development assessment panel agenda & reports

Development Assessment Panel Agenda & Reports

17 February 2014

Our Vision

A City which values its heritage, cultural diversity, sense of place and natural environment.

A progressive City which is prosperous, sustainable and socially cohesive, with a strong community spirit.

12 February 2014

To all Members of the Development Assessment Panel

NOTICE OF MEETING

I wish to advise that pursuant to Section 56A of the Development Act 1993, the next Ordinary Meeting of the Norwood Payneham & St Peters Development Assessment Panel, will be held in the Mayor’s Parlour, Norwood Town Hall, 175 The Parade, Norwood, on:

Monday 17 February 2014, commencing at 7.00pm.

Please advise Jeanette McKay on 8366 4508 or email [email protected] if you are unable to attend this meeting or will be late.

Yours faithfully

Mario Barone CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters Agenda for the Meeting of Development Assessment Panel to be held on 17 February 2014

Index Page

Page No.

1. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

PANEL HELD ON 22 JANUARY 2014 ................................................................................................. 1 2. PRESIDING MEMBER’S COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................... 1 3. MEMBERS’ COMMUNICATION .......................................................................................................... 1 4. STAFF REPORTS ................................................................................................................................ 1

4.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/830/2013 – MR H. TSIMIKLIS – 410-412 PAYNEHAM ROAD, GLYNDE .................................................................................. 2 4.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/687/2013 – MR D MCOMISH – 136A BEULAH ROAD, NORWOOD ..................................................................................... 11 4.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/132/2013 – MR R D’ ONOFRIO – 71 & 73 STEPHEN TERRACE, ST PETERS ......................................................................... 24

5. OTHER BUSINESS ............................................................................................................................ 37 6. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS ............................................................................................................... 37 7. CLOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 37


Page 1

VENUE Mayors Parlour, Norwood Town Hall HOUR PRESENT Panel Members Staff

APOLOGIES ABSENT 1. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

PANEL HELD ON 22 JANUARY 2014 2. PRESIDING MEMBER’S COMMUNICATION 3. MEMBERS’ COMMUNICATION 4. STAFF REPORTS

• Items to be starred (……………………………)

• All unstarred items to be adopted (…………………………)


Item 4.1

Page 2

4. STAFF REPORTS 4.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/830/2013 – MR H. TSIMIKLIS – 410-412 PAYNEHAM

ROAD, GLYNDE

Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Panel in order for a determination to be made on an Application for alterations and additions to an existing car wash facility comprising the addition of two (2) new car wash bays. Staff do not have delegated authority to determine the application, as it is for a Category 3 form of development for public notification purposes. As such, the Application is referred to the Panel for determination. Background In October 2001, the Development Assessment Panel granted Consent to a Development Application (Development Application Number 155/674/2001) for the change in use of the land at 410-412 Payneham Road from a mechanical workshop and automatic carwash to a car wash facility comprising two (2) manual car wash bays, one (1) automatic car wash bay (ie. retaining the existing automatic carwash bay) and four (4) vacuum machines. The Consent was conditional upon (amongst other things) the following hours of operation: Monday to Friday - 7:00am – 10:00pm, with the autowash to operate from 7:30am-7:30pm Saturday – 8:00am – 9:00pm, with the autowash to operate from 8:00am – 7:00pm Sunday – 9:00am – 9:00pm, with the autowash to operate from 9:00am – 7:00pm A copy of the plan that was granted Development Plan Consent by the Panel in October 2001 is contained in Attachment A. Building Rules Consent and Development Approval was subsequently granted in September 2002. The carwash facility has been operating since that time, however it is apparent that at some stage the automatic carwash bay was converted to a manual car wash bay, such that the facility has operated with three manual car wash bays and no automatic car wash bay for several years. In December 2012, the Development Assessment Panel considered a Development Application (Development Application Number 155/440/2012) for alterations and additions to the car wash facility, comprising the addition of one (1) manual wash bay and one (1) automatic wash bay, the construction of an

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 155/830/13

APPLICANT: Mr H Tsimiklis

SUBJECT SITE: 410 Payneham Road, Glynde (Certificate of Title Volume: 5198 Folio: 775)

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: Alterations and additions to an existing car wash facility, comprising the addition of two (2) new car wash bays.

ZONE: Residential 2A Zone – Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan (dated 7 March 2013)

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION CATEGORY: Category 3


Item 4.1

Page 3

office building, revised access and egress arrangements and 24 hour operating hours. The Panel determined to refuse the Application in accordance with the staff recommendation, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is contrary to City Wide Objective 26 as it will have an adverse impact

and conflict with adjacent residential land uses. 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 12, 78

and 80 as it is considered to lead to unreasonable nuisance and detrimentally affect the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.

3. The proposed development is not considered to adequately satisfy the relevant criteria contained in

the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy as stipulated by City Wide Principle of Development Control 83.

The Applicant subsequently lodged a Development Application (Development Application Number 155/194/2013) for alterations and additions to an existing car wash facility (including two (2) new automatic car wash bays, one (1) new manual car wash bay, two (2) new vacuum machines and the construction of a 2.4m high acoustic fence along the south-western boundary), with the facility to be operated from 7:00am until 10:00pm every day, other than the manual wash bays, which were proposed to be operated until midnight. Following the receipt of representations made during the public notification period, the Applicant determined to amend Development Application Number 155/194/2013, by way of reducing the proposed operating hours to between 7:00am and 10:00pm every day, for all components of the facility, including the manual wash bays. The amended Application was considered by its Panel at the meeting held on 15 July 2013 and the Panel determined to refuse the Application in accordance with the staff recommendation, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is contrary to City Wide Objective 26 as it will have an adverse impact



Subject Land Attributes Shape: regular Frontage width: 27.43 metres Depth: 43.59 metres Area: 1197.78m

2

Existing Structures: Freestanding building comprising three (3) manual car wash bays and an internal plant room, two (2) shade sail structures over existing vacuum cleaners and a freestanding pylon business identification sign

Existing Vegetation: established perimeter landscaping areas containing low-level plantings and mature trees

An exit only crossover provides egress from the site to Payneham Road and a two-way crossover provides access/egress to and from Edward Street. Locality Attributes Land uses: predominantly residential with several commercial land uses along

Payneham Road Building heights (storeys): predominantly single-storey


Item 4.1

Page 4

Streetscape amenity low - the amenity of the locality is greatly influenced by the heavily trafficked nature of Payneham Road. The majority of the existing development within the locality (both along Payneham Road and Edward Street) is of a residential nature.

Directly to the north-east of the subject land at 414-416 Payneham Road is a motor repair station (Beaurepaires). Directly to the south-east of the subject land at 4-6 Edward Street is a group of four (4) dwellings. On the south-west corner of Payneham Road and Glynde Road (at 3/408 Payneham Road), there are four (4) dwellings, owned and operated by Alabrilife Living as part of a retirement village. A plan of the subject land and its surrounds is contained in Attachment B. Proposal in Detail The Applicant is seeking consent to undertake alterations and additions to the existing car wash facility, comprising the addition of two (2) new car wash bays. Whereas the site currently accommodates three (3) car wash bays, of which one (1) is automatic and the remaining two (2) are manual, it is proposed that a total of five (5) wash bays be provided, of which one (1) is to be automatic and the remaining four (4) are to be manual. One of the new wash bays is proposed to be located adjacent to the Edward Street frontage of the site, whilst the other is proposed to be located adjacent to the southern side boundary. The latter is proposed to be an automatic wash bay, whilst the existing automatic wash bay is proposed to be converted to a manual wash bay. No changes to the existing approved access and egress arrangements are proposed. Similarly, no change to the hours of operation are proposed. Plans and details of the proposed development are contained in Attachment C. Notification The proposal has been identified and processed as a Category 3 form of development. Thirteen (13) representations were received in response to the notification, copies of which are contained in Attachment D. Eleven (11) representors are opposed to the Application and two (2) are in favour of the Application. The key issues raised by representors are, in summary:

• increased usage of the car wash facility;

• increased noise impacts resulting from use of the facility, including: o high-pitch beeping at end of cycle; o car radios at high volume; o squealing of car tyres; o noise from vacuum cleaners;

• increased traffic entering the site from Edward Street;

• speed of traffic on Edward Street;

• flood light spill;

• western bay is too close to the boundary;

• proposed landscaping is unlikely to be watered;

• the proposed building material will not provide an effective acoustic barrier;

• the automatic wash bay does not have doors for noise attenuation; and

• the walkway between the automatic wash bay and manual wash bays may encourage illicit/offensive behaviour;


Item 4.1

Page 5

The following representors desire to be heard personally by the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) in support of their representation:

• Mr Charlie Ditore

• Mr Keith Turner The following representors desire to be heard by the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) in support of their representation, through a representative:

• Mr Brian Hogben (to be represented by Ms Lisa Arnold)

• Ms Catherine McCormick (to be represented by Mr Malcolm Montgomery)

• Ms Joan Weber (to be represented by Mr Keith Turner and Mr Malcolm Montcomery);

• Mrs Dawn Jackson (to be represented by Mr Keith Turner) The Applicant has responded to the representations received and a copy of their response is contained in Attachment E. A summary of the response is provided below:

• clarification that the proposal does not include an increase to the existing hours of operation;

• the car wash operator has not been advised of any complaints relating to breaches of hours of operation since December 2012;

• the proposal has been designed in consultation with an acoustic engineer, so as to minimise any noise impacts and conform with EPA noise levels;

• the construction of a solid acoustic wall along Edward Street is not feasible or desirable for a number of reasons;

• concerns relating to disturbance caused by beeping of machinery are not relevant, as impacts resulting from intermittent noise are only relevant to sleep disturbance after 10:00pm pursuant to EPA Noise Policy;

• noise associated with the use of Edward Street by clients of the carwash is outside of the control of the car wash operator;

• Edward Street has the capacity to accommodate an increase in traffic;

• occupants of dwellings fronting Payneham Road cannot expect the level of amenity that they could if they were not fronting an arterial road;

• no changes to lighting are proposed;

• a watering system is proposed, to ensure the ongoing health of landscaping; and

• property values are not a planning consideration. State Agency Consultation The Development Regulations 2008 do not require consultation with State Government Agencies. Discussion The subject land is located within the Residential 2A Zone of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan. The proposed development is neither a complying nor a non-complying form of development and accordingly is required to be assessed on its merits having regard to all of the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The key issues, specific to this Development Application, are discussed in detail below.


