothy Bourner


Nathan Grainger


Carol Neil



Item

4.5




SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF A REGULATED TREE (RIVER RED GUM) AND

REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE (SA BLUE GUM) AT 2B KINNAIRD CRESCENT, HIGHBURY

SUMMARY

Applicant: Mr Simon Jadon

Nature of Development: Removal of a Regulated Tree (River Red Gum) and a Significant

Tree (SA Blue Gum) Address: 2B Kinnaird Crescent HIGHBURY SA 5089

Application No: 070/116253/2018

Lodgement Date: 21 November 2018 Development Plan: 29 September 2016 Zone and Policy Area: Residential (No Policy Area) Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives Natural Resources: 1 and 8 Regulated Trees: 1 and 2 Significant Trees: 1 and 2 Residential Zone: 3 Principles of Development Control Natural Resources: 1, 30 and 33(d) Regulated trees: 1, 2 Significant trees: 1, 2, 3 Residential Zone: 6 Public Notification: Category 1

Schedule 8 Referral: Not required Was a request for additional information made? Yes

Issues: Supporting Information

Recommendation: Refusal


Item

4.5

1. PROPOSAL

The proposal is to remove a regulated Eucalyptus camalduensis (River Red Gum), and a significant Eucalyptus leucoxylon (SA Blue Gum) from the subject site. The River Red Gum is located adjacent the rear boundary of the subject site, and measures 2.75m in circumference at 1.0m above ground level. In accordance with Regulation 6A(1) of the Development Regulations 2008 (the ‘Regulations’), the tree is

‘regulated’. The River Red Gum has an estimated height of 19.0m and a crown spread of approximately 11.0m. The SA Blue Gum is located adjacent the front boundary of the subject site. This tree measures 3.2m in circumference at 1.0m above ground level, and is therefore significant in accordance with the Regulations. The SA Blue Gum has an estimated height of 19.0m and a crown spread of approximately 10.2m The applicant is not the owner of the subject site, nor an adjoining property owner, however the grounds for removal cited within the applicant’s accompanying letter are as follows:

The root system will damage the footings of a future dwelling on the site

Limb failure is a risk to public and private safety

Gutters and roof will be clogged with leaves, limbs and branches causing a fire hazard

Damage to property (the future dwelling and vehicles)

Fire hazard

The root system will damage pipe and sewerage lines. The applicant has provided an arborist report, planning statement, dwelling designs and engineering advice in support of the application (Attachments 8, 9, 10 and 11). The subject trees have been identified differently throughout the various reports submitted as part of this assessment. The report by the applicant’s arborist, Tempest’s Arborist Service (Attachment 8, the “Tempest Report”), identifies the regulated tree as a Eucalyptus sp. and nominates it as Tree 1. The significant tree is identified as a Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum)

and nominated as Tree 2. The site plans provided by the applicant identifies both trees as Eucalyptus camaldulensis species (River Red Gums).

Conversely , the independent arborist report prepared by Mr Sam Cassar of Symatree (Attachment 12, the “Symatree Report”) identified the regulated tree as a Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) nominating it as Tree 1. The significant tree is identified as a Eucalyptus leucoxylon (SA Blue Gum) and nominated as Tree 2.

For the purposes of this report the identification and nominated numbering of the Symatree Report.


Item

4.5

2. BACKGROUND

An application for land division was lodged with Council in August 2017. This division proposed Lot 1, 504m2 in area, now known as 2A Kinnaird Crescent, and Lot 2, 879m2 in area, now known as 2B Kinnaird Crescent (the site containing the subject trees). An arborist report prepared by Arborman Tree Solutions was submitted as part of the land division application (Attachment 14, the “Arborman Report”), which demonstrated that there are viable development options for the subject site that are not expected to compromise the health and stability of the trees. These options include vehicle access from Casemate Street to minimise intrusion into the tree protection zones. The application was therefore granted consent in October 2017. The application before the Panel is to now assess the removal of the two trees.


‘Tree damaging activity’, which includes the removal of a regulated or significant tree, is not listed as a ‘complying’ development within Table TTG/1 of the Development Plan, or

in Schedule 4 of the Regulations.

The Development Plan also does not assign the removal of regulated or significant trees to a ‘non-complying’ form of development in a Residential Zone.

The application has therefore been assessed on its merits.

As the proposed removal of regulated or significant trees is a common form of development within all zones throughout the City, the proposal is not considered to be seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (the ‘Act’).

