notice of panel meeting - westtorrens.sa.gov.au · notice of panel meeting notice is hereby given...

Notice of Panel Meeting

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN in accordance with Section 56A(19) of the Development Act 1993, that a meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

of the

CITY OF WEST TORRENS

will be held in the George Robertson Room, Civic Centre 165 Sir Donald Bradman Drive, Hilton

on

TUESDAY, 10 MARCH 2009

at 5.00 PM Terry Buss Chief Executive Officer City of West Torrens Disclaimer Development Assessment Panel Please note that the contents of this Development Assessment Panel Agenda have yet to be considered and deliberated by the Development Assessment Panel and officer recommendations may be adjusted or changed by the Development Assessment Panel in the process of making the formal Development Assessment Panel decision.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009

I N D E X

1. MEETING OPENED ..............................................................................................1

1.1 Evacuation Procedure .........................................................................................1

2. PRESENT..............................................................................................................1

3. APOLOGIES..........................................................................................................1

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES............................................................................1

5. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS..............................................................................1

6. REPORTS OF MANAGER CITY DEVELOPMENT ..............................................2 6.1 63 Argyle Avenue, MARLESTON...............................................................2 6.2 390 Henley Beach Road, LOCKLEYS......................................................40 6.3 40 St Georges Avenue, GLANDORE.......................................................68 6.4 12 Boston Ave, LOCKLEYS ...................................................................133

7. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS OF MANAGER CITY DEVELOPMENT...............164

8. SUMMARY OF COURT APPEALS...................................................................164

9. MEETING CLOSE .............................................................................................165

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 1 1. MEETING OPENED

1.1 EVACUATION PROCEDURE

2. PRESENT

3. APOLOGIES

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 10 February 2009 be confirmed as a true and correct record. 5. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

The following information should be considered by Development Assessment Panel Members prior to a meeting: Action to be taken prior to consideration of a matter Sections 2(4)(5) of the Minister's Code of Conduct - Section 21A of the Development Act 1993 requires that:

"If you consider that you have, or might reasonably be perceived to have an interest in the matter before the panel, you must clearly state the nature of that interest in writing to the presiding member before the matter is considered.

If you consider that you have a personal interest which may be in conflict with your public duty to act impartially and in accordance with the principles of the Act, you must declare a conflict of interest as above."

Action to be taken after making a declaration of interest: Section 2(6) of the Minister's Code of Conduct - Section 21A of the Development Act 1993 requires that:

"If you have an interest in a matter, you must not partake in any of the assessment processes involving the matter. You must leave the room at any time in which the matter is discussed by the panel including during the hearing of any representations or during any vote on the matter. You must not vote on the matter and you must not move or second any motion or participate in any discussion through the consensus process."

If an interest has been declared by any member of the panel, the presiding member must record the nature of the interest in the minutes of meeting. The following disclosures of interest have been made in relation to:

Item Panel Member

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 2 6. REPORTS OF MANAGER CITY DEVELOPMENT

6.1 63 Argyle Avenue, MARLESTON Application No. 211/1344/2008 Appearing before the Panel will be: Representors: Ms Deidre Mooney of 2/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston wish to appear in

support of the representation.

Mr Kevin Mooney of 2/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston wish to appear in support of the representation.

Mr Kevin Mooney also represents Beryl Waller of 1/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston and LCH & BHF Van Wallenburg of 61 Argyle Avenue, Marleston

Applicant Mr James Levinson of Jamie Botton and Associates wishes to appear to

respond to representations. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Construction of one (1) two-storey detached dwelling and one (1) two-storey residential flat building containing two (2) dwellings

APPLICANT Regent Homes (SA) Pty Ltd APPLICATION NO 211/1433/2008 LODGEMENT DATE 14 November 2008 ZONE Residential POLICY AREA 40 APPLICATION TYPE Merit PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Category 2 REFERRALS Internal

City Assets ASSESSING OFFICER Leon Jaworski DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSION

2 October 2008

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE BACKGROUND

The proposal is to construction of one, two-storey detached dwelling and one, two-storey residential flat building containing two dwellings. Attachment 1 PREVIOUS or RELATED APPLICATION(S) 211/189/2008 - construction of three, two-storey dwellings - REFUSED 211/360/2008 - demolition of existing dwelling - APPROVED

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 3 SITE AND LOCALITY

An aerial photograph of the site and its locality plan are included below for reference.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 4

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 5 PROPOSAL

The proposed site plans and elevations are found in Attachment 1. The proposal is assessed for consistency with the prescriptive requirements of the Development Plan as outlined in the table below:

DEVELOPMENT

PLAN PROVISIONS

Dwelling 1

Dwellings

2 & 3 STANDARD ASSESSMENT

SITE AREA

297m²

297m²

270m²

Complies

SITE FRONTAGE

12.8m

N/A

9.0m

Complies

SITE COVERAGE

38%

34%

55.0%

Complies

STREET SETBACK

5.5m

N/A

Average of two adjacent dwellings

Complies.