Item 4.1

Page 6

Land Use The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance on the type and density of residential development that is envisaged within the Development Plan:

Residential 2A Zone Objectives: City Wide Objectives: 1, 7, 10. City Wide Principles of Development Control: 1, 3, 4, 6, 82.

Although the subject land is located within the Residential 2A Zone and a carwash facility is not an anticipated land use within the zone, the car wash is able to continue to operate in accordance with the details and conditions of Development Application Number 155/674/2001. The proposed development increases the scale and intensity of the car wash, increasing the number of wash bays from three (3) to five (5). Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal not only comprises a variation to Development Application Number 155/674/2001, but also constitutes a change in the use of the land to a car wash facility of a significantly different scale and intensity than that which has been previously approved. This is relevant to the assessment of the Application, insofar as commercial land uses are not anticipated within the Residential 2A Zone. Objective 2 of the Residential 2A Zone encourages the establishment of various forms of dwellings and makes no reference to commercial forms of development. Accordingly, the impacts of the proposed intensification, need to be carefully considered against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, so as to determine whether the inconsistency with the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone is fatal to the Application in this instance. Impact on residential amenity/noise and traffic The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance on the type and density of residential development that is envisaged within the Development Plan:

City Wide Objectives: 26, 27, City Wide Principles of Development Control: 12, 78, 80, 83,

City Wide Principles of Development Control 78, 80 and 83, state the following respectively: Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable interference through any of the following:

(a) the emission of effluent, odour, smoke, fumes, dust or other airborne pollutants; (b) noise; (c) vibration; (d) electrical interference; (e) light spill; (f) glare; (g) hours of operation; or (h) traffic impacts.

Non-residential development in residential zones should:

(a) not detrimentally impact on the amenity of nearby residents; (b) provide adequate protection for residents of adjoining sites from air and noise pollution, traffic

disturbance and other harmful effects on health or amenity; and (c) not negatively impact on adjoining open space, significant trees or vegetation.

Development should be consistent with the relevant provisions in the current Environment Protection (Noise) Policy.


Item 4.1

Page 7

The Applicant has provided a report from Mr Ivailo Dimitrov, an Acoustic Engineer from Vipac Engineers & Scientists, to assess the extent of anticipated noise impact on adjacent residential occupiers as a result of the proposal and consider what, if any, acoustic treatment should be provided to ameliorate any unreasonable noise impacts that would otherwise occur. The relevant noise level criteria prescribed in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy for the Planning assessment of noise sources within a residential zone during the proposed operating hours, is 47dB(A). With all machines operating at the same time, Mr Dimitrov has predicted that the proposal will generate noise levels at various locations at the boundaries with adjacent residential properties, ranging from 55 to 60dB(A), as shown in Table 2 below: TABLE 2: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY MACHINERY:

Location Noise Level with all Machines Operating at the Same Time (dB(A))

421 Payneham Road 60

408 Payneham Road 60

4 Edward Street 55

The 47dB(A) criteria contained in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy is generic and does not take into account whether a proposed noise source is located within the heart of a low density residential area, or located at the interface of an arterial road for example, as is the case with the subject land. Given that the extent to which noise generated by a proposal will cause disturbance and annoyance to surrounding residential properties is influenced to a large extent by the amount of existing ‘background noise’, the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy contains another criteria for determining acceptable noise levels. In particular, Section 18 of the Policy states that noise emissions should achieve the existing background noise level plus 5dB(A). Based on background noise levels measured by Vipac at the various sensitive receptor locations, the relevant noise criteria for the proposal, ranges from 56-69dB(A), as shown in Table 3 below: TABLE 3: MEASURED EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS AND RESULTANT RELEVANT NOISE CRITERIA:*

Location Time Background Noise Level (LA90)

Background Noise Level (LA90) + 5dB(A)

421 Payneham Road 9:13pm 64 69

408 Payneham Road 8:57pm 56 60

4 Edward Street 9:07pm 51 56

*Noise measurements taken on 9 August 2012 by Vipac Engineers and Scientists

The proposal, with all machinery in use simultaneously, is within those levels, in that the noise levels generated by the proposal will be equal to or less than the existing background noise plus 5dB(A) and therefore accords with this aspect of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy. It can therefore be said, that the noise associated with the normal operation of the car wash machinery (with all machines operating simultaneously), is likely to be only slightly perceivable to adjoining and adjacent residential properties above the existing background noise and not at a level that is considered unreasonable. That said, it is also relevant to consider the impacts of other noise sources associated with the proposal, on the amenity of adjacent land owners and occupiers. In this respect, the report prepared by Mr Peter Maddern for Development Application Number 155/440/12 considers the likely noise levels associated with other possible noise sources associated with the car wash, measured at the boundary of the various adjacent residential properties. The results are shown in Table 4 below:


Item 4.1

Page 8

TABLE 4: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY OTHER SOURCES:

Noise Source Noise Level (dB(A)) at 408 Payneham Rd

Noise Level (dB(A)) at 4 Edward Street

Car tyre squeal 84 70

Car door 72 62

Male moderate conversation 47 37

Male elevated, uninhibited conversation 65 54

Female moderate conversation 45 34

Female elevated conversation 53 42

Car radio (at a level which is moderately elevated above ‘normal’ listening volume)

51 39

Car door, start engine, drive away fast (average noise output of all of those actions for a typical vehicle)

59 54

Ford V8 with exhaust hard acceleration 78 N/A

Mazda Rotary with exhaust fast acceleration 79 N/A

Motor bike 250cc 72 N/A

Bearing in mind that the background noise levels measured at approximately 9:00pm at 408 Payneham Road and 4 Edward Street are 56dB(A) and 51dB(A) respectively, it is apparent that with the exception of a car radio (at a volume which is moderately elevated above ‘normal’ listening volume), female conversation and male moderate conversation, the noise levels shown in Table 4 are greater than the background noise. Of those activities which exceed the background noise levels, the one most likely to occur frequently is a typical vehicle’s door being closed, engine being started and driven away. The average noise level of those particular activities is within the recommended criteria contained in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy of background noise plus 5dB(A). Accordingly, it is likely that noise impacts on the occupants of adjacent residential properties, resulting from the proposal, are likely to be limited to those associated with car tyres squeeling, car doors closing, male elevated uninhibited conversation, very high level car radios and ‘modified’ cars. With the exception of car doors closing, the remainder of the activities are likely to occur only occasionally. Whilst difficult to estimate how often they will occur, it is evident from the representations received, that they are not so rare as to not cause an unreasonable impact to the occupants of nearby residents. The proposed increase in the scale and intensity of the proposal resulting from the increased car wash bay numbers, is likely to result in an increase in the frequency of those activities which have a noise level exceeding background noise. Given that the subject land is located within the Residential 2A Zone, the likely resultant impacts on the occupants of nearby residential properties, resulting from the proposal are considered to be unreasonable, acknowledging that there will be negligible impacts associated with the car wash machinery itself. Streetscape/bulk/scale/height/character The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to appearance, streetscape, bulk, scale and character:

City Wide Objectives: 8, 18, 19, 20. City Wide Principles of Development Control: 29-31, 33-36, 41, 44, 46, 48.

The proposed building work is considered to be reasonably consistent with the relevant Development Plan provisions listed above. The new wash bay located adjacent to Edward Street is of a scale which is not


Item 4.1

Page 9

likely to visually dominate the streetscape, particularly in light of the proposed combination of solid panels and glazed panels. The proposal to plant pencil pines in front of the wash bay will further reduce its impact on the Edward Street streetscape. In the context of the existing commercial use of the subject land, the proposed building work is not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the character or amenity of the locality. Car parking/access/manoeuvring The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to car parking access and manoeuvring considerations:

City Wide Objectives: 32, 34. City Wide Principles of Development Control: 86-90, 92-97, 101-103.

The Applicant has provided a report by Mr Kym Dorrestyn of Dorrestyn & Co. Pty Ltd together with Development Application 155/440/12. Mr Dorrestyn considered the proposed car parking configuration and vehicle manoeuvrability and was satisfied that traffic movements resulting from the proposal would accord with the relevant Australian Standards. The current Development Application does not significantly alter the vehicle manoeuvring or car parking conditions that were proposed in Development Application 155/440/12 and as such, the report prepared by Mr Dorrestyn is considered to be equally applicable to the current proposal. Accordingly, it is considered that the vehicle access and manoeuvring aspects of the proposal are safe and convenient, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 89. The Applicant’s planning consultant has highlighted that the proposal will likely result in a reduction in the volume of traffic leaving the site via Edward Street, due to the inability for vehicles having passed through a wash bay to circulate back to the Edward Street exit. This is considered to be a valid consideration, albeit that it would be possible for vehicles to circulate around through a vacant wash bay or reverse out of a wash bay in order to leave via Edward Street. In any event, any reduction in the number of vehicles leaving the site via Edward Street only partially addresses one of the various noise impacts associated with the proposal. It does not address the number of vehicles arriving at and attending the site at any given time and the associated potential noise impacts discussed previously. Summary The proposed development involves the redevelopment of an existing three bay carwash into a five bay car wash. The noise level that is likely to be generated by the machinery associated with the proposal, accords with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy, even when all wash bays and vacuum machines are operating concurrently. However, noise associated with less common activities, such as cars with modified features including engines and exhausts entering and leaving, excessively loud car radios, tyres screeching and patrons yelling, would likely adversely impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties. Whilst some noise impacts can be reasonably anticipated by a person living in a residential zone adjacent to an arterial road, such as those associated with passing noisy cars and trucks and even excessively loud home stereos and noisy children in neighbouring houses for example, the likely frequency of the impacts resulting from the proposal is considered unreasonable. The overall proposed increase in intensity of the commercial land use within the Residential 2A Zone and the resultant amenity impacts on the occupants of nearby residential properties is too great, even with the proposed acoustic measures. Refusal is therefore recommended.