As mentioned previously, the applicant is not the owner of the property on which the tree is located. Therefore, pursuant to Regulation 18 of the Regulations, the relevant authority must give notice to the owner of the property that contains the trees. Notice was given to the owner and Council received a written response (Attachment 7).


Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. Schedule 9, clause 13 states that, except where the development falls within clause 25 of Schedule 9, any development which comprises a tree-damaging activity in relation to a significant tree is assigned to a Category 1 form of development. Clause 25 is not relevant in this case as the significant tree is on private land and its removal has not been undertaken under section 54A of the Act as urgent work. The proposed development therefore falls within clause 13 in Schedule 9 of the Regulations as a Category 1 form of development.


Item

4.5


Figure 1: Site and Locality

The subject site is located entirely within the residential zone on the western side of Kinnaird Crescent. The subject site is irregular in shape with a site area of approximately 879m2. The site has a frontage to Kinnaird Crescent of 15.77m, a rear boundary partially addressing Casemate Street of 30.09m with two side boundaries of 37.21m and 41.76m to the north and south respectively. The subject site is currently vacant and contains the two subject trees and no structures. The subject site was created through a recent land division application approved in 2017 (Attachment 14). The subject site and the allotment to the south previously contained a detached dwelling and ancillary outbuildings. Tree 1 (River Red Gum) is shown to be to the rear of the allotment 8.2m form the northern boundary and 8.2m from the western boundary. Tree 2 (SA Blue Gum) is shown to be located to the front of the allotment, 3.9m from the eastern boundary and 7.4m from the northern boundary. These are demonstrated in Figure 2 below.


Item

4.5

Figure 2: Tree 1 and 2 Locations

The subject site has three adjoining allotments. The allotment to the south is vacant with no structures or vegetation. The allotment to the north is a large allotment containing a split level detached dwelling and ancillary structures. This dwelling is approximately 12.2m from Tree 1 and 11m from Tree 2. The allotment to the west contains a single storey detached dwelling and ancillary outbuilding. The dwelling on this allotment is approximately 15m from Tree 1. The locality primarily consists of residential allotments of a variety of sizes with a variety of dwelling styles with Anstey Hill Recreation Park to the east. The area is characterised by a mosaic of native vegetation including large to medium trees and street tree plantings. These large to medium trees include numerous large native trees which aid to screen buildings and urban infrastructure. The area is adjacent a linear creek corridor; well vegetated with native trees and local vegetation with an adjacent recreation park that is also heavily vegetated with native trees.

As Tree 1 is regulated and Tree 2 is significant, both trees will be assessed individually against the relevant Development Plan Provisions.


Item

4.5

6. REGULATED TREE ASSESSMENT 6.1 Consideration against Tree Preservation Criteria

The Development Plan contains several provisions that determine whether a regulated tree is worthy of retention in the first instance. Regulated Trees Objective 1 seeks the conservation of regulated trees that provide important aesthetic and/or environmental benefit. Further, Regulated Trees Objective 2 seeks development in balance with preserving regulated trees that demonstrate one or more of the following:

(a) significantly contributes to the character or visual amenity of the locality (b) indigenous to the locality (c) a rare or endangered species (d) an important habitat for native fauna.

In assessing the subject tree against the above provision, the Symatree Report advises the following:

The height and spread of the tree offers a strong visual contribution to the locality

The tree is considered indigenous to the locality

The tree is not listed as rare or endangered

There is no evidence the tree is an important habitat for native fauna as no hollows suitable for nesting were observed.

Notwithstanding the reference to the Significant Tree principles (as opposed to the Regulated tree principles), the Tempest Report provides the following opinion on the regulated tree:

The tree does not make an important contribution to the local area. There are many other larger healthy specimens in the locality

the species is not listed as rare or endangered and does not form part of a remnant area of vegetation

There were no visible hollows or nests identified within the canopy of the tree. The bird box can be installed in a neighboring tree

The tree does not form part of a remnant wildlife corridor

The tree is considered to be important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment

The tree is not a dominant specimen. There are many other large native specimens that are located within the locality.

In addition to the above, a report was sought from Council’s Landscape Architect to assist with determining the significance of the tree’s contribution on the character and visual amenity of the locality (Attachment 13).

It is the opinion of Council’s Landscape Architect that the tree is highly visible throughout the locality and contributes to the natural setting, providing an important link with the linear creek, wildlife corridor and recreation park. The tree is considered to provide a significant landmark for the surrounding locality and make a significant contribution to the character of the local area. It is therefore considered that the Regulated Tree provides a significant contribution to the character and visual amenity of the locality, as outlined in Objective 2(a). The tree is


Item

4.5

indigenous to South Australia and can be observed from many locations surrounding the subject site. The tree has an attractive form and contributes strongly to the natural character the locality possesses. The loss of the tree would negatively impact this character. With regard to the above opinions, and the Planning Officer’s own locality observations, it is considered that the Regulated Tree possesses attributes worthy of preservation in accordance with Regulated Trees Objective 1 and 2(a) and Natural Resources PDC 33(d), unless further removal criteria can be met below.