SIDE SETBACKS

Garage on boundary

1m for 3m wall 2m for 6m wall

1m for 3m wall 2m for 6m wall

All dwellings comply

REAR SETBACK 6.1m for 2nd storey wall

7.0 & 8.0m for 2nd storey wall

Rear 2.5m for single storey 8.0m for 2nd storey component)

No dwelling Complies

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

35%

23%

5m min dimension for 40m² and 20% of site area

Complies

CARPARKING SPACES

2

2

1 covered for resident and 1 uncovered

All dwellings comply

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 6 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application is a Category 2 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. Third Party Representations were received from the following:

Beryl Joy Waller 1/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Kevin Lloyd Gale 63 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Kevin Douglas Mooney 2/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Deidre Jane Cooper 2/65 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Lambertus Christian Van Wilgenburg 61 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Barbara Henrietta Van Wilgenburg 61 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Anna Paski 62 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Sandra McCormack 66A Argyle Avenue, Marleston Colin Malcolm Bailey 64 Sutton Terrace, Marleston Janet Isabelle Beck 67 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Sotirios Liakakos 57 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Maxine Janet Haines 58 Argyle Avenue, Marleston Alexia Di Felice 62 Sutton Terrace, Marleston Daryl Bruce Spellacy 59 Argyle Avenue, Marleston

The main concerns raised were:

• Bulk and scale of the dwellings • Bulk of the buildings is intimidating • Out of character with the streetscape • Scale of the two storey and intimidation by the scale of the two storey buildings • Lack of sunlight in winter • Lack of daylight in winter • Dampness in private open space in winter • Airflow • Proximity of the dwellings to the existing dwellings • Garage on the boundary • Security and privacy compromised • Proximity of driveway to the boundary • Loss of value of property as a consequence of the above

The Applicant has provided a response to the representors, as summarised below: • The development plan permits two and three storey dwellings in the policy area. • Regard has been given to the bulk and scale by paying attention to setbacks, ceiling

heights, articulation and the use of differing materials and finishes. • There was a pre-existing overshadowing from the previous dwelling and the tree, both of

which were closer to the boundary than the proposed dwellings. The Third Party Representations and the applicant’s response are contained in Attachment 2. REFERRALS

Internal • City Assets All concerns raised by Assets staff have been satisfactorily resolved.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 7 ASSESSMENT

The subject land is located within the Residential Zone, Policy Area 40 as described in the City of West Torrens Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions

Objectives 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 25, 26, 28, 30 Principles of Development Control 3, 7, 11, 13, 23, 24, 29, 30, 33, 36, 44, 48, 81,