Item 4.1

Page 10

RECOMMENDATION That having regard to the relevant provisions of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan and pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993, Development Plan Consent be refused to Development Application No 155/830/13 by Mr Harry Tsimiklis to undertake alterations and additions to an existing car wash facility comprising the addition of two (2) new car wash bays, on the land located at 410-412 Payneham Road, Glynde, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is contrary to City Wide Objective 26 as it will have an adverse impact




Item 4.2

Page 11

4.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/687/2013 – MR D MCOMISH – 136A BEULAH ROAD, NORWOOD

Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Panel in order for a determination to be made on an Application for the construction of a two-storey group dwelling with an associated cellar, swimming pool, driveway, fencing and landscaping. Staff do not have delegated authority to determine the Application, as it comprises the construction of a dwelling on a “hammerhead” allotment. As such, the Application is referred to the Panel for determination. In making its determination, the Panel is required to consider whether, on balance, the proposal is firstly seriously at variance with the Development Plan as a whole. If so, the Application must be refused consent pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993. If not, the Panel must go on to consider whether the proposal sufficiently accords with the Development Plan to merit consent. Subject Land Attributes Shape: irregular ‘battle-axe’ shaped allotment Frontage (driveway) width: 4.5 metres Allotment width: 15.24-18.29 metres Depth: 52.43 metres Area: 552.2m

2 (including driveway)

435m2 (excluding driveway)

Topography: gentle grade from the rear of the allotment to the street (approximately 1.0m of fall over the 52.43m depth of the allotment)

Existing Structures: nil Existing Vegetation: nil Locality Attributes Land uses: residential including Aged Care Building heights (storeys): mix of single-storey and two-storey development Streetscape amenity high – due to quality building stock, generous allotment sizes and

mature street trees A plan of the subject land and its surrounds is contained in Attachment A.


APPLICANT: Mr D McOmish

SUBJECT SITE: 136A Beulah Road, Norwood (Certificate of Title - Volume: 5956, Folio: 59)

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: Construction of a two-storey group dwelling with an associated cellar, swimming pool, driveway, fencing and landscaping

ZONE: Residential Zone (Norwood Policy Area) - Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan (dated 7 March 2013)



Item 4.2

Page 12

Proposal in Detail

The Applicant seeks consent to construct a two-storey group dwelling with an associated cellar, swimming pool, driveway, fencing and landscaping. The proposed dwelling is to be constructed on an existing ‘battle-axe’ style allotment, behind an existing two-storey detached dwelling.

The subject land is serviced by a common driveway, which provides vehicular access for the subject land and the two-storey dwelling located at 136 Beulah Road. Given the common access arrangement, the proposed dwelling is a ‘group dwelling’, as defined by Schedule 1 of the Development Regulations 2008.

The proposed dwelling includes a cellar; a combined kitchen/dining/living room, study, laundry, bathroom, double garage and outdoor terrace at ground level; and three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms, a ‘breakout’ area and an open roof terrace at the first floor level. The proposed dwelling is to be constructed with rendered masonry (Dulux ‘Mount Buller’ (light grey)), bagged brick (Dulux ‘Teahouse’ (dark grey)), painted timber battens and aluminium windows. An inground swimming pool and glass swimming pool fence is proposed within the primary area of private open space to the east of the dwelling, while a service courtyard is proposed on the western side of the dwelling. In addition to the double garage, there is adequate space for two (2) visitor vehicles to park on the subject land, adjacent to the proposed garage. A 2.0 metre high internal rendered privacy wall is proposed to delineate the private open space area from the driveway. The Applicant has provided an indicative plan for soft landscaping on the proposed site plan. The relevant details of the proposal in terms of areas, setbacks and the like are set out in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: DEVELOPMENT DATA:

Consideration Proposed dwelling Development Plan Merit Assessment Quantitative Guideline

Site Area (excluding common driveway)

552.2m² 435m

2

N/A 300m

2 (Residential Zone PDC 8)

Allotment Width (driveway ‘handle’ width)

15.24m-18.29m 4.5m

N/A

Allotment Depth 52.43m N/A

External Wall Height* 7.1m N/A

Maximum Overall Height (to roof apex)*

7.1m Two-storey (Residential Zone PDC 7)

Floor Area (total) 304.5m² N/A

Floor Area (footprint) 209.3m² N/A

Site Coverage (excluding common driveway)

37.9% 48.1%

N/A

Private Open Space 125.5m2

28.9% of site area 82.2% uncovered

20% of site area (City Wide PDC 216 (a)) 50% uncovered (PDC 220)

Street Set-back N/A (battle-axe allotment) N/A

Side Set-backs (western side) (eastern side)

1.45m (ground level) 4.0m (first floor level) 4.25m (ground level) 3.35m (first floor level)

4.5m (City Wide PDC 178)

Rear Set-back 2.5m (ground level) 4.5m (first floor level)

4.5m (City Wide PDC 178)

Car Parking Provision 2 undercover & 2 visitor 2 undercover & 2 visitor (City Wide PDC 242)


Item 4.2

Page 13

* Heights are taken from the finished ground floor level and in the case of external wall heights, are measured to the under-side of the gutter or where there is no external gutter, to the top of the parapet wall. Where wall heights vary at different points of the dwelling, a range is given. Plans and details of the proposed development are contained in Attachment B. Notification The proposed development has been identified and processed as a Category 2 form of development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 2, 18 of the Development Regulations 2008, as the proposal involves the construction of a two-storey group dwelling. The proposed swimming pool is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 1, 2 (d) of the Development Regulations 2008. The proposed internal walls and fencing has been determined to be a minor form of development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 1, 2 (g) of the Development Regulations 2008. Three (3) representations were received (two (2) in favour, one (1) opposed) in response to this notification, copies of which are contained in Attachment C. The key issues raised by the representors are, in summary:

• the air conditioning units associated with the proposed dwelling should be located at ground level, to reduce the visual impact of the units if they were to be placed on the roof of the dwelling;

• the proposed swimming pool should be appropriately engineered to ensure that its construction does not adversely affect the footings of the adjacent garage at 33 Queen Street;

• potential overshadowing of the north facing courtyard and roof mounted solar panels of the dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street;

• the location of the pool pump equipment adjacent to the courtyard of Unit 6, 35 Queen Street has potential to create disturbance for the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling; and

• the proposed flat roof design is out of character with other dwellings within the locality, which incorporate pitched roofs.

The following representors desire to be heard personally by the Panel, in support of their representation:

• Major General (Hon.) Russell John Butler; and

• Mr Peter Lea. The Applicant has responded to the representations received and a copy of their response is contained in Attachment D. A summary of the Applicant’s response is provided below:

• all external mechanical plant (including air-conditioners) shall be located within the ground level service courtyard to the west of the proposed dwelling;

• the swimming pool will be appropriately engineered and certified to be compliant with the requirements of the Building Code;

• the rear (southern) setback of the first floor has been increased to 4.5 metres in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Development Plan. A sun shading assessment has also been submitted in support of the application;

• the swimming pool pump equipment enclosure will be acoustically treated in accordance with the Council’s requirements; and

• the proposed flat roof design will not have an adverse impact on the character of the streetscape, given the location of the proposed dwelling at the rear of the allotment. The flat roof design also reduces any impacts that are associated with visual bulk and overshadowing of adjacent land, by reducing the overall height of the proposed dwelling. The proposed dwelling is not located within a Historic (Conservation) Zone.

State Agency Consultation The Development Regulations 2008 do not require consultation with State Government Agencies.


Item 4.2

Page 14

Discussion The subject land is located within the Residential Zone (Norwood Policy Area) of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan. The proposed development is neither a complying nor a non-complying form of development and accordingly is required to be assessed on its merits having regard to all of the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The key issues, specific to this Development Application, are discussed in detail below. Land Use and Density The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance on the type and density of residential development that is envisaged within the Development Plan:

Residential Zone Objective: 1 Residential Zone 1 PDC’s: 1, 2, 8 City Wide Objectives: 1, 5 City Wide PDC’s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 156

The proposed development includes the construction of one (1), two-storey group dwelling on an existing ‘battle-axe’ style allotment. The existing allotment was created in 2005, as a result of a community title land division application (Development Application Number 155/C021/04), which was approved by the Council’s Development Assessment Panel at its meeting held in June 2005. Residential Zone Objective 1 and Principle of Development Control 2 both anticipate a variety of housing types, densities and forms of residential accommodation, offering a wide range of choice in the local area. The proposed two-storey group dwelling is consistent with Residential Zone Objective 1 and Principle of Development Control 2 insofar as it constitutes an alternate form of residential development within the locality. The allotment size and configuration is not a consideration for this Application, as the allotment was created in 2005. Notwithstanding, the site area (552.2m

2 inclusive of the driveway ‘handle or 435m

2 exclusive of the

driveway ‘handle’) exceeds the average site area for residential development, prescribed by Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 8 (300m

2 in areas east of Osmond Terrace, north of The Parade).

The proposed land use and density is considered to be acceptable. Streetscape/bulk/scale/height/character The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to appearance, streetscape, bulk, scale and character:

Residential Zone PDC’s: 4, 5, 7 City Wide Objectives: 18, 19 & 20 City Wide PDC’s: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 149, 162, 167, 175, 337, 338, 339.

The proposed dwelling is sited on a ‘battle-axe’ style allotment, at the rear of an existing two-storey detached dwelling. As such, the proposed development will have minimal impact on the character of the Beulah Road streetscape. City Wide Principle of Development Control 175 states the following: Buildings on battleaxe, hammerhead or similar configuration allotments should be single storey, except where:

(a) the predominant height of the surrounding dwellings is greater than one storey. In this instance the development should not be more than two storeys above the natural ground level; or

(b) a height greater than one storey is envisaged in the Zone and/or Policy Area.


