item 5 development application 090/87/2013/c2 34 … and... · the aluminium windows visible from...

This is page 56 of the Development Assessment Panel Agenda for 17 November 2015

ITEM 5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – 090/87/2013/C2 – 34 WESTALL STREET, HYDE PARK SA 5061 (UNLEY PARK)

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER:

090/87/2013/C2

ADDRESS: 34 Westall Street, Hyde Park SA 5061

DATE OF MEETING: 17 November 2015

AUTHOR: Grant Croft

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Construct new two (2) storey dwelling with garage and balcony fronting King William Road (on section of land between 213 and 215 King William Road).

HERITAGE VALUE: Nil

DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 31 January 2013

ZONE: (BUILT FORM) ZONE P 9.4

APPLICANT: Progetto Design

APPLICATION TYPE: Merit

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Category 2

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:

YES – Three (3) oppose

DAP'S CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED DUE TO:

Unresolved representations

Recommendation for refusal

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: Built form / character

Overshadowing

Land division

1. PLANNING BACKGROUND

The applicant has indicated they do not seek to apply for a land division and wish for the application to be assessed in its current form.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks to construct a new double storey, undefined dwelling, on a section of land fronting King William Road, which is associated with 34 Westall Street, Hyde Park.

Item 5 Development Application – 090/87/2013/C2 – 34 Westall Street, Hyde Park SA 5061 (Unley Park) - Continued


3. SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located on the north-western corner of Commercial Road and Westall Street, Hyde Park. Currently located on the subject site is a single storey double fronted cottage fronting Westall Street, with garaging fronting Commercial Road, a tennis court and in-ground swimming pool and a section of land that extends to King William Road, which has an existing crossover allowing vehicle access to the site.

A site inspection has confirmed that the two (2) regulated trees on the adjacent units to the north (side) have since been removed; no other regulated trees are located within close proximity to the proposed works.

A copy of the relevant Certificate of Title does not indicate any restrictive covenants or easements that would restrict the proposed development.

4. LOCALITY PLAN

Subject Site Locality Proposed Dwelling Representations

1

1

2

3



5. LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

Land Use

The predominant land use with the locality is residential. Land Division/Settlement Pattern

The locality does not compromise a consistent land division / settlement pattern, with double storey group dwellings located to the north, recently constructed semi-detached dwellings to the south, and detached dwellings on regular sized allotments (excluding the subject site).

Dwelling Type / Style and Number of Storeys

The dwelling type in the locality is also quite mixed, as detailed above there are examples of semi-detached dwellings, group dwellings and detached dwellings varying from single storey to the east and west to double storey to the north and south.

Fencing Styles

Fencing in this section of King William Road are predominantly high and solid. 6. STATUTORY REFERRALS

No statutory referrals required. 7. NON-STATUTORY (INTERNAL) REFERRALS

The application was referred to Councils Consultant Architect, comments are summarised below:

the façade is somewhat unbalanced;

the proposal is considered to meet the provisions of the Residential Streetscape (Built Form) Zone within the limitations of an extremely restricted site;

the aluminium windows visible from the street should be powder coated, not natural anodized aluminium;

the driveway should be paved rather than concreted. 8. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Category 2 notification was undertaken in accordance with Table Un/8 of the Unley Development Plan. During the ten (10) business day notification period three (3) representations opposing the development were received, as detailed below.

40a Commercial Road, Hyde Park (oppose)

ISSUES RAISED APPLICANTS RESPONSE

Overshadowing The habitable rooms and under-cover alfresco areas within the representors



property will continue to enjoy suitable access to sunlight during the winter months. The increase in shadow from existing to proposed is not considered excessive in the circumstance.

Restriction of views Adjacent properties have ‘borrowed’ amenity from the subject site and can not reasonably expect unfettered access to sunlight and visual outlook to continue unabated.

Built form inconsistent with traditional building proportions.

The built form in this section of King William Road is very much an ‘eclectic’ mix and in this context the proposed dwelling is considered atypical of the desired character.

1 / 213 King William Road, Hyde Park (oppose)


Built form does not suit the character of King William Road.