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 139, 140

Zone

Objective 1, 2, 3 Principles of Development Control 1, 2, 5, 7, 14. 15

Policy

Objective Nil Principles of Development Control 1, 2, 3, 4

In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application, the proposed development satisfies all relevant Development Plan provisions with the exception of the following, as discussed under the following sub headings: Land Use and Zoning The Character Statement for Policy Area 40 states that any new development should “enhance the existing character of the area which is characterised by a variety of housing types from the 1920s to the 1970s.” The residential zone Principles of Development Control (PDC) also permit two and three storey dwellings in the policy area. While there is validity in the concerns of the third party representors that the particular street has a predominance of single-storey dwellings the two-storey developments can by no means be considered out of character with the locality and therefore the existing character is at least maintained. Bulk and Scale The applicant has endeavoured to ameliorate the bulk and scale of the two storey dwellings by using a variety of materials and finishes on the front and side elevations of the dwellings. These measures have been undertaken by the applicant in response to both the third party responses and staff's concerns. Setbacks While the rear setbacks do not comply they are not a major concern. The rear setback for Dwelling 1 still provides for ample private open space without unduly compromising the rear setback. The average set back for the two rear walls in turn, is sufficient to provide adequate private open space and is deemed, on balance to be a minor variation. One of the third party representor raises the issues of the garage being on the boundary. Notwithstanding the potential welfare issue raised by representor the Development Act and Council’s Development Plan does permit a wall on a boundary where it is an integral part of the structure. The carport wall at 63 Argyle Avenue is the building line for the development by default. While the carport and wall is not what would normally be used as a reference, the wall of the carport is an acceptable reference point for the determination of the average front setback between 65 Argyle Avenue and the verandah at 61 Argyle Avenue.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 8 Overlooking and Overshadowing Overlooking will be minimised by the use of fixed obscure glass to a minimum height of 1700mm above the upper level floor level. This requirement will be included as a planning condition to reinforce the importance given to this aspect of privacy, particularly for overlooking from Dwellings 2 and 3. The third party representors have made particular reference to overshadowing. Principle of Development Control 115 asks that there is adequate sunlight to any adjacent open space and to the windows of any habitable rooms. The design technique identifies adequate as being sunlight to not less than 50% of the private open space for not less than two hours of the day between hours of 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice i.e. 21 June. The applicant included a response to concerns about overshadowing in their third party response to the Category 2 notification. That response has been supplemented following Staff also raising concerns about the issue of overshadowing; being that the design did not meet the criteria for sunlight into the private open space and on the windows of habitable rooms in the adjacent dwellings. Council’s Development Plan has a number of criteria that define a private open space. Those criteria include that the space has a minimum width of 3.0m, that the space is behind the building line and that the space is fenced to an appropriate height. The applicant has suggested that each of the three dwellings have two areas that meet the private open space criteria. That is, each dwelling has an area at the front and at the rear of each dwelling that is a private open space. Therefore any calculation of private open space needs to include these areas. So, consequent to that rationale, the percentage in shadow is always less than 50% as it is the total area of private open space that should be considered, not just the area at the rear of the dwelling. Refer to the table supplied by the applicant and included as Attachment 3. Investigation confirms indeed that the three dwellings have two areas that conform to the criteria for private open space. In particular, Unit 1 (and Unit 2) has a similar sized front and rear area. Unit 3 has a private open space at the front of the dwelling somewhat greater than the area at the rear. On that basis, and in accord with the wording of the design technique, Council staff has no issue with the argument presented by the applicant that the front and rear area for each dwelling can be considered private open space. The issue is then whether there is any impact on the windows of any habitable rooms for the three dwellings by using the same two criteria as for sunlight into the private open space. It is apparent that the south facing windows will not receive any direct sunlight simply because of their orientation and therefore are not considered in this assessment process. The windows on the north facing walls are then considered, like the private open spaces, on a case by case basis. With respect to Unit 1, the shadow diagrams and the location of what appear to be a habitable room(s) suggest that there is no issue with sunlight not being able to access the habitable room(s) for the minimum two hours on 21 June. The location of the windows for Unit 2 and the shadow diagrams suggest again that there is no issue at any with sunlight not being able to access the windows of the habitable room(s). Unit 3 is somewhat problematic. There are a number of trees inside the fence that are over two metres in height and are opposite what could be a habitable room. The proximity of the trees indicates they would cause a shadow on any day there is sunlight. Trees are not however a structure and have no influence on this issue. The shadow diagram suggests there may be an overshadowing consequence but a site visit indicates otherwise. The habitable window is located at the eastern end of the dwelling and, the shadow diagram indicates that it, will receive its two hour ratio of winter sun during the morning hours.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 9 Visual Impact on Neighbouring Developments or Streetscape The visual impact is a common theme raised by the third party representors. The applicant has sought to address this by keeping the front of Dwelling 1 within the parameters for a front setback and provided a good degree of articulation. The three dwellings also have a number of different materials and finishes to introduce an element of individuality to the dwellings, and to Dwelling 1 in particular. SUMMARY

The proposal features a number of inconsistencies with the Development Plan such as, the lack of appropriate side setback for Dwelling 1 and the issue of what constitutes private open space. The first item can be regarded as minor and as having little impact on the assessment decision. The applicant makes a valid point in the definition of private open space and consequently removes the issue of sunlight access not being met. A site inspection suggests that the issue of sunlight on the windows is also not an issue. The applicant has also gone some way to addressing the issue of bulk via the use of a number of materials and wall finishes as well as the articulation of the front dwelling. With the issues raised having been subsequently addressed an on balance assessment suggest that the application can be recommended for the issuing of Development Plan Consent subject to the inclusion of relevant planning conditions. RECOMMENDATION

The Development Assessment Panel, having considered the application for consent to carry out development of land and pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act 1993 (as amended) finds the applicant to be not seriously at variance with the Development Plan, resolves to GRANT Development Plan Consent for Application No. 211/1344/2008 by Regent Homes (SA) Pty Ltd to undertake the construction of one (1) two-storey detached dwelling and one (1) two-storey residential flat building containing two (2) dwellings at 63 Argyle Avenue, Marleston (CT 5715/103) subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. The development must be undertaken and completed in accordance with the plans and

information detailed in this application except where varied by any conditions listed below.) 2. The finished floor level must be a minimum of 350 mm above the highest point of the

watertable adjacent to the property. (Unless a following condition specifies levels lower than this)

3. The construction of a drainage system and the position and manner of discharge of a

stormwater drain must not at any time:- a) Result in the entry of water into a building; or b) Affect the stability of a building; or c) Create unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the site or within the building; or d) Flow or discharge onto the land of an adjoining owner; and e) Not flow across footpaths or public ways.