6.2 Arboricultural Removal Criteria Regulated Trees PDC 2 states:

‘A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

(a) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short (b) the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety (c) the tree is causing damage to a building.’

When assessed against the above principle, the Symatree Report states that:

The tree was found not to be diseased nor is its life expectancy short. The tree is expected to have a long and useful life expectancy of more than 20 years.

The tree represents a low risk to safety with ongoing management recommended ensuring branch failure likelihood acceptable.

No evidence the tree was causing damage to a building was observed.

The Symatree Report concludes that the subject tree does not meet the above criteria for removal. The Tempest Report provides the following on the above criteria:

Measured on the Safe Useful Life Expectancy table, the life expectancy of the tree is less than short; falling into the category of remove.

The tree represents an unacceptable risk to public and private safety.

The risk assessment shows the risk is high with significant and significant consequences to powerlines and the neighbour’s dwelling.

The Tempest Report concludes that the regulated tree does meet the criteria for removal.

It is considered that the tree is located sufficiently clear of surrounding buildings and onsite observation did not indicate any notable branch failures, either past or present nor any damage to buildings caused by the tree. It is also noted that the information within the Symatree report is more consistent with the information provided within the Arborman Report submitted as part of the land division application, giving weight to this advice. The Regulated Tree is therefore considered to be a sound example of the species that has a low risk to public and private safety. With regard to the above opinions, and the Planning Officer’s own locality observations, it is considered that the Regulated Tree does not meet the criteria of Regulated Trees PDC 2 for removal and is a tree worthy of retention.


Item

4.5

6.3 Development Removal Criteria

Regulated Trees PDC 2 also states: ‘A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

(d) Development that is reasonable and expected would not otherwise be possible.’

It is certainly reasonable and expected that a dwelling is to be built on this site. The site’s suitability for its intended purpose was determined as part of the land division application that created the allotment in 2017. Two alternative dwelling foot prints were considered demonstrating the impact on the trees was tolerable. To date, no applications have been received by Council for the construction of a dwelling and as such no built form has been assessed as part of this application. With the site being considered fit for purpose whilst retaining the subject trees, the above provision is not satisfied to support removal.

7. SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT

7.1 Consideration Against Tree Preservation Criteria

The Development Plan contains several provisions that determine whether a significant tree possesses attributes that warrant it worthy of retention.

Significant Tree Objective 1 aims for the conservation of significant trees, in

Metropolitan Adelaide, that provide important aesthetic and environmental benefit.

Significant Trees (PDC) 1 provides the following:

‘Development should preserve the following attributes where a significant tree demonstrates at least one of the following attributes:

(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 1972 as a rare or endangered native species (c) represents an important habitat for native fauna (d) is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation (e) is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment (f) forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area.’


Item

4.5

In assessing the significant tree against the above provision, the Symatree Report advises the following:

The location, height and spread of the tree give a strong visual presence with the locality. It is a large mature tree, making it a prominent feature in the landscape.

The tree is an indigenous species to the local area but is not listed as rare or endangered.

No evidence was found indicating it was an important habitat for native fauna.

No visual evidence was found to indicate the tree is part of a wildlife corridor or part of remnant vegetation.

The tree is important to maintaining biodiversity in the local environment as it is a native indigenous species and this and other trees would act as a corridor for fauna and insect activity.

The tree and be viewed form numerous vantage points from within the locality. The tree is a notable visual element in the landscape and it is clearly visible from the street and surrounding properties for some distance.

The Tempest Report provides the following opinion on the significant tree’s worthiness of preservation:

The tree does not make an important contribution to the local area. There are many other larger healthy specimens in the locality.

The species is not listed as rare or endangered and does not form part of a remnant area of native vegetation.

There were no visible hollows or nests identified within the canopy of the tree.

The tree does not form part of a remnant wildlife corridor.

The tree is considered to be important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment.

The tree is not a dominant specimen. There are many other large native specimens that are located within the locality.

In assessing the tree’s contribution to the amenity and character of the locality, the report from Council’s Landscape Architect also commented on the significant tree.