The built form in this section of King William Road is very much an ‘eclectic’ mix and in this context the proposed dwelling is considered atypical of the desired character.

215 King William Road, Hyde Park (oppose)


Visual privacy. The applicant is prepared to accept a condition that screening be provided to the southern (side) of the upper level balcony.

(* denotes non-valid planning considerations)

9. DEVELOPMENT DATA

Site Characteristics Double Storey Dwelling Development Plan

Provision

Total Site Area Undefined 600m²

Frontage 7.62m 15m

Depth Undefined 20m

Building Characteristics

Floor Area

Ground Floor 117.65m²

Upper Floor 70.05m² = 59% 50% of ground floor

Site Coverage – Undefined Site

Wall Height

Ground Floor Wall 2.65m

Upper Floor Wall 4.8m

Setbacks



Ground Floor

Northern boundary On boundary 1m

Eastern boundary - 5m

Western boundary 5.509m

Southern boundary On boundary 1m

Upper Floor

Northern boundary On boundary 3m

Eastern boundary - 8m

Western boundary 3.8m

Southern boundary 2.9m 3m

Wall on Boundary

Location Northern and southern

Length Northern = 12.5m Southern = 5.9m

4m (dwelling) 7m (garage)

Height Northern = Min 2.4m Max 4.8m Southern = 2.65m

3m (dwelling) 2.8m (garage)

Private Open Space - Undefined

Car parking and Access

On-site Car Parking 2 2 per dwelling

On-street Parking Not altering 0.5 per dwelling

Driveway Width 3.4m 3m Single 5m double

Garage/Carport Width 4.8m = 63% 6.5m and 50% of site width

Colours and Materials

Roof

Walls

Fencing

(items in BOLD do not satisfy the relevant Design Technique)

10. ZONE & POLICY ASSESSMENT

Zone Desired Character and Principles of Development Control

Residential Streetscape (Built Form) Zone

Objective 1: Enhancement of the desired character of areas of distinctive and primarily coherent streetscapes by retaining and complementing the siting, form and key elements as expressed in the respective policy areas and precincts. Objective 2: A residential zone for primarily street-fronting dwellings, together with the use of existing non-residential buildings and sites for small-scale local businesses and community facilities. Objective 3: Retention and refurbishment of buildings including the sensitive adaptation of large and non-residential buildings as appropriate for supported care or



small households. Objective 4: Replacement of buildings and sites at variance with the desired character to contribute positively to the streetscape.

Desired Character for Policy Area 9.4

The streetscape attributes include the: (a) low scale building development; and (b) spacious road verges and front and side building setbacks from the street; and (c) forms and detailing of the predominant architectural styles (variously Victorian and Turn-of the-Century double-fronted cottages and villas, and Inter-War era housing, primarily bungalow but also tudor and art deco and complementary styles); and (d) varied but coherent rhythm of buildings and spaces along its streets. Development will: (a) be of a street-front dwelling format, primarily detached dwellings; and (b) maintain or enhance the streetscape attributes comprising:

(i) siting - the regular predominant subdivision and allotment pattern, including the distinctive narrow-fronted sites associated with the various cottage forms (found only in the Unley (North) and Wayville Precincts). This produces a streetscape pattern of buildings and gardens spaces set behind generally open fenced front boundaries. Street setbacks are generally 6 to 8 metres and side setbacks consistently no less than 1 metre and most often greater, other than for narrow fronted cottages. Such patterns produce a regular spacing between neighbouring dwellings of generally between 5 metres and 7 metres (refer table below); and

(ii) form - the consistent and recognisable pattern of traditional building proportions, including the wall heights and widths of facades and roof heights, volumes and shapes associated with the architectural styles identified in the table below; and

(iii) key elements – the iconic and defining design features including, in particular the detailed composition and use of materials on facades and roofing of the predominant architectural styles identified in the table below.