4. Total build-up of the site level (excluding the building envelope) above existing ground level

must not exceed 400mm at any point. 5. Retaining walls must be designed to accepted engineering standards, and not of timber

construction if retaining a difference in ground level exceeding 200 mm. 6. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas must be formed, surfaced with concrete,

bitumen or paving, and be properly drained. They must be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council thereafter.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 10 7. All planting and landscaping must be completed within 3 months of the commencement of

the use of this development and must be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. Any plants that become diseased or die must be replaced with suitable species.

8. The upper level windows of the dwelling must be provided with fixed obscure glass to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the upper floor level to minimise the potential for overlooking of adjoining properties, prior to occupation of the building. The glazing in these windows is to be maintained at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

9. A minimum 500mm wide corridor between at least one side boundary and the dwelling

shall remain unencumbered with fixtures, (eg. Hot water systems, air-conditioning compressors etc.) so as to provide an unrestricted access to the rear of the property.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 40 6.2 390 Henley Beach Road, LOCKLEYS Application No. 211/713/2006 Appearing before the Panel will be: Representors: Mr S & Mrs H Kontos of 5 Lsyle Street, Brooklyn Park wish to appear in

support of the representation. Applicant/s Lou Fantasia of Lou Fantasia Planning wishes to appear to respond to

representations. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Change of use to and construction of a child care centre; the removal of one (1) significant tree – Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum)

APPLICANT A D’Andrea & Assoc APPLICATION NO 211/713/2006 LODGEMENT DATE 7 July 2006 ZONE Residential Zone POLICY AREA Policy Area 39 APPLICATION TYPE Merit PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Category 3 REFERRALS Internal

City Assets & Environment External DTEI

ASSESSING OFFICER Janine Lennon DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSION

31 March 2005

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE with RESERVED MATTERS BACKGROUND

This site, was previously used as a petrol station. The petrol station closed during the 1990s and the site has remained derelict since. The development application was lodged in July of 2006, since that time there has been much negotiation and research with regard to site contamination, vehicle access and manoeuvrability, as well as the retention and safety of significant trees. The application currently presented to the Development Assessment Panel is the result of a lot of work on both the applicant's and staff's behalf. PREVIOUS or RELATED APPLICATION(S) Nil


The site is situated to the north-east of the intersection of Rowells Road and Henley Beach Road. It is currently vacant with two significant trees and minimal minor vegetation. There is an existing vehicle cross-over to Rowells Road. Residential flat buildings adjoin to the north and the east with commercial properties adjacent to the west and south. An overhead photo of the site and a relevant Zone area map can be found below.


The proposal entails the change of use of a site from a petrol station to a child care centre. It further involves the removal of one significant tree and the construction of a child care centre with associated, car parking and fencing. Full details of the proposal can be found at Attachment 1. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application is a Category 3 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. Properties notified: 71 properties were notified during the public notification

process. Representations: 1 representation was received. Persons wishing to be heard:

1 representor identified that they wish to address the Panel.

• Mr S & Mrs H Kontos

Summary of Representations:

A number of representors raised concern regarding the following matters; • Public safety • Tree safety • Child safety • Noise • Site contamination

The Applicant has provided a response to the representor(s), a copy of the representor(s) concern(s) and the applicant’s response is contained in Attachment 2 REFERRALS

Internal • City Assets Concerns were raised regarding the significant trees, car parking, vehicle access and stormwater control. Much of this detail has been addressed, those items that haven’t have become recommended reserved matters and conditions. • Environment Advised that a full Site Audit Report will be required. A full copy of the relevant report is attached, refer Attachment 3 External Pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, the application was referred to • DTEI Conditional support A full copy of the relevant report(s) is/are attached, refer Attachment 4

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 44 ASSESSMENT

The subject land is located within the Residential Zone, Policy Area 39 as described in the City of West Torrens Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions

Objectives 6, 82, 86, 288, 290, 291 Principles of Development Control 241, 244, 253, 254, 255,