Item 4.2

Page 15

Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 7 states that development within the Residential Zone should not exceed two-storeys in height. Given that two-storey dwellings are envisaged within the Residential Zone, it is considered that two-storey development is acceptable on the subject land, in principle, subject to meeting the other relevant provisions of the Development Plan relating to setbacks, visual outlook, privacy and overshadowing, to be discussed in detail below. The proposed dwelling has a contemporary, rectilinear flat roof design. The locality is characterised by a range of dwelling types and forms, including a two-storey detached dwelling in front of the subject land at 136 Beulah Road, a vacant two-storey aged care facility on the opposite side of the street at 145-157 Beulah Road, two (2) adjacent tennis courts and several single storey detached dwellings and residential flat units. The adjacent dwellings at 134 Beulah Road and 33 Queen Street are listed as Local Heritage Places within the Council’s Development Plan. City Wide Principles of Development Control 337, 338 and 339 relate to development that is located adjacent to land containing a heritage place. City Wide Principles of Development Control 337, 338 and 339 prescribe that development should have a scale and bulk that complements adjacent heritage places, and should not dominate or detract from the heritage value of the place. Given the siting of the proposed dwelling at the rear of the allotment, with significant separation from the adjacent Local Heritage Places, resulting from the existing tennis courts on the adjacent allotments, the proposed development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Local Heritage Places or the streetscape character. Similarly, City Wide Principle of Development Control 149 states that development which is located adjacent to the Residential Historic (Conservation) Zone should form a transition between the Zones and should be of a bulk and scale that complements the built form within the Residential Historic (Conservation) Zone. The proposed dwelling is to be located directly behind an existing contemporary two-storey dwelling, such that views of the dwelling from the public realm will be limited to obscure angled views through the adjacent tennis courts. In this context, it is considered that the proposed contemporary design will not compromise the objectives of the adjacent Residential Historic (Conservation) Zone. In terms of building materials and colours, the Applicant originally proposed a near white colour scheme that would have been in stark contrast to other development within the locality. City Wide Principle of Development Control 41 states: “The external walls and roofs of buildings should not incorporate highly reflective materials which will result in excessive glare.” The concern with a bright white colour scheme was raised with the Applicant by Council staff and the Applicant has now amended the colour scheme to incorporate a light and dark shade of grey, which will better complement adjacent development and will not result in any unreasonable glare, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 41. Whilst the proposed dwelling is outwardly contemporary in its design, the proposed development is located within the Residential Zone, Norwood Policy Area, which promotes a range of dwelling types and forms. The proposed dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the character of the locality. Setbacks and Site Coverage The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to set-backs and site coverage considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 177, 178, 182, 183, 185, 186,187 & 191 City Wide Principle of Development Control 177 states: “The distance between a single storey dwelling, on a battleaxe, hammerhead or similar configuration allotment, and the side or rear boundary of the allotment on which it is sited, should be no less than 2.5 metres.”


Item 4.2

Page 16

City Wide Principle of Development Control 178 states (in part): “The distance between a dwelling of more than one storey, on a battleaxe, hammerhead or similar configuration allotment, and the side or rear boundary of the allotment on which it is sited, should be no less than: (b) 4.5 metres if: (i) it is two storey (where the upper level is not fully contained within the roof space);” Given that the proposed development includes a two-storey dwelling, City Wide Principle of Development Control 178 provides a setback guideline of 4.5 metres from the side and rear boundaries of the subject land. At ground level, the dwelling is proposed to be set back 1.45 metres from the western side boundary, 4.25 metres from the eastern side boundary and 2.5 metres from the rear boundary. At first floor level, the dwelling is proposed to be set back 4.0 metres from the western side boundary, 3.35 metres from the eastern side boundary and 4.5 metres from the rear boundary. Whilst the proposed side and rear setbacks are less than the 4.5 metres stated in Principle 178 for two-storey dwellings, the context of the proposed dwelling (adjacent to two (2) tennis courts and a large domestic outbuilding), is such that reduced side and rear setbacks may be acceptable. The primary intent of Principle 178 in calling for 4.5 metre side and rear setbacks for two-storey developments on ‘battle-axe’ or ‘hammerhead’ allotments, is to reduce the impacts of developments that are located within traditional ‘back yards’ on adjacent dwelling occupiers. Impacts can include compromised visual outlook, loss of privacy (actual and perceived) and potential overshadowing of dwellings, their associated private open space areas and solar collectors. Overlooking and overshadowing resulting from the proposed development are considered to be acceptable; this will be discussed in detail later in the report. In terms of visual outlook, there were two (2) specific areas of concern with the original proposal. The first area was the proposed garage wall, which was originally proposed with an overall height of 4.8 metres, with a setback of just 600mm from the western side boundary of the site. The unusual height of the garage wall is a result of the proposed use of the garage roof as a terrace area, to be accessed from the master bedroom. The second area of concern was the impact of the proposed two-storey built form on the outlook from the adjacent modest courtyard area of the dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street. Council staff expressed the above concerns to the Applicant and, in response, the Applicant has amended the plans and reduced the height of the garage wall to 3.8 metres by shifting the terrace balustrade 1.9 metres back from the external wall (2.5 metres from the western boundary); and by increasing the first floor rear setback to 4.5 metres, in order to provide some additional separation from the dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street. In terms of the garage wall, the wall is located 600mm from the western side boundary, which is occupied by a hedge and 3.6 metre high tennis court fence. The reality of hedges is that they generally encroach on both sides of a boundary, when planted on a boundary. The proposed garage setback of 600mm allows the hedge to be retained. The hedge has also started climbing the existing tennis court fence, which over time will assist in softening the visual outlook of the adjacent occupiers of 134 Beulah Road. The amended first floor rear setback (4.5 metres) is now consistent with the prescribed setback for two-storey dwellings on a ‘battle-axe’ or ‘hammerhead’ allotment, as stated in City Wide Principle of Development Control 178. It is also worth noting that the ground level of the dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street ranges between 600mm and 700mm above the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling, which will assist in reducing the prominence of the proposed dwelling when viewed from that property.


Item 4.2

Page 17

The presence of two (2) mature (non-regulated) trees on adjacent land is also noteworthy when considering the visual impact of the proposed dwelling. Mature trees are located adjacent to the subject land at the rear of 134 Beulah Road and 33 Queen Street. Both of these trees have substantial canopies, which will assist in screening the proposed dwelling from the view of adjacent properties. The proposed amendments have alleviated the concerns of Council staff regarding visual outlook. As such, whilst all of the proposed side and rear setbacks do not comply with City Wide Principle of Development Control 178, the proposed shortfall is not considered to be fatal to the overall merit of the proposed development. In terms of site coverage, the proposed dwelling covers 48.1% of the site area, excluding the common driveway area, which is consistent with much of the development within the locality. The obvious exceptions to this are the very large allotments at 126 and 134 Beulah Road, which include tennis courts and generous landscaped gardens. Notwithstanding, the proposed site coverage is considered to be acceptable, given the configuration of the allotment and the existing site area. Overshadowing/overlooking The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to overshadowing and overlooking considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 69, 168, 170, 171, 223 & 224 The orientation of the proposed dwelling is such that overshadowing from the proposed development is limited to the south-west during the morning, the immediate south at midday and the south-east during the afternoon. The subject land abuts a tennis court to the west and a large domestic outbuilding (with no external windows) to the east. Overshadowing of the adjacent properties to the east and west are confined to a couple of hours of the day and do not impact on the adjacent dwellings at all. However, the neighbour to the immediate south, at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, lodged a representation which included concern regarding overshadowing of his private open space area and solar collectors, which are situated on the roof of the dwelling. The Applicant has amended the plans as a result of the representation to increase the first floor rear setback to 4.5 metres (from 4.0 metres) and has submitted a sun study, which illustrates the existing access to direct sunlight and the predicted access to direct sunlight as a result of the proposed development. A copy of the sun study submitted by the Applicant is contained in Attachment E. The sun study has been verified by Council staff to be an accurate depiction of the likely overshadowing resulting from the proposed development. The sun study shows that the private open space area at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, is currently completely shaded by the existing boundary fence during the winter solstice. This is due to the minimal setback that the dwelling on that land has from its rear fence. Overshadowing of the ground level private open space at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, is therefore not going to be increased during the winter solstice, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 171. Whilst the proposed dwelling will not increase overshadowing of the ground level open space during the winter solstice, the proposed dwelling is likely to increase overshadowing of the north-facing windows at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, as the shadow from the proposed dwelling will exceed the shadow cast by the existing fence. City Wide Principle of Development Control 170 states: “Development should ensure that the north-facing windows of habitable rooms of existing dwelling(s) on the same allotment, and on adjacent allotments, receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight over a portion of their surface between 9am and 5pm on the winter solstice (21 June).” The shadow diagrams illustrate that the north facing windows of the dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street will receive direct sunlight during the morning, until approximately 10.00am, and again in the afternoon, after 3.00pm. The north facing habitable room windows will therefore receive the minimum three (3) hours of direct sunlight during the winter solstice, as prescribed by City Wide Principle of Development Control 170.


Item 4.2

Page 18

The proposed development is unlikely to overshadow the solar collectors located on the roof of the adjacent dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street. The sun study illustrates that overshadowing resulting from the proposed development will only impact on a small portion of the roof during the afternoon. Whilst the solar collectors have not been illustrated on the sun study, staff have cross-referenced the sun study with recent aerial photography and have determined that the solar collectors will continue to access direct sunlight to more than 50% of the panels for more than three (3) hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 69. As such, the proposed development is considered to accord with City Wide Principle of Development Control 168, which requires that adequate access to natural light is available to adjoining properties. With respect to overlooking, all first floor windows either have 1.7 metre sill levels or have fixed obscure glazing up to 1.7 metres above the internal floor level, to ensure the continued privacy of adjacent property occupiers. The proposed first floor terrace has a 1.7 metre balustrade around each side, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 224. If the Panel determines to approve the proposed development, then it is recommended that a condition be imposed to reiterate the requirement for all first floor windows and balconies to be adequately screened to a minimum height of 1.7 metres from the floor level. City Wide Principle of Development Control 224 prescribes that balconies should not exceed 15 square metres in floor area. Whilst the proposed roof terrace has been reduced in area from 48m

2 to 27.9m

2, the

floor area still exceeds the quantitative area prescribed by City Wide Principle of Development Control 224. However, in this instance the proposed roof terrace can only be accessed from the master bedroom and is unlikely to be used for entertaining. As such, any perception of loss of privacy to adjacent properties resulting from the roof terrace is likely to be minimised by its infrequent use. The proposed development is considered to be reasonably consistent with City Wide Principles of Development Control 223 and 224, with respect to ensuring the ongoing visual privacy of adjoining dwelling occupiers. Private open space The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to private open space considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 213, 214, 215, 216 & 220 City Wide Principle of Development Control 216 states (in part): “Dwellings (other than residential flat buildings in the form of apartments within a multi storey building) should have associated private open space of sufficient area, shape and gradient to be functional and capable of meeting the likely needs of the occupant(s) (taking into consideration the location of the dwelling and the dimensions and gradient of the site) and should be in accordance with the following:

(a) a dwelling with a site area of 250 square metres or greater, 20 percent of the site area should be private open space, of which one portion should be equal to or greater than 10 percent of the site area and have a minimum dimension of 4 metres;

The proposed dwelling includes 125.5m² of private open space, which equates to 28.9% of the dwelling’s site area excluding the common driveway. The largest area of private open space is located with direct access to the ground level living rooms of the dwelling and includes a covered terrace for entertaining, an inground swimming pool and an area for soft landscaping. A separate service courtyard is proposed on the western side of the dwelling, which will accommodate clothes drying, rainwater tanks and air-conditioning plant. The roof terrace located above the garage is also large enough to be included as private open space and will provide a good retreat for the users of the master bedroom.