It is the opinion of Council’s Landscape Architect that the tree makes an important and significant contribution to the visual amenity and landscape of the area. The tree provides an important link with the adjacent linear creek, wildlife corridor to the north and the recreation park to the east of the subject site.

The tree has a well-shaped crown, good leaf coverage and clear trunk formation. Council’s Landscape Architect noted remedial pruning to remove deadwood would further improve the visual amenity.

In considering the findings of both arborists, and emphasising Council’s Landscape Architect’s opinion and the Planning Officer’s own locality observations, it is considered that the significant tree sufficiently meets Significant Trees PDC 1(a) and (f), and is

therefore worthy of preservation unless other grounds for removal are evident.


Item

4.5

7.2 Arboricultural Removal Criteria Significant Trees PDC 3 provides guidance on when a significant tree, notwithstanding

its positive attributes, can be removed:

‘(a) in the case of tree removal: (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

habitable building and is a bushfire hazard within a Bushfire Prone Area; or

(iv) the tree is shown to be causing or threatening to cause substantial damage to a substantial building or structure of value; and

(v) all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective; and

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

Parts (i) through to (vi) will be discussed individually in the subheadings below. 7.2.1 Condition and Life Expectancy

The Tempest Report claims that the significant tree’s safe useful life expectancy is short and will need to be removed within five (5) years. The Symatree Report advises that the significant tree is not diseased, and has a long useful life expectancy of greater than 20 years under existing environmental and site conditions and with on-going management and maintenance by a qualified arborist. The opinion expressed in the Symatree Report is consistent with that of the Arborman Report as part of the land division application. This consistency, in the opinion of the Planning Officer, give greater weight to the conclusion the tree is in good condition and has a long life expectancy. The tree therefore does not warrant removal based on its condition and life expectancy.

7.2.2 Risk

The Significant Tree currently represents a low risk to private safety, primarily due to the site being vacant and unoccupied. The view presented within the Symatree Report is that with future management and maintenance by a qualified arborist and ongoing monitoring, the likelihood of future branch failure is considered acceptable at this time. The application lists ‘unacceptable risk to any future dwelling’ as a reason for tree removal. Specifically the future tree will cause damage to footings and a safety risk to public and private persons due to falling limbs and droppings covering the footpath.

The Tempest Report provided a risk assessment resulting in a high risk result. These observations are inconsistent with those expressed within the Symatree Report, and those of the Planning Officer. The subject site is currently vacant with notable separation distances to adjoining allotments and dwellings. The verge on Kinnaird Crescent is well vegetated with no footpath in place, rendering it unlikely to be utilised by pedestrians.


Item

4.5

7.2.3 Bushfire Hazard

The Tempest Report highlights that the tree is within 20m of a dwelling, however for this to be relevant within Significant Trees PDC 3(iii), the subject site must also be located within a Bush Fire Prone Area. The subject site is not identified as being in a Bush Fire Prone Area, as delineated by the Development Plan, nor is it located in a 500m buffer zone to any Bushfire Prone Area. Therefore, the tree should not be removed on the basis of bushfire protection.

7.2.4 Damage to Property

The application states that the tree will cause damage to footings of a dwelling and will clog gutters and roof with leaves, tree limbs and branches causing damage. The Symatree Report, however, does not advise of any observations of damage to property that can be attributed to the subject tree. Conversely, the Tempest Report states that the risk of damage is high with severe risk to the dwelling and power lines. It is the opinion of the Planning Officer based on site observations there is no evidence of damage to property attributable to the tree, with the allotment being vacant and no structures within the drop zone of the tree the risk of damage is low.

7.2.5 Remedial Options

Even if the above removal criteria could be satisfied, significant tree applications are also subject to another test in Significant Tree PDC 3(a)(v), in that

reasonable remedial measures must be identified and discounted as effective solutions. The Tempest Report states that pruning options would not reduce the assessed risk, however no evidence in support of this statement has been provided. The Symatree Report however, has provided a detailed pruning guideline which has been recommended to address any defects within the crown of the tree. Whilst no dwelling application has been lodged for consideration, the engineering report provided with the indicative dwelling design has acknowledged a footing system can be engineered to take into consideration the presence of trees but with additional costs. It therefore has not been demonstrated that all reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been considered to prevent substantial tree-damaging activities occurring.

7.2.6 Development Options

The applicant has provided an indicative dwelling design upon the land however has confirmed these plans do not form part of this application to remove the trees. No assessment has been undertaken on this dwelling design.