Assessment

The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the relevant objectives or Desired Character of the Residential Streetscape (Built Form) Zone for the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling is not considered to enhance the desired character of the area and does not present a built form that complements the siting, form and key elements expressed in Policy Area 9.4;

The proposed dwelling is not considered low scale as the double storey component is readily visible from King William Road and extends forward of the ground level component;

The proposed dwelling does not make suitable reference to the form and



detailing of the predominant architectural styles (Victorian villas and double fronted cottages);

The proposed dwelling is not considered to maintain or enhance the streetscape attributes through appropriate siting, form or introducing key building elements that reflect the desired character of Policy Area 9.4.

Relevant Zone Principles of Development Control

Assessment

PDC 1

Development should support and enhance the desired character (as expressed for each of the three policy areas, and the respective precincts).

The proposed development is not considered to support or enhance the desired character expressed in Policy Area 9.4 as detailed above.

PDC 2

Development should comprise:

(a) alterations and/or additions to an existing dwelling; and (b) ancillary domestic-scaled structures and outbuildings; and (c) the adaptation of, and extension to, a building to accommodate and care for aged and disabled persons, or for a multiple dwelling or residential flat building; and (d) selected infill of vacant and/or under-utilised land for street-fronting dwelling type(s) appropriate to the policy area; and (e) replacement of a building or site detracting from the desired character of a precinct with respectful and carefully designed building(s).

The proposed development does not propose:

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling;

An ancillary domestic-scaled structure and / or outbuilding;

The adaptation of, and extension to a building to accommodate and care for aged or disabled persons.

Whilst the section of land proposed to be developed is under utilised given its location with relation to the existing dwelling on the subject site, the proposed dwelling is considered to detract from the desired character of the precinct,

PDC 9

Development should present a single storey built scale to the streetscape. Any second storey building elements should be integrated sympathetically into the dwelling design, and be either: (a) incorporated primarily into the roof or comprise an extension of the primary single storey roof element without imposing excessive roof volume or bulk, or massing intruding on neighbouring

The proposed development does not present single storey built scale to the streetscape, with the double storey component extending in front of the ground level façade. The second storey component is not incorporated within a roof form, with external walls visible from the street and adjacent properties. This second storey element, including both the walls and roof form, are considered excessive and bulky, intruding on the



spacious conditions, nor increasing the evident wall heights as viewed from the street; or

(b) set well behind the primary street façade of the dwelling so as to be inconspicuous in the streetscape, without being of a bulk or mass that intrudes on neighbouring properties.

neighbouring properties. Furthermore the proposed second storey component is not set behind the façade of the dwelling and is therefore not considered inconspicuous when viewed from the street, and is considered to be of a bulk and mass that intrudes on neighbouring properties to the north and south.

PDC 10

Buildings should be of a high quality contemporary design and not replicate historic styles. Buildings should nonetheless suitably reference the contextual conditions of the locality and contribute positively to the desired character, particularly in terms of:

(a) scale and form of buildings relative to their setbacks as well as the overall size of the site; (b) characteristic patterns of buildings and spaces (front and side setbacks), and gaps between buildings; and (c) primarily open front fencing and garden character and the strong presence of buildings fronting the street.

The proposed dwelling is considered a high quality contemporary design, which does not replicate a historic style.

The proposed dwelling however is not considered to make suitable references to its contextual conditions and is not considered to contribute positively to the desired character, with particular regards to the following:

The scale and form of the building relative to its setbacks and size is inconsistent with the locality;

the proposed dwelling proposes boundary to boundary development;

Floor to ceiling heights are less than 3.0m with no front verandah treatments and a roof form that is considered inconsistent with the desired character (i.e. pitch and proportions).

Stonework and western red cedar cladding are proposed on the façade, along with open style front fencing, which is considered appropriate.

PDC 12

In localities where the built character and streetscape qualities are incoherent or generally in discord with the desired character, development should redevelop a site by replacing the discordant elements, key features or materials and better support the desired character.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the built form character and streetscape qualities in the immediate locality are incoherent and generally in discord with the desired character, the proposed development is not considered to incorporate key features that will better support the desired character, as detailed above.