Item 4.2

Page 19

The main private open space area is well orientated to gain access to northern sunlight, particularly during the morning. The service courtyard is orientated to gain good access to northern sunlight during the afternoon. The provision of private open space is consistent with the quantitative figure expressed by City Wide Principle of Development Control 216 and is considered to function well, with good orientation and links to the living areas of the dwelling, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 215. Car parking/access/manoeuvring The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to car parking access and manoeuvring considerations:

City Wide Objectives: 34 City Wide PDC’s: 86, 88, 89, 161, 179, 234, 235, 237 & 240

The proposed dwelling is accessed via a common driveway, which is shared with the dwelling at 136 Beulah Road. The proposed dwelling includes two (2) on-site undercover car parking spaces within the proposed garage and two (2) additional on-site visitor car parking spaces within the driveway adjacent to the garage. City Wide Principle of Development Control 242 states (in part): “Group dwellings and residential flat buildings should provide off street car parking in accordance with the following:

(c) a dwelling with four or more bedrooms (or rooms capable of being used as a bedroom) should be provided with a minimum of three on-site resident car parking spaces, whereby at least two spaces are covered; and

(d) in addition to all of the instances described above, accessible on-site visitor car parking, exclusive of vehicle manoeuvring areas, should be provided at a rate of: (i) one either covered or uncovered on-site visitor car parking space for every two dwellings in the development (rounded up to the nearest whole number, for example a development consisting of five dwellings would require three on-site visitor car parking spaces) for a development up to ten dwellings;”

The proposed development satisfies the quantitative provision for on-site car parking, expressed in City Wide Principle of Development Control 242. Vehicle manoeuvring from the proposed garage and visitor car parking spaces has been assessed by staff using the vehicle turning templates for a 85

th percentile vehicle,

to ensure that access and egress conform to Australian/New Zealand Standard 2890.1:2004. Access and egress to the proposed car parking spaces from the common driveway is considered to be safe and convenient, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 89. Finished floor levels/flooding/retaining The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to floor levels, flooding and retaining:

City Wide Objectives: 51 City Wide PDC’s: 10, 132 & 257

The subject land is not within a recognised flood plain. The subject land has a fall of approximately 1.0 metre from the rear of the allotment to the street, with the rear of the allotment at approximately 61.8m Australian Height Datum (AHD) and the street level approximately 60.8m AHD. The levels plan provided by the Applicant only illustrates spot levels to approximately halfway down the common driveway, which is measured at 61.34m AHD. Having inspected the land, it is estimated that there is a further fall of approximately 0.5 metres from that point to the roadway. The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is 61.6m AHD, which is approximately at grade with the natural ground level at the rear of the site (some minor cut and fill may be required to level the site of the


Item 4.2

Page 20

dwelling, although it is not likely to exceed 300mm). The proposed finished floor level will provide a good fit with adjacent development. The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling ranges between 600mm and 700mm lower than the ground level of the dwelling to the immediate south at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, which will assist in reducing the overall bulk of the proposed dwelling when viewed from that land. An existing retaining wall with a maximum height of 500mm is located along the rear (southern) boundary of the subject land. No additional retaining walls are likely to be required. In terms of stormwater disposal, the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling and the existing site levels are such that excess stormwater can be discharged to the Beulah Road street water table by gravity feed. City Wide Principle of Development Control 122 states: “Development should incorporate appropriate measures to minimise the concentrated discharge of stormwater from the site.” City Wide Principle of Development Control 127 states: “All new dwellings and additions to existing dwellings (including dependent accommodation units) greater than 50 square metres (where the addition incorporates a water closet, water heater or a laundry cold water outlet) with direct access to the ground level, should be provided with a 2000 litre rainwater tank/s connected to the roof water outlets and plumbed to at least a water closet, a water heater and/or all laundry cold water outlets.” Given the relatively high percentage of land that will be covered with impervious surfaces compared with the existing condition, it is considered appropriate that the Applicant provide a rainwater tank with a minimum capacity of 2000 litres, to be plumbed back to the dwelling for the re-use of stormwater, in accordance with City Wide Principle of Development Control 127. Should the Panel determine to approve the development, it is recommended that this measure be reinforced by way of condition. Trees (regulated, mature & street) and landscaping The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to significant trees, mature trees, street trees and landscaping:

City Wide Objectives: 24 City Wide PDC’s: 71, 72, 76, 147, 211, 212 & 320

No regulated, mature or street trees are affected by the proposed development. Two (2) mature (non-regulated) trees are located on adjacent land at the rear of 134 Beulah Road and 33 Queen Street. The mature trees are in good health and are sufficiently separated from the proposed dwelling to ensure that the development will not have any adverse impact on their continuing health, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 320. In terms of landscaping, the Applicant has provided an indication of soft landscaping areas on the site plan, provided at Attachment B1. Soft landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site with narrow planter beds located adjacent to the common driveway and main area of private open space. Small planter beds are also proposed on the roof terrace, which is to be located above the garage. More generous soft landscaping areas are proposed adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the subject land, which are of adequate dimensions to enable the planting of medium sized trees, shrubs and ground covers, in accordance with City Wide Principles of Development Control 211 and 212. If the Panel determine to approve the proposed development, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the Applicant to plant and maintain the areas nominated as landscaping with a suitable mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers.


Item 4.2

Page 21

Environmental Sustainability The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to environmental sustainability considerations:

City Wide Objectives: 23 & 42 City Wide PDC’s: 65, 66 & 127.

The subject land is orientated north-south, on the southern side of Beulah Road. This orientation usually makes it difficult to provide solar access to the dwelling and associated private open space. However, in this instance the proposed development has been carefully designed such that the living areas of the dwelling and the main areas of private open space have a good northern aspect, particularly during the morning. The dwelling is designed with the service areas of the dwelling on the western side, with minimal west facing windows. The study has been projected beyond the western wall, such that it can have recessed north and south facing windows, rather than unprotected west facing windows. The west facing windows on the first floor have also been minimised to reduce heat loading on the dwelling. The orientation and design of the dwelling is considered to be a positive aspect of the proposed development. City Wide Objective 42 encourages development which maximises the use of stormwater. As previously mentioned, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to include the installation of a 2000 litre rainwater tank, which satisfies City Wide Principle of Development Control 127 as well as exceeding the mandatory Building Code of Australia requirement of 1000 litres. Summary The proposed two-storey group dwelling is considered to be an appropriate form of development within the Residential Zone. The proposed bulk and scale of the dwelling is reasonably consistent with other built form within the locality, as is the proposed site coverage, the provision of private open space and on-site car parking. Access and egress is considered to be safe and convenient, the proposed landscaping and internal walls will provide for a high level of amenity, as will the provision of an in-ground swimming pool and alfresco entertaining area. The dwelling is well orientated for solar access and has good links to the private open space areas of the dwelling. The proposed side and rear setbacks do not strictly comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, however the implications of slightly lesser setbacks are considered to be acceptable for the reasons set out in the body of the report. Whilst the proposed development will result in some additional overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling at Unit 6, 35 Queen Street, the level of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable, when assessed against the relevant quantitative provisions of the Development Plan. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan and sufficiently accords with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan to warrant consent.


Item 4.2

Page 22

RECOMMENDATION That having regard to the relevant provisions of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan and pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993, Development Plan Consent be granted to Development Application No 155/0687/13 by Mr D McOmish to construct a two-storey group dwelling with an associated cellar, swimming pool, driveway, fencing and landscaping, on the land located at 136A Beulah Road, Norwood, subject to the following requirements, conditions and notes: Relevant Plans Pursuant to Section 44 (2) and (3) of the Development Act 1993 and except where varied by a Condition specified hereunder, it is required that the development be undertaken, used, maintained and operated in accordance with the following relevant plans, drawings, specifications and other documents:

• plans and elevations (Job Number 13.021, Plan numbers PL01.D, PL02.M & PL03.F) prepared by Proske Architects, received by the Council on 4 February 2014.

Conditions 1. The portion of all first floor windows and terrace, less than 1.7m above the internal floor level shall

be treated prior to occupation of the building in a manner that permanently restricts views being obtained by a person within the room to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate.

2. All stormwater from buildings and paved areas shall be disposed of in accordance with recognised

engineering practices in a manner and with materials that does not result in the entry of water onto any adjoining property or any building, and does not affect the stability of any building and in all instances the stormwater drainage system shall be directly connected into either the adjacent street kerb & water table or a Council underground pipe drainage system.

3. A rainwater tank with a storage capacity not less than 2 kilolitres (2000 litres) shall be installed and

plumbed into a toilet, water heater and/or laundry cold water outlet by a licensed plumber in accordance with AS/NZS 3500 and the SA Variations published by SA Water. Details of the installation shall be provided with application for Building Rules Consent.

4. All areas nominated as landscaping or garden areas on the approved plans shall be planted with a

suitable mix and density of trees, shrubs and groundcovers prior to the occupation of the premises to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate.

5. All plants within the proposed landscaped areas shall be nurtured and maintained in good health

and condition at all times with any diseased or dying plants being replaced, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate.

Notes to Applicant 1. The Applicant 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 that the activities on the whole site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause harm.