Zone

Objective 1 Principles of Development Control 7, 8, 9

Policy

Objective Principles of Development Control 1

Land Use and Zoning Zone Objective 1: Safe, pleasant, convenient and distinctive living environment for all residents provided by a range of housing together with local community facilities that complement the living environment. Zone PDC7 Non-residential development of a local community nature such as small shops under 250m², health and welfare services, child care facilities, primary and secondary schools, recreation, open space and similar facilities may be developed within the zone provided that they are of a nature and scale that serves a local area function only and do not detrimentally affect the character and amenity of the locality by way of emissions, traffic generation and other impacts. The Residential Zone does envisage non-residential development with specific uses, these uses include child care facilities that are local in nature and do not impact upon the character and amenity of the locality. The site in question is situated on a busy intersection and was formerly used a petrol station, it is not envisaged that it will detrimentally impact upon the character and amenity of the location. Zone PDC8 The scale, bulk and design of non-residential development should be sensitive to the desired future character of the surrounding residential environment. Character Statement Policy Area 39 should continue to develop as a residential area of medium density and infill development. Development will be in keeping with the existing character of the area with buildings that maintain the traditional character through a variety of designs. Appropriately designed modern interpretations of the existing residential character, such as post World War Two and 1950s Tudor style housing, will be encouraged where suitable. Policy Area PDC1 Development should be consistent with the character statement of the Policy area. While the Character Statement for the Policy Area speaks of post WWII and 1950’s Tudor style housing, the locality primarily features multiple-storey residential flat buildings. It is considered that the single-storey form of the proposed development will not negatively impact upon the existing character. Surrounding Uses As previously detailed, the site features adjoining high density residential development on two sides and commercial development upon the other two, in addition to being site adjacent a busy intersection. The nature of the use of the child care centre being week days, and during the day

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 45 will result in minimal impact upon the adjoining amenity resulting from noise and therefore is unlikely to result in land use conflict. Carparking Provisions The Development Plan seeks 25 car parks for the proposed use, 26 car parks have been detailed including parking for people with disabilities. The manoeuvrability of the proposed car park has been demonstrated as meeting the relevant Australia Standard and a reserved matter as well as conditions have been recommended with regard to the access to the site. Public Transport Access Henley Beach Road is an existing public transport bus route providing close and convenient public transport to and from the site. Disability Access Car parking and pedestrian access has been design to meet Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirements. Stormwater While stormwater detention, retention and treatment has been proposed, the design is still undergoing assessment and as two reserved matters have already been recommended it is felt that creating an additional reserved matter for the stormwater will not be onerous to the applicant. Contamination The site was previously used as a petrol station, a letter received from Peter J Ramsay and Associates detailed that a site audit was in process, to date a site audit report has not been received, therefore site contamination and the potential remediation of the site as a result of any residual contamination is the subject of a recommended reserved matter. Significant Trees There is two significant trees upon the site and one significant tree immediately adjacent the site. The applicant has applied for the removal of one of the trees on the site. Due to the tree's, health, structure and condition, Council's Amenity Officer supports the removal of the Eucalyptus camaldulensis that is one the site. Council's Amenity Officer has also recommended conditions to protect the Agonis flexuosa on the site and the Eucalyptus camaldulensis on the adjoining site, these have been included in the recommendation. The applicant has proposed to fence off the area immediately under the Eucalyptus camaldulensis to minimise any perceived risk to children during play. Landscape Assessment Zone PDC9 states that: Landscaping of non-residential development should be of a high standard and should be used, where practicable, to provide continuity with residential streetscapes, the Development Plan further seeks that 10% of the site be dedicated to landscaping. More than 10% of the site is proposed to be dedicated to landscaping and a strip of landscaping varying from 1.0m to 5.0m wide has been proposed around the site. SUMMARY

The proposed development is an envisaged use in the Residential Zone. Given the location of the site, this form of non-residential use is likely to have better amenity and character implications that a residential use would have. The built form is relatively low scale and its setback from the intersection will result in minimal bulk and scale impacts upon the street scape. Essentially, once the reserved matters have been resolved, the proposal will fit well with what the Development Plan envisages for this site.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 46 RECOMMENDATION

The Development Assessment Panel, having considered the application for consent to carry out development of land and pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act 1993 (as amended) finds that the proposal is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan and resolves to GRANT Development Plan Consent for Development Application 211/713/2006 by A D'Andrea and Assoc for the change of use to and construction of a child care centre; the removal of one (1) significant tree – Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum)at 390 Henley Beach Road, Lockleys (CT 5813-725), subject to the following conditions of consent (and any subsequent or amended condition that may be required as a result of the consideration of reserved matters under Section 33(3) of the Development Act): Reserved Matters: The following information shall be submitted for further assessment and approval by the City of West Torrens as reserved matters under Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993: 1. Provision of a completed Site Audit Report, detailing any works required to remediate the

site to a standard that is acceptable for the proposed use. 2. Obtain Council and DTEI approval on a detailed design of the proposed entrance

arrangement from Rowells Road. 3. Provision of stormwater retention, detention and remediation details that satisfy

Development Plan requirements. Note: Pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993 the Council reserves its decision

on the form and substance of any further conditions of Development Plan Consent that it considers appropriate to impose in respect of the reserve matters requested above.

Conditions 1. The development must be undertaken and completed in accordance with the amended

plans stamped as approved together with information detailed in this application except where varied by any condition(s) listed below.

2. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas must be formed, surfaced with concrete,

bitumen or paving, and be properly drained. All stormwater collected from the newly constructed hard standing areas must be adequately treated to remove oils and silt from the run-off water prior to it exiting the site. The stormwater treatment devices must be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council thereafter.