PDC 13

Building walls on side boundaries should be avoided other than:

(a) a party wall of semi-detached dwellings or row dwellings; or

(b) a single storey building, or outbuilding, which is not under the main dwelling roof and is setback from, and designed such that it is a minor, low and subservient element and not part of, the primary street façade, where:

(i) there is only one side boundary wall, and

(ii) the minimum side setback prescribed under the desired character is met on the other side boundary; and (iii) the desired gap between buildings, as set out in the desired character, is maintained in the streetscape presentation.

The proposed development seeks to construct walls to both side boundaries. This is considered inconsistent with this provision for the following reasons:

The boundary wall is not associated with a party wall of a semi-detached or row dwelling;

The proposal is not a single storey building or outbuilding and has not been designed as such that it forms a relatively minor, low and subservient element to the street façade;

The boundary wall is to both side boundaries, not just one;

The minimum side setbacks for the upper level component have not been achieved;

The desired gap between buildings set out in the desired character have not been achieved.

PDC 15

A carport or garage should form a relatively minor streetscape element and should:

(a) be located to the rear of the dwelling as a freestanding outbuilding; or

(b) where attached to the dwelling be sited alongside the dwelling and behind its primary street façade, and adopt a recessive building presence. In this respect, the carport or garage should:

(i) incorporate lightweight design and materials, or otherwise use materials which complement the associated dwelling; and

(ii) be in the form of a discrete and articulated building element not integrated under the main roof, nor incorporated as part of the front

The proposed single width garage is not considered to form a relatively minor streetscape element for the following reasons:

The garage wall is flush with the façade of the dwelling fronting King William Road;

The garage is attached to the dwelling and does not form a recessive building presence;

Furthermore the garage has a width greater than width of the dwelling façade and its frontage;

The garage is located on the southern (side) boundary, however it should be noted this directly abuts the garage wall of the adjacent property.

The applicant has indicated the garage is to be clad in timber to minimise its visual



verandah or any other key element of the dwelling design; and

(iii) have a width which is a proportionally minor relative to the dwelling façade and its primary street frontage; and

(iv) not be sited on a side boundary, except for minor scale carports, and only where the desired building setback from the other side boundary is achieved.

impact to the street this is considered appropriate.

PDC 16

Fencing of the primary street frontage and the secondary street on corner sites, forward of the front façade of the dwelling, should complement the desired character, and be compatible with the style of the associated dwelling and its open streetscape presence, and comprise:

(a) on narrow-fronted dwelling sites of up to 16 metres in street frontage - low and essentially open-style fencing up to 1.2 metres in height, including picket, dowel, crimped wire or alternatively low hedging;

The frontage of the proposed dwelling is 7.62m; therefore PDC 16 states fencing should not exceed 1.2m. Whilst the proposed fencing will measure 1.8m in height it is considered appropriate given the open style design and the prominence of high solid fencing in the immediate locality.

Relevant Council Wide Objectives and Principles of Development Control An assessment against the relevant Council Wide Provisions is provided below.

Relevant Council Wide Provisions

Assessment

PC 80 - Site Coverage and Floor Space Ratio

DT 80.1

The proposed upper floor component exceeds 50% of the proposed ground floor component, this is considered excessive when assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria for the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling is not considered to reinforce the desired character of Policy Area 9.4 as detailed earlier in the report;

Whilst the proposed development does provide



sufficient space for pedestrian and vehicle access no details on where storage and clothes drying is to be undertaken;

Given the dwelling is undefined and its site therefore unknown, Council is unable to determine if the dwelling will have sufficient access to private open space;

The proposed side setbacks, in-particular of the upper level component, are considered to have detrimental impacts on adjacent dwellings and their associated private open space as will be discussed later in the report.

PC 81 - Dwelling Setbacks Where not Sited on Side or Rear Boundaries

DT 81.1

The proposed upper level side setbacks are inconsistent with the relevant Design Technique and are considered to have detrimental impacts on the adjacent properties when assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria as detailed below:

The visual impact of the upper level component is considered substantial as the adjacent properties to the north and south have their main private open space living areas orientated towards the new dwelling;

These private open space areas are small in size and with the recent removal of the regulated trees on the adjacent property to the north, will result in substantial views of the proposed double storey dwelling;

Whilst shadowing will not have a detrimental impact on the units to the north, it is considered that the proposed dwelling and reduced upper level setbacks will impact on the private open space area of the adjacent property to the south;

The proposed dwelling does not minimise the shadowing on the adjacent property.