2. The Applicant is reminded of its responsibilities under the Environment Protection Act 1993, to not

harm the environment. Specifically, paint, plaster, concrete, brick wastes and wash waters should not be discharged into the stormwater system, litter should be appropriately stored on site pending removal, excavation and site disturbance should be limited, entry/exit points to the site should be managed to prevent soil being carried off site by vehicles, sediment barriers should be used (particularly on sloping sites), and material stockpiles should all be placed on site and not on the footpath or public roads or reserves. Further information is available by contacting the EPA on 8204 2004.


Item 4.2

Page 23

3. The granting of the consent does not remove the need for the Applicant to obtain all other consents which may be required by any other legislation or regulation. The Applicant’s attention is particularly drawn to the need to consult all relevant electricity suppliers with respect to high voltage power lines.

4. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the Environment Protection Authority’s Guidelines IS NO 7

“Construction Noise”. These guidelines provide recommended hours of operation outside which noisy activities should not occur. Further information is available by contacting the Environment Protection Authority on 8204 2004.

5. The Applicant is advised that any works undertaken on Council owned land (including but not limited

to works relating to crossovers, driveways, footpaths, street trees and stormwater connections) will require the approval of the Council’s Urban Services Department, prior to any works being undertaken. Further information may be obtained by contacting Council’s Urban Services Department on 8366 4513. All works on Council owned land required as part of this development are likely to be at the Applicant’s cost.

6. This Development Plan Consent will lapse within 12 months of the date of this notice unless full

Development Approval has been obtained. 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.


Item 4.3

Page 24

4.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 155/132/2013 – MR R D’ ONOFRIO – 71 & 73 STEPHEN

TERRACE, ST PETERS

Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Panel in order for a determination to be made on an Application for the construction of three (3) detached dwellings and alterations and additions to an existing masonry front fence. Staff do not have delegated authority to determine the Application, as it comprises the construction of three (3) dwellings on two (2) allotments where two (2) of the dwellings have an upper level which is not contained within the roof space. As such, the Application is referred to the Panel for determination. In making its determination, the Panel is required to consider whether, on balance, the proposal is firstly seriously at variance with the Development Plan as a whole. If so, the Application must be refused consent pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993. If not, the Panel must go on to consider whether the proposal sufficiently accords with the Development Plan to merit consent. Subject Land Attributes (i.e. 71 and 73 Stephen Terrace, St Peters, combined) Shape: regular Frontage width: 32.97 metres (to Stephen Terrace) Depth: 45.42 – 48.88 metres Area: 1523.2m

2

Topography: essentially flat Existing Structures: two (2) single-storey detached dwelling and several associated outbuildings Existing Vegetation: several mature trees are located on the subject land, none of which are identified as Regulated Trees pursuant to Regulation 6A of the Development Regulations 2008. The subject land comprises two (2) regular shaped allotments resulting in frontages to both Stephen Terrace and Ninth Avenue. There are three (3) street trees adjacent the Ninth Avenue frontage of the subject land and four (4) street trees adjacent the Stephen Terrace frontage.


APPLICANT: Mr R D’ Onofrio

SUBJECT SITE: 71 and 73 Stephen Terrace, St Peters (Certificate of Title, Volume: 5126 and 5112, Folio: 466 and 682)

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: Construction of three (3) detached dwellings (two (2) two-storey and one (1) single-storey) and alterations and additions to an existing masonry fence

ZONE: Residential 2A Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan (dated 7 March 2013)



Item 4.3

Page 25

Locality Attributes Land uses: Predominantly residential – the only anomaly is a childcare facility is

located at 79-83 Stephen Terrace Building heights (storeys): Predominantly single-storey Streetscape amenity The Ninth Avenue locality displays a high level of amenity given the

established building stock, which is predominantly characterised by original dwellings. The Stephen Terrace locality is heavily influenced by the relatively high volume of vehicular traffic along this secondary arterial road, which conversely is indicative of the high solid fencing of most dwellings with a frontage to Stephen Terrace.

The relevant locality along Stephen Terrace and Ninth Avenue is characterised by a mix of dwelling styles which are, predominantly single-storey. Dwellings located on Stephen Terrace display a variety of styles, some of which are original buildings and some constructed post the Second World War. Directly adjacent to the south-east of the subject land at 67 Stephen Terrace are six (6) single-storey dwellings that were constructed in the 1980’s. Despite the high traffic volumes along Stephen Terrace, the locality as a whole is considered to have a high level of residential amenity, due in part to the well-established street trees and generally well maintained dwelling stock. A plan of the subject land and its surrounds is contained in Attachment A. Proposal in Detail The Applicant seeks consent to construct three (3) detached dwellings, two (2) of which are two-storey and one (1) of which is single-storey. The proposal also involves alterations and additions to an existing masonry fence that is situated directly adjacent the Stephen Terrace frontage of the subject land. Two-storey detached dwellings (Dwelling 1 and 2) At ground floor level, the dwellings comprise an open plan living/kitchen/dining area, a bedroom (including a walk-in-robe and ensuite), a toilet/powder room and a laundry. At upper level, the proposed dwellings comprise two (2) bedrooms, separate bathroom and toilets and a living area. A covered alfresco area is located on the northern side of each of the dwellings. Both of the proposed two-storey detached dwellings present to Ninth Avenue. The proposed two-storey detached dwellings each include two (2) vehicle garages, incorporated within the main building envelope. Two (2) visitor parking spaces are also proposed for each of these dwellings. Single-storey detached dwelling (Dwelling 3) The single-storey detached dwelling comprises an open plan living/kitchen/dining area, three bedrooms (Bedroom 1 includes an ensuite and walk-in-robe), a study, a laundry, a bathroom and a WC. A covered alfresco area is located on the southern side of the dwelling. The single-storey detached dwelling is orientated towards Stephen Terrace. The proposed single-storey detached dwelling includes a two (2) vehicle garage that is integrated within the main building envelope. Two (2) visitor parking spaces can be accommodated on the subject land. Vehicular access and egress is to be from Ninth Avenue. The existing 1.8 metre high masonry front fence adjacent the Stephen Terrace frontage of the subject land is to be modified in order to include a pedestrian gate. The proposal also involves the extension of the masonry fence (ie. returning adjacent the Ninth Avenue frontage) up to where the proposed driveway area for the dwelling commences. The proposed architectural design approach can be described as “classic contemporary”. Materials and finishes include a combination of custom orb colorbond roofing, rendered walls and stone veneer finish to piers. The dwellings incorporate a good level of fenestration to the facade.


Item 4.3

Page 26

The relevant details of the proposal in terms of areas, setbacks and the like are set out in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: DEVELOPMENT DATA:

Consideration Dwelling 1 Dwelling 2 Dwelling 3 Development Plan Merit Assessment Quantitative Guideline

Site Area Average site area:

508m²

475m² 475m² 567m² N/A

Allotment Width 14.6m 14.6m 33.0m N/A

Allotment Depth 32.6m 32.6m 13.5 – 14.6m N/A

External Wall Height*

3.1- 6.3m 3.1 – 6.3m 3.1 – 3.6m (garage wall)

N/A

Maximum Overall Height (to roof apex)*

7.9m 7.9m 6.1m N/A

Floor Area (total) 351m² 351m² 324m² N/A

Floor Area (footprint)

281m² 281m² 324m² N/A

Site Coverage 59% 59% 57% N/A

Private Open Space

114.5m² (24% of the site area) 70% uncovered

125.5m² (26% of the site area) 73% uncovered

203m² (36% of the site) 84% uncovered

20% of the site area (CWPDC 216) 50% uncovered (CWPDC 220)

Street Set-back 6.7m 5.7m 5.2m (average) 3.6m (closest point when measured to corner of verandah adjacent Bedroom 3)

the same distance as the greater of the two adjoining dwelling setbacks, in all circumstances where a new dwelling comprising of 2 or more storeys is being introduced (CWPD 183c) the same distance as one or the other of the adjoining dwellings provided the difference between the setbacks of the two adjoining dwellings is not greater than 2 metres (CWPDC 183(a)

Side Set-back Nil (to garage) and 1.0 – 2.5 (single-storey dwelling) 2.5 metres (upper floor, both sides)

Nil (to garage) and 1.0 – 2.5 (single-storey dwelling) 2.5 metres (upper floor, both sides)

2.0m (garage) 2.0 (dwelling)

1.0m (CWPDC 185)

Rear Set-back 2.5m (alfresco) 9.7m (upper level)

3.3m (alfresco) 10.7m (upper level)

Nil (garage) 1.3 – 1.7m (dwelling)

N/A

Car Parking Provision

2 undercover & 2 visitor

2 undercover & 2 visitor

2 undercover & no visitor

1 undercover & 1 visitor (CWPDC 240)


Item 4.3

Page 27

* Heights are taken from the finished ground floor level and in the case of external wall heights, are measured to the under-side of the gutter or where there is no external gutter, to the top of the parapet wall. Where wall heights vary at different points of the dwelling, a range is given. Plans and details of the proposed development are attached contained in Attachment B. Notification The proposed dwellings have been identified and processed as a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 1, 2(a)(i) & (iii) of the Development Regulations 2008. The proposed alterations and additions to the existing masonry front fence associated with the development is considered to be minor and will not unreasonably impact on the owners or occupiers of land in the locality of the site of the development and, as such, is also a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Schedule 9, Part 1, 2(g) of the Development Regulations 2008. As such, no public notification was undertaken. State Agency Consultation The Application was referred to the Commissioner of Highways pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, as the proposed development includes the creation of an access point within 25 metres of the intersection of a secondary arterial road and the proposed development potentially encroaches within the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan in relation to Stephen Terrace. The Commissioner of Highway’s response is discussed in detail under the heading Car parking/access/manoeuvring later in the report. Discussion The subject land is located within the Residential 2A Zone of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan. The proposed development is neither a complying nor a non-complying form of development and accordingly is required to be assessed on its merits having regard to all of the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The key issues, specific to this Development Application, are discussed in detail below. Land Use and Density The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance on the type and density of residential development that is envisaged within the Development Plan:

Residential 2A Zone Objective: 1 Residential 2A Zone PDC: 1 City Wide Objectives: 1, 2, 7, 55, 56 & 57 City Wide PDC’s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 142, 143 & 156

Within the former St Peters Council area of the Residential 2A Zone, detached dwellings at low densities on individual allotments are the primary anticipated form of development, as stated in both Zone Objective 1 and by Zone Principe of Development Control 1. City Wide Principle of Development Control 156 states the following: Residential allotments and sites should have the appropriate orientation, area, configuration and dimensions to accommodate: (a) the siting and construction of a dwelling and associated ancillary outbuildings; (b) the provision of landscaping and useable private open space; (c) convenient and safe vehicle access and off street parking; (d) passive energy design; and (e) the placement of a rainwater tank.