Item

4.5

The allotment of some 879m2 was demonstrated to be fit for its intended purpose during the land division application. To date, Council has not received any other applications to construct a dwelling on this site to enable an assessment to prove otherwise. When an application is lodged, an assessment of both trees will occur ‘on balance’ with any proposal for reasonable and expected development, and all reasonable development options will be considered.

8. CONCLUSION

Based on the Planning Officer’s own assessment and the Council’s Landscape Architect, it is considered to make an important contribution to the character and amenity of the local area. Both trees are considered to possess attributes worthy of preservation, as the trees contribute to the visual amenity of the locality and are considered to be notable visual elements of the landscape of the locality.

In terms of the arboricultural assessment, it is noted that the Tempest Report provided by the applicant with the application, and the Symatree Report, commissioned by the Council, produce widely differing conclusions. In considering both reports, the evidence contained within the Symatree Report is preferred due to its detailed analysis specific to the trees in question, and its correlation with the Arborman Report provided with the original land division application.

The Symatree Report observed that both trees are in good health with no notable defects suggesting the trees are an unacceptable risk to safety with no evidence having been demonstrated the trees are causing or threatening to cause damage to a building or structure of significant value. The land division application creating this allotment demonstrated the suitability of the land for its intended use with future dwellings unlikely to cause unreasonable impact to the trees. An application for a dwelling has not been formally lodged to enable a further assessment of this. It is the Planning Officer’s opinion that the trees do not satisfy the relevant provisions of the Development Plan relating to regulated and significant tree removal and therefore the trees should be retained.


Item

4.5

9. RECOMMENDATION




B. RESOLVES to REFUSE Development Plan Consent to the application by Mr Simon Jadon to remove a Regulated Tree (River Red Gum) and a Significant Tree (SA Blue Gum) at 2B Kinnaird Crescent, Highbury, as detailed in Development Application No.070/116253/2018 for the following reasons:

(1) The trees provide an important aesthetic and environmental benefit, and are

worthy of preservation.

(2) The trees do not meet the criteria for removal under the Development Plan.

(3) In particular, the proposal is at variance with the following provisions of the Development Plan:

(a) Regulated Trees Objective 1 which seeks the conservation of

regulated trees that provide important aesthetic and/or environmental benefit.

(b) Regulated Trees Objective 2 which seeks development in balance

with preserving regulated trees that significantly contribute to the character or visual amenity of the locality; or are indigenous to the locality.

(c) Regulated Trees Principle of Development Control 2 (a) (b) (c) (d)

which states that a regulated tree should not be removed unless it is diseased and its life expectancy is short; or the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety; or the tree is causing damage to a building; or development that is reasonable and expected would not otherwise be possible.

(d) Significant Tree Objective 1 which seeks the conservation of

significant trees that provide an important aesthetic and environmental benefit.

(e) Significant Tree PDC 1 which states that development should

preserve significant trees that demonstrate the attributes making an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area or forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area.

(f) Significant Trees PDC 3 which seeks to preserve significant trees

and avoid tree-damaging activity except where the tree is diseased and has a short life expectancy, or represents an unacceptable risk to safety, or is within 20m of a bushfire area, or causing or threatening to cause damage to a substantial building or structure of value, and it has been demonstrated that all reasonable alternative development options have been considered.


Item

4.5

(g) Residential Zone Objective 3 and PDC 6 which required development to contribute to and be undertaken in accordance with the desired character for the zone.

(h) Residential Zone Desired Character statement which notes the

contribution of mature landscaping and large trees contributing to the amenity and character of the zone and encourages development that contributes to the enhancement of the landscape character of the zone.

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph ........................................................................................... 537 2.⇩ Development Application Form ....................................................................... 538 3.⇩ Certificate of Title ........................................................................................... 542 4.⇩ Tree Proposal ................................................................................................. 543 5.⇩ Applicant Letter of Support ............................................................................. 547 6.⇩ Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 549 7.⇩ Property Owner's Response to Regulation 18 Letter ...................................... 550 8.⇩ Applicants Arborist Report .............................................................................. 552 9.⇩ Planning Statement ........................................................................................ 573 10.⇩ Indicative Dwelling Design .............................................................................. 585 11.⇩ Engineering Report ........................................................................................ 589 12.⇩ External Consultant Arborist Report ............................................................... 599 13.⇩ Amenity Assessment ...................................................................................... 619 14.⇩ Land Division Documentation ......................................................................... 633

Report Authorisers

Timothy Bourner


Nathan Grainger


Carol Neil


Documents

Notice of Council Assessment Panel Meeting · Council Assessment Panel Meeting - 21 May 2019 Page 3 CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 21 MAY 2019 AGENDA 1. Attendance