PC 82 - Dwellings Sited on Side Boundaries

DT 82.1

However the length of wall along both the northern boundary, which also exceeds the requirements of DT 82.1, is considered excessive when assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria for the following reasons:

The wall on boundary will directly abut the main private open space of the units to the north;

A component of the wall on boundary will measure 4.8m in height, this is associated with the stairwell;



This wall height combined with being directly adjacent the limited private open space areas of the adjoining units, is considered visually imposing;

The proposed development is not considered to maintain the proportions and presentation to the streetscape given the lack of side setbacks (i.e. boundary to boundary);

Given the orientation of the site there will be no shadowing on the adjacent properties to the north.

PC 87-88 - Natural Light

DT 87.1

Whilst the proposed development will provide a horizontal distance between any facing building and associated wall containing a window, of 0.9m clear to the sky, the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the adjacent property to the south with regards to overshadowing when assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria for the following reasons:

The proposed double storey dwelling has not been sited or designed to ensure adequate sunlight is available to the ground level private open space of the existing dwelling to the south (side);

Given the close proximity of the double storey dwelling, and the orientation of the adjacent properties main ground level private open space, shadowing is considered substantial and detrimental;

Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant indicate this space is to be cast in substantial shadow between 9am and 3pm;

Whilst the proposed development will not necessarily have a detrimental impact on access to light from habitable room windows it is considered to have a substantial, negative impact on the access to natural light to the main ground level private open space.

11. CONCLUSION

In summary, the application is considered to be at variance with the Development Plan and is not considered to satisfy the provisions of the Development Plan for the following reasons:



The proposed dwelling does not have regard to the Desired Character and Objectives of the Residential Streetscape (Built Form) Zone;

The width of the dwelling fronting King William Road does not have regard to the predominant character of the locality, which traditionally have frontages between 11-15m;

The double storey component is not considered inconspicuous when viewed from the street, with the upper level balcony extending forward of the dwellings ground level façade;

The proposed development is considered to cast unreasonable levels of shadow on the adjacent properties private open space area to the south (side);

The proposed development seeks an excessive length and height of wall along the northern (side) boundary, and is considered detrimental to the visual amenity when viewed from the adjacent properties main private open space areas;

The proposed garaging is located under the main roof form and exceeds 50% of the dwellings width; therefore it is not considered to form a relatively minor streetscape element.

The application is therefore recommended for REFUSAL. 12. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: SECONDED: That Development Application at 34 Westall Street, Hyde Park SA 5061 to ‘Construct new two (2) storey dwelling with garage and balcony fronting King William Road (on section of land between 213 and 215 King William Road)’ is at variance with the provisions of the City of Unley Development Plan and should be REFUSED Planning Consent for the following reasons:

The proposed development does not present single storey built scale to the streetscape or integrated sympathetically into the dwelling design;

The proposed development detrimentally impacts on available sunlight to the adjacent properties ground level private open space;

The length and height of the wall along the northern (side) boundary is considered detrimental to the visual amenity of the adjacent properties as this wall abuts their ground level private open space;

The proposed garaging is located under the main roof and exceed 50% of the total width of the dwelling and is therefore not considered to form a relatively minor streetscape element.



List of Attachments Supplied By:

A Application Documents Applicant

B Representations Administration

C Response to Representations Applicant

D Superseded Plans Administration

/CityOfUnley/media/CoU-Media-Library/Planning%20and%20Development/5A17Nov15.pdf

/CityOfUnley/media/CoU-Media-Library/Planning%20and%20Development/5B17Nov15.pdf

/CityOfUnley/media/CoU-Media-Library/Planning%20and%20Development/5C17Nov15.pdf

/CityOfUnley/media/CoU-Media-Library/Planning%20and%20Development/5D17Nov15.pdf