Item 4.3

Page 28

Having regard to Objective 1 and Principle of Development Control 1 of the Residential 2A Zone, detached dwellings are an appropriate land use within the Residential 2A Zone. Having regard to City Wide Principle 156, each of the proposed dwellings are sited such that they archive criteria “a” to “e”. The locality displays a consistent pattern of dwelling density in Ninth Avenue with dwellings generally being on allotments of between 700m² and 900m², with frontages ranging between 15.0 and 18.0 metres. The size of allotments fronting Stephen Terrace vary to a greater extent, and generally range between 500m² and 1000m² with the exception of the six (6) dwellings at 67 Stephen Terrace (ie. on average in the order of 303m² per allotment). The proposal would result in an average site area per dwelling of 508m² with allotment frontages of 14.56 metres (Dwelling 1 and 2) and 33.0 metres (Dwelling 3). Whilst there is no quantitative standard within the Development Plan that defines “low density”, the Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide defines low density development as between 11-22 dwellings per hectare (Gross Calculation inclusive of road reserves). With an overall existing area of 1523.2m², the division of the subject land into three (3) allotments results in a density of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare, not taking into account road reserves. Accordingly, the proposal is at the higher margin of ‘low density’ development, according to the Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide. Therefore, the proposed dwelling density is compatible with the Zone Objective which primarily anticipates “detached dwellings at low densities on individual allotments”. Furthermore, the creation of 508m² allotments (ie. the average of the three allotments) in this locality, is not considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape, which is characterised by individual dwellings on large allotments. Overall, the proposed land use and density is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and therefore acceptable. Streetscape/bulk/scale/height/character The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to appearance, streetscape, bulk, scale and character:

City Wide Objectives: 8, 18, 19 & 20 City Wide PDC’s: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 150, 155, 162, 165, 166 &

167 Residential 2A Zone Objective: 1 Residential 2A Zone PDC: 1

Residential 2A Zone Principle of Development Control 1 states: “Development should be, primarily, for detached dwellings at low densities on individual allotments; semi-detached dwellings and one-storeyed residential flat buildings, one-storeyed multiple dwellings, one-storeyed boarding houses or one-storeyed row dwellings may be suitable in certain parts of the zone…” While Principle 1 does not specify a suitable maximum height for detached dwellings, they are distinct from other dwelling types, which are specifically envisaged as one-storey. By implication, it is reasonable to conclude that a two-storey detached dwelling may be acceptable within the zone, provided that it satisfies other Development Plan provisions relating to bulk and scale, impacts on amenity for neighbours and the wider locality. The proposed development originally consisted of four (4) outwardly two-storey detached dwellings, all facing Ninth Avenue. However, given the predominantly single storey nature of built form in the locality, the Council’s Planning staff raised a concern with respect to the streetscape appearance, density and bulk and scale of the proposed dwellings. In response to these concerns, several amendments have been made to the design, most significantly a reduction of the number of dwellings (from four (4) to three (3)) and the orientation of Dwelling 3 so that it now addresses Stephen Terrace. Other amendments to the proposal included a reduction in the prominence of upper level floor areas, with a significant reduction in the size of the upper level components of Dwellings 1 and 2, and a reduction in scale of Dwelling 3 from two-storey to entirely single storey.


Item 4.3

Page 29

In addition, the front setback of Dwelling 1 has been increased, and greater articulation has been added to the sides of the dwelling through varied side setbacks. As a result of the reduced density, each dwelling is now provided with allotment frontage widths greater than 12.5 metres and the proposed double garages are now consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 197. The upper level of Dwelling 1 is set back 15.5 metres from the street and 9 metres behind the front facade of the dwelling. The upper level of Dwelling 2 is set back 14.5 metres from the street and also 9 metres behind the facade. Both dwellings include second storey side setbacks of 2.5 metres. While the proposed upper levels will be visible from the street, the substantial upper level setbacks proposed result in a design where the second storey component of Dwellings 1 and 2 is not overly prominent and will read as a recessive element of the buildings, when viewed from the street. City Wide Principle of Development Control 36 states: “Development on corner allotments should: (a) reinforce the primary and secondary street frontages of the subject site with highly articulated building forms; and (b) be sited to complement the siting of buildings on the adjacent corner sites.” All existing dwellings on the four (4) corners of the intersection of Stephen Terrace and Ninth Avenue have a primary frontage to Stephen Terrace and a secondary frontage to Ninth Avenue. Therefore, in order to accord with Principle 36(b), the Applicant was requested to consider amending the siting of Dwelling 3 so as to provide a primary frontage to Stephen Terrace. The Application was amended accordingly and Dwelling 3 now fronts Stephen Terrace. That said, due to the shape of the allotment (with the long axis fronting Stephen Terrace and short axis fronting Ninth Avenue) and the resultant siting and location of private open space on the allotment, the dwelling does not present a 'typical' dwelling facade to Stephen Terrace, in the way that buildings on adjacent corner sites do. Accordingly, whilst it is considered that Dwelling 3 accords with part (a) of Principle 36, in that the dwelling addresses the corner of the site with highly articulated building forms, it is considered that the proposal does not conform with part (b). Total conformance with part (b) of Principle 36 (whilst enabling the construction of three dwellings on the subject land) would require two dwellings to front onto Stephen Terrace, with the third fronting onto Ninth Avenue. Whilst this would result in a better streetscape outcome consistent with Principle 36(b), it would result in compromised access conditions for the dwelling fronting Stephen Terrace without a secondary frontage to Ninth Avenue. Accordingly, the proposed configuration of Dwelling 3 is considered to be acceptable. The proposed garage of Dwelling 3 is set back two (2) metres from Ninth Avenue. City Wide Principle of Development Control 206 states: “Unless otherwise stated in the relevant Zone and/or Policy Area, garages and carports, on a corner allotment, facing a secondary street frontage… should: (a) be set back a minimum of 1 metre from the secondary street frontage, unless the setback of the adjoining building is less, and 1 metre from the side boundary; and (b) be no more than 6 metres in length.” The garage of Dwelling 3 is consistent with Principle 206, other than with respect to the garage wall being proposed on the side boundary and having a length of 6.5 metres. The latter is considered to be a minor departure and the rear section of the wall will have limited visibility from the street due to the siting of Dwelling 2 close to the boundary. The location of the garage on the northern boundary is not considered unreasonable in order to maximise the separation of the proposed driveway from Stephen Terrace. In general terms, all three (3) of the proposed dwellings can be described as being contemporary, yet with traditional design elements in the form of pitched corrugated roof forms, the use of eaves, well-proportioned window openings and an overall balance to the built form outcome as a whole. In addition, the proposed materials and finishes are considered to be of a high quality and it is anticipated that this will result in a development that will make a positive contribution to the Ninth Avenue and Stephen Terrace streetscapes. The established street trees on Ninth Avenue and Stephen Terrace will also help to ‘soften’ the appearance of the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to satisfy Residential Zone Principle of Development Control 4 and City Wide Principle of Development Control 32 and 33.


Item 4.3

Page 30

Setbacks and Site Coverage The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to set-backs and site coverage considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 51, 52, 53, 55, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 & 191 The Residential 2A Zone does not specify minimum front setbacks. As such, City Wide Principle of Development Control 183 applies which states: “Where the Zone and/or Policy Area does not specify a minimum distance, dwellings should be set back from the allotment boundary on the primary street frontage: (a) the same distance as one or the other of the adjoining dwellings (or any distance in between), provided the difference between the setbacks of the two adjoining dwellings is not greater than 2 metres; (b) not less than the average of the setbacks of the adjoining dwellings, if the difference between the setbacks of the adjoining dwellings is greater than 2 metres;…” The verandah for Dwelling 1 has a front setback of 5.1 metres and the main dwelling facade is set back 6.7 metres. Dwelling 2 has a front setback of 4.1m to the verandah and 5.7 metres to the main facade. The adjacent dwelling at 21 Ninth Avenue has a front setback in the order of 5.3 metres to the verandah and 7.6 metres to the facade. While slightly further forward than the adjacent dwelling, the proposed setbacks of Dwellings 1 and 2 are considered to provide an adequate transition to the secondary setback of Dwelling 3 which faces Stephen Terrace. Dwelling 3 has a front setback ranging from 3.8 metres to 5.2 metres to Stephen Terrace which, due to the angle of the allotment boundary, will provide a reasonable transition to the dwelling at 6/67 Stephen Terrace. The two (2) proposed two-storey dwellings have ground level side setbacks ranging from nil to 2.5 metres and upper level side setbacks of 2.5 metres. The rear setbacks of Dwelling 1 are 2.5 metres at the lower level and 9.8 metres at the upper level. Dwelling 2 has rear setbacks of 3.25 metres at the ground level and 10.7 metres at the upper level. The proposed side and rear setbacks are considered reasonable with respect to the visual impacts on occupants of adjoining sites. The side setbacks will somewhat compromise the visual outlook of future occupants of the proposed dwellings, however the greatest setbacks are provided to the main living areas and each habitable room will have a distance of 900mm clear to the sky, consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 169. Dwellings 1 and 2 are also consistent with City Wide Principle of Development Control 185 as they will retain at least a 1 metre setback on one side. Dwelling 3 has side setbacks ranging from 2 metres to 4.2 metres which are considered to provide adequate separation to the property at 6/67 Stephen Terrace and to Ninth Avenue, and is consistent with Principle of Development Control 185. The proposed rear setbacks are minimal, ranging from nil to the garage to 1.65 metres adjacent to the dining area. However, due to the orientation and configuration of the allotment, the northern side of the dwelling is akin to the service side of the dwelling and the outlook from the dining area and master bedroom is proposed to be softened by landscaping. Due to the minimal rear setback and width of the eaves, the windows of the study and master bedroom are inconsistent with Principle of Development Control 169 with respect to having 900mm distance clear to the sky, however the main living rooms and other bedrooms do meet this provision. The proposed dwellings result in site coverage ranging between 59% (Dwelling 1 and 2) and 57% (Dwelling3). The overall site coverage for each dwelling is considered to provide sufficient amounts of open space around the proposed dwellings for soft landscaping. The resulting site coverage is similar to the site coverage of some of the existing residential development within the locality (eg. 75 Stephen Terrace, 77 Stephen Terrace, 26 Ninth Avenue, 29A Ninth Avenue and 42 Winchester Street), however, the site coverage is inconsistent with the majority of original building stock which is situated on originally subdivided allotments. On this basis, this is considered to be a negative aspect of the proposed development.