3. All car parking spaces must be line marked, in accordance with the approved plans and in

accordance with Australian Standards Association Code AS/NZS 2890.1-2004 Parking Facilities, Part 1, Off Street Carparking, prior to the occupation of the proposed development. Dimensions for the parallel spaces must conform to those noted within binding documentation forming part of this application. Line marking and directional arrows must be clearly visible at all times.

5. Driveways, car parking spaces, manoeuvring areas and landscaping areas shall not be

used for storage or display of materials or goods including waste products and refuse. 6. All loading and unloading of goods and merchandise shall be carried out upon the subject

land and NO loading of any goods or merchandise shall be permitted to be carried out in the street.

7. The four northern most parking spaces on the eastern side of the driveway (directly

adjacent to the entrance) must be physically marked for staff use only ".

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 47 8. The maximum size vehicle permitted to service this site shall be limited to the B99 vehicle

as referred to in AS 2890.1. 9. A 150mm kerb must be constructed to separate carparking spaces and driveways from

landscaping areas. 10. Prior to Development Approval being issued, a detailed lighting plan shall be provided to

enhance safety by adequately illuminating the following areas: (a) the car parking areas (b) pedestrian areas (c) vehicle movement areas (d) the perimeter of buildings

The lighting plan shall be in accordance with AS 1158.1 Public Lighting Code and shall be directed in such a manner so as not, in the opinion of the Council, to create unreasonable light overspill onto any adjoining property or roadway which may create a nuisance to any neighbour or road user.

11. A TPZ will need to be established around the Agonis flexuosa and the

Eucalyptus camaldulensis where no development affecting the trees can occur. The TPZ must have an approved fence erected around its perimeter that is securely fixed and cannot be moved or opened for access. The area should be signed, ‘Tree Protection Zone’ and accompanied with a note ‘Entry by permit only’ with the phone number of the designated responsible officer. The TPZ of both trees will require drip irrigation and mulch to a minimum depth of 75mm.

12. The proposed Retaining Wall/Fence Plinth behind the existing boundary fence line must not dissect or cut through the root system of the significant trees.

13. Prior to Development Approval being issued construction details of the proposed Retaining

Wall/Fence Plinth are required together with materials to be used, the depths of where support posts etc will be located. This must be forwarded to council prior to any approval.

14. Landscaping must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. The landscaping

must be capable of growing so as to; provide shade for parked vehicles, provide protection from winds, and screen the development. The landscaping must be completed prior to occupancy of the development.

15. The materials used on the external surfaces of the building and / or the colorbond finishes

or paintwork thereon must be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at all times.

16. Council requires one business day’s notice of the following stages of building work:

• Commencement of building work on site • The commencement of placement of any structural concrete. • The completion of wall and roof framing prior to the installation of linings. • Completion of building work

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 68 6.3 40 St Georges Avenue, GLANDORE Application No. 211/0929/2008 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Two-storey, detached dwelling APPLICANT Leighton Hall Design APPLICATION NO 211/929/2008 LODGEMENT DATE 5 August 2008 ZONE Residential POLICY AREA 40 APPLICATION TYPE Merit PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Category 2 REFERRALS Internal

Nil External Nil

ASSESSING OFFICER Shanti Ditter DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSION

10 April 2008

RECOMMENDATION Refuse BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 9 December 2008, the Development Assessment Panel considered a report for the subject site, and resolved as follows: The Development Assessment Panel, having considered the application for consent to carry out development of land and pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act 1993 (as amended) resolves to DEFER consideration of Application No. 211/929/2008 by Leighton Hall Design to undertake the construction of a double storey detached dwelling at 40 St. Georges Avenue, Glandore (CT 5799/576) subject to the following concerns:

• The applicant to give consideration to increasing the front setback. • The applicant to give consideration to increasing the western second-storey setback. • The applicant to provide sight line diagrams to accurately portray the extent of

overlooking from the proposed balcony • To provide further detail with regard to the assessment of the character of the proposal

within the context of the locality. Further to this, the applicant provided additional supporting documentation in support of the proposal and the DAP at its meeting on 13 January 2009 resolved to defer the item in order for the applicant to provide additional information confirming that the proposal does not impose on the privacy of 42 St Georges Avenue and all overlooking issues are addressed adequately. Details of the supporting material is included at Attachment 1 and the previous DAP report at Attachment 2.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 69 REPORT In accordance with the above resolution, the applicant has now submitted an amended proposal that incorporates a 1.5 metre screen to portion of the upper level balcony on the site’s western elevation (Attachment 1). The applicant asserts that the proposed balcony screening would avoid any privacy impacts into the adjoining property at 42 St Georges Avenue. No other aspects of the proposal have been altered. The applicant has provided a letter detailing their consideration of the remaining points raised by the Development Assessment Panel; this can be found at Attachment 3. Staff's recommendation for the proposal remains unchanged. In view of the previous resolutions of the Panel, it is now considered appropriate that the Panel make a decision on the proposal. RECOMMENDATION