Item 4.3

Page 31

Overshadowing/overlooking The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to overshadowing and overlooking considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 11, 168, 169, 170, 171, 223 & 224

City Wide Principle of Development Control 171 states: “Development should ensure that at least half of the ground level private open space of existing buildings receives direct sunlight for a minimum of two hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. Development should not increase the overshadowed area in cases where overshadowing already exceeds these requirements.” The Applicant has provided shadow diagrams illustrating the level of overshadowing resulting from the proposed development at 9:00am, 12:00pm and 3:00pm during the winter solstice on 21 June of each year. The shadow diagrams illustrate that on the winter solstice at 9:00am the proposed development will not affect adjoining properties. At midday, some overshadowing to the side yard areas of 67 Stephen Terrace will occur however this is mostly resulting from the boundary fence and is likely to be a minimal change to the existing situation. The greatest level of impact is at 3pm where the development will overshadow a portion of the roof of the two dwellings to the south-east, however the solar panels located on the roof of 5/67 Stephen Terrace are unlikely to be affected for most of the day, consistent with Principle of Development Control 69. The development is therefore considered to be consistent with Principle of Development Control 171. A copy of the shadow diagrams is contained in Attachment B. Private open space The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to private open space considerations:

City Wide PDC’s: 213, 214, 215, 216 & 220. City Wide Principle of Development Control 216 states (in part): “Dwellings should have associated private open space of sufficient area, shape and gradient to be functional and capable of meeting the likely needs of the occupant(s) (taking into consideration the location of the dwelling and the dimensions and gradient of the site) and should be in accordance with the following:

(a) a dwelling with a site area of 250 square metres or greater, 20 percent of the site area should be private open space, of which one portion should be equal to or greater than 10 percent of the site area and have a minimum dimension of 4 metres; or

The proposal includes private open space areas of 114.5m² (24% of the allotment area), 125.5m² (26% of the allotment area) and 203m² (36% of the allotment area) for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The primary private open space areas for Dwelling 1 and 2 have access to northern light and are directly accessible from the main living area of each dwelling. The private open space area for Dwelling 3 is compromised as it will not have direct access to northern sunlight, given that it is primarily located on the southern side of the proposed dwelling. That said, the relationship between the main living area and the proposed private open space area is functional as it is directly accessible from the internal lounge area. The proposed private open space provision for all three (3) dwellings satisfies the 20% requirement stipulated in City Wide Principle 216. Although the compromised orientation of the private open space for Dwelling 3 is considered to be a shortcoming of the proposal, it is not considered to be a fundamental shortfall to the merits of the Application on the whole. City Wide Principle of Development Control 220 states the following: “Fifty percent of the total private open space requirement provided at ground level should be open to the sky and developed in a manner to provide outdoor amenity, opportunities for landscaping and a reduction in stormwater runoff through the use of permeable surface treatments.”


Item 4.3

Page 32

All three (3) of the proposed dwellings satisfy this quantitative requirement with Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 having 70%, 73% and 84% respectively of their private open space areas uncovered and open to the sky. Car parking/access/manoeuvring The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to car parking access and manoeuvring considerations:

City Wide Objectives: 32 & 34 City Wide PDC’s: 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 98, 103, 200, 201, 234, 235, 237 & 240

The proposal was referred to the Transport Services Division of the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). The Transport Services Division reviewed the proposal and advised that that the driveway closest to Stephen Terrace should be located no closer than 9 metres from the Stephen Terrace property boundary. Additionally, a 4.5 metre x 4.5 metre corner cut-off is required pursuant to requirements of the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan. The driveway for Dwelling 3 is located 10 metres from the Stephen Terrace property boundary which is consistent with the DPTI advice. The existing masonry front fence, which is proposed to be retained, does not currently provide a 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre corner cut off. As such, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that the existing fence within the 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre corner cut off be demolished. Dwelling 1 and 2 satisfy City Wide Principle of Development Control 240 which requires that detached dwellings have at least two (2) on-site car parking spaces of which one (1) is a visitor space. On the other hand, Dwelling 3 will not be able to provide any on-site visitor parking, as its garage will be set back 2.0 metres from Ninth Avenue. Whilst this is considered to be a negative aspect of the proposal, in terms of visitor parking, it is not considered critical, as there is unrestricted on-street parking available on Ninth Avenue and the Development Plan allows for the siting of a garage within 1 metre of a secondary street frontage for a corner allotment. Access and egress from the proposed parking spaces are considered to be safe and convenient, in accordance with City Wide Principle of Development Control 89. Finished floor levels/flooding/retaining/fencing The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to floor levels, flooding and retaining:

City Wide Objectives: 9, 25, 49, 50 & 51 City Wide PDC’s: 3, 10, 77, 177, 131, 135, 137, 139 & 259

The subject land is not within a recognised floodplain. The subject land is essentially flat with the rear of the site approximately 200mm above the top of kerb. The proposed finished floor level for all dwellings is 300mm above top of kerb and approximately 100mm above relative natural ground level. The proposed finished floor levels will allow for a gravity fed stormwater system to be directed to Ninth Avenue and will require minimal retaining or fill. In the referral response, the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) requested that a condition be imposed requiring that stormwater not be disposed to the surface of Stephen Terrace or Ninth Avenue. If the Panel determines to approve the proposed development, it is recommended that this be conditioned in accordance with DPTI requirements, so as to prevent the prospect of the development contributing to the risk of vehicles aquaplaning on Stephen Terrace during heavy rainfall events. Due to the proposed increase in impervious area on the site, if the Panel determines to approve the Application it is also recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the post-development 5 year ARI discharge rate from the site shall be detained to the pre-development flow rate.


Item 4.3

Page 33

An existing masonry fence extends along the Stephen Terrace frontage except in the location of the existing driveway of 71 Stephen Terrace. The fence also continues for a small distance on Ninth Avenue. The fence is proposed to be modified in order to include a pedestrian gate and to extend the masonry fence (i.e. returning adjacent the Ninth Avenue frontage) up to where the proposed driveway area for the dwelling commences. The corner cut-off in relation to the fence has been discussed in the carparking/access/manoeuvring section of this report. Trees (regulated, mature & street) and landscaping The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to considerations relating to regulated trees, mature trees, street trees and landscaping:

City Wide Objectives: 24 & 114 City Wide PDC’s: 71, 76, 147, 211 & 212

The site contains some mature vegetation and trees however none of the trees are regulated pursuant to the Development Regulations 2008. The site plan indicates that a variety of plant types will be planted along the perimeter of the proposed allotments. The overall landscaping proposed is considered to accord with City Wide Principles of Development Control 211 and 212 state the following respectively: Residential development should incorporate soft landscaping of a scale and intensity to offset built form and to reinforce the established garden and mature tree lined character of the City. and The landscaping of development in residential zones should: (a) enhance residential amenity; (b) screen storage, service and parking areas; (c) provide protection from sun and wind; (d) not unreasonably affect adjacent land by shadow; and (e) preferably incorporate the use of local indigenous plant species. If the Panel determines to approve the proposed development, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the Applicant/Owner to plant all areas nominated as landscaping, prior to the occupation of the dwellings. The proposed driveway of Dwelling 3 will require the removal of a juvenile London Plane tree. The proposal in an earlier form of the scheme was referred to the Council’s Horticultural and Arboricultural Services Coordinator. It was considered that, while the tree is small and in close proximity to other larger street trees, the subject tree should not be removed unless it could be demonstrate that other design options had been explored. As discussed in the streetscape/ bulk/scale/height/character section of this report, several amendments have been made to the proposal during the course of the assessment including a reduction in the number of dwellings and subsequent changes to the proposed driveway locations. All options have included driveways with access from Ninth Avenue rather than Stephen Terrace as preferred by the Council’s Planning staff and DPTI. Despite multiple amendments, a scheme which provides three (3) dwellings, all vehicle access points from Ninth Avenue and retention of the London Plan tree has not been able to be accommodated. On this basis, the Horticultural and Arboricultural Services Coordinator has advised that the tree can be removed, provided it is relocated by the Applicant at their cost, under supervision of Council staff. If the Panel determines to approve the Application, it is recommended that this be included as a condition of consent.


Item 4.3

Page 34

Environmental Sustainability The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance with respect to environmental sustainability considerations:

City Wide Objectives: 23, 42 & 43 City Wide PDC’s: 65, 66, 67, 68, 115, 116, 119, 127 & 144

City Wide Objective 42 seeks development that is designed to maximise the harvest and use of stormwater and Principle of Development Control 127 prescribes that new dwellings should be provided with a 2000 litre rainwater tank, which is plumbed to the dwellings for reuse. The site plan indicates a rainwater tank provision for each dwelling but does not specify a volume. In regard, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that 2000 litre rainwater tanks be installed to each dwelling. The internal living areas and main area of private open space for both Dwellings 1 and 2 are located on the northern side of the dwelling. For Dwelling 1, the alfresco and eave over the dining room will help to limit excessive heat loading during summer. Despite the orientation of the living area and private open space, Dwelling 2 will still have limited access to northern light due to the overshadowing resulting from Dwelling 1. Due to the dimensions and orientation of the allotment, to provide the required setback to Stephen Terrace Dwelling 3 has been designed with the main living area and private open space located to the south of the dwelling. This will result in limited access to natural light which is considered a negative aspect of the proposal. Summary The two (2) two-storey detached dwellings and the one (1) single-storey detached dwelling result in a built form that is of an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of the existing built form within the Stephen Terrace and Ninth