The Development Assessment Panel, having considered the application for consent to carry out development of land and pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act 1993 resolves to REFUSE Development Application No. 211/929/2008 by Leighton Hall Design to undertake the construction of a double storey detached dwelling at 40 St. Georges Avenue, Glandore (CT 5799/576) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to the following Council wide provisions of the Development Plan: 94 Setbacks from side and rear boundaries should be progressively increased as height increases to: (a) minimise the visual impact of buildings from adjoining properties; (b) minimise the overshadowing of adjoining properties; and (c) maintain adequate daylight to existing and future adjoining dwellings and private open space. 82 Building appearance should be compatible with the desired character of the locality, in accordance with any relevant Zone or Policy Area, in terms of built form elements such as: (a) building height; (b) building mass and proportion; (e) roof form and pitch; (f) facade articulation and detailing and window and door proportions;

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 133 6.4 12 Boston Ave, LOCKLEYS Application No. 211/1157/2008 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Removal of a significant tree - one (1) Corymbia variegata (Northen Spotted Gum)

APPLICANT Dwaine Bickerdike APPLICATION NO 211/1157/2008 LODGEMENT DATE 26 September 2008 ZONE Residential POLICY AREA 38 APPLICATION TYPE Merit PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Category 1 REFERRALS External

Independent Arborist ASSESSING OFFICER Josh Banks DEVELOPMENT PLAN VERSION

10 April 2008

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE BACKGROUND

This application was received by Council on 26 September 2008 for the removal of a significant tree. PREVIOUS or RELATED APPLICATION(S) Dwellings located at 14 Grallina Street, Lockleys - 211/1319/2006


The subject site is known as 12 Boston Avenue, Lockleys. The significant tree in question is located in the south-eastern corner of the allotment as seen in the following (and most recent) satellite photograph from Google Maps Australia:

It should be noted that the allotment to the rear of the subject site (14 Grallina Street) has since been developed after this photograph was taken, with two detached dwellings now present.


The proposal is for removal of the significant tree - a Corymbia maculata (Spotted gum). The application submitted to Council included a report by Iain Duffy of The Adelaide Tree Surgery (see Attachment 1). It is noted by the assessing officer that the report states "The owner expressed an interest in retaining the tree and developing around it.", however the arborist has arrived at a conclusion of removal based upon his inspection and analysis. The applicant also submitted a letter in support of their application during the assessment process. (See Attachment 2). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. REFERRALS

External Dean Nicolle Currency Creek Arboretum - Eucalypt Research Due to un-availability of Council's own Arborist, Council sought an independent assessment of this significant tree. A full copy of the report is attached. See Attachment 3. ASSESSMENT

The subject land is located within the Residential Policy Area 38 as described in the City of West Torrens Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions

Objectives 1, 99 Principles of Development Control 318, 319, 320

Zone

Objective 1 In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application, the proposed development satisfies all relevant Development Plan provisions with the exception of the following, as discussed under the following sub headings: Significant Trees Council Wide Objective 99 states: "..the conservation of significant trees in Metropolitan Adelaide which provide important aesthetic and environmental benefit."

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 137 Council Wide Principle of Development Control 318 states: "Where a significant tree: (a) makes an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area; or (b) is indigenous to the local area and its species is listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a rare or endangered native species; or (c) represents an important habitat for native fauna; or (d) is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant area of native vegetation; or (e) is important to the maintenance of biodiversity in the local environment; or (f) forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area; development should preserve these attributes." It is prudent to note that in Prestige Wholesale v City of Burnside, the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court held that the initial questions to ask in respect to a significant tree are whether the tree makes an important contribution to the local character or amenity of the local area, or whether it forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area. In that decision, the ERD Court held that if these issues are determined in the negative, it is not necessary to go further with the assessment and removal is warranted. The height of the significant tree is such that the top of its canopy is highly visible above the roofs of nearby dwellings of Grallina Street, Boston Avenue, and somewhat from Arden Avenue and Rowells Road, over approximately 100 metres away. As such, it is the opinion of the assessing officer that the tree constitutes a notable visual element in the locality and its removal would be visually evident. The answers to Principle of Development Control 318 (a) and (f) are answered in the positive by Iain Duffy of The Adelaide Tree Surgery as detailed in Attachment 1. Dean Nicolle (Consultant Arborist for Council) concurs with this, Attachment 2, and therefore it must be considered that the application is at variance with the above Council Wide PDC 318 and Objective 99. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 320 states: “Significant trees should be preserved and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken unless: (a) in the case of tree removal; (1) (i) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short; or

(ii) the tree represents an unacceptable risk to public or private safety; or (iii) the tree is within 20 metres of a residential, tourist accommodation or 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 all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective.

(2) it is demonstrated that all reasonable alternative development options and design solutions have

been considered to prevent substantial tree-damaging activity occurring.” The Arborist report from The Adelaide Tree Surgery states that the tree presents an unacceptable risk to public or private safety and to the question of "Is the tree diseased and its life expectancy short?" answers: "Yes - the possibility of severe root disturbance may severely reduce the trees life expectancy and structural stability." Yet Dean Nicolle states: "The tree currently represents a low to moderate and acceptable level of risk…" and "The tree is not unusually diseased and is likely to live for another 40+ years under

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 138 the current environmental and site conditions." The report also goes on to summarize that the tree is not threatening to cause substantial damage to structures of value, contrary to The Adelaide Tree Surgery report which states: "Yes - if a large lateral branch were to fail damage would be likely to occur." Damage to exactly what structure of value however, is not mentioned. The remainder of the findings in Dean Nicolle's report concluded that the tree meets all of the relevant requirements for retention and that there is no valid reasoning that would indicate that removal is required. On balance of the evidence contained in the applicant's Arborist Report along with the independent report by Dean Nicolle, it is considered that the application is at variance with the above Principle of Development Control (320). SUMMARY

This application seeks the removal of this significant tree to which two independent arborists and the assessing officer all agree forms a notable visual element in the locality and makes an important contribution to the character of the locality. This fact alone warrants a recommendation of refusal. However in addition to this there is no evidence to suggest that the tree is diseased or dying, and it is also noted that there was no consideration (or recommendation) that any alternate development options be considered. Having considered all assessment criteria within Council's Development Plan, there appears to be no grounds for removal of the tree and on balance it is recommended that the tree be retained and that this application be refused. RECOMMENDATION

The Development Assessment Panel, having considered the application for consent to carry out development of land and pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act 1993 resolves to REFUSE Development Approval for Application No. 211/1157/2008 by Dwaine Grant Bickerdike to Remove a Significant Tree - One x Corymbia variegata (Northen Spotted Gum) at 12 Boston Avenue, Lockleys (CT 5691/788) for the following reasons:

The proposed development is contrary to: 1. Council Wide Objective 99

Reason: Conservation of original vegetation, prevention of indiscriminate and inappropriate significant tree removal

2. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 318

Reason: The tree makes an important contribution to the character, and forms a notable visual element to the landscape of the area

3. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 319 Reason: Development would destroy the tree

4. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 320 Reason: Tree is not diseased; tree does not present an unacceptable risk to private or public safety; tree is not threatening to cause substantial damage to a structure of value; no reasonable alternative development options have been considered.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 164 7. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS OF MANAGER CITY DEVELOPMENT

Nil 8. SUMMARY OF COURT APPEALS

Monthly statistics are provided for the information of the Panel in relation to: 1. any matters being referred to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC); 2. any planning appeals before the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERDC)

and their status; and 3. any Section 69 or 84 enforcement notices issued. The current status is listed as follows: Matters pending determination by DAC

Reason for referral

DA number Address Description of development

Section 49 211/26/2006 Construction of replacement 66kV power line. Comments forwarded to DAC - No decision as yet.

Development Application appeals before the ERDC DA Number Address Reason for

Appeal Description of Development

Status

211/1397/2006

258-260 South Road, Hilton

Applicant appealed Panel's decision to refuse application

Illuminated signage

Appeal Withdrawn

211/1400/2006

37 Chatham Road, Keswick


The construction of a new dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling,

Compulsory conference held 7 May 2008, compromise proposal is likely to be presented to DAP soon.

211/382/2008

18 Azalea Drive, Lockleys


Removal of a significant tree

Appeal Withdrawn

211/719/2008

6 Alexander Avenue, Ashford


Construction of four dwellings

Preliminary conference to be held 3 March 2009.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL 10 March 2009 Page 165 211/1073/2008

12 Burrupa Avenue, Glenelg North


Second storey addition

Preliminary conference to be held 23 March 2009

211/245/2008

43A Lindsay Street, Plympton


Construct a group dwelling

Preliminary conference to be held 3 March 2009

211/491/2008

57 Anstey Crescent, Kurralta Park


Construction of three dwellings

Preliminary conference held 10 February 2009, amended plans pending.

Current Enforcement Notices

Address Description of development

Reason for notice Status

195 South Road Mile End

A convenience store operating outside of the approved hours

Development approval was given but store owner has been opening 2-4 hours longer per each day

Civil Action on hold, pending final out-come from assessment of development application.

NOTE: Italics above indicate updated information. SUMMARY

The information requested by the Panel has been provided for information purposes. RECOMMENDATION

The Development Assessment Panel received and noted the information 9. MEETING CLOSE

notice of panel meeting - westtorrens.sa.gov.au · notice of panel meeting notice is hereby given...

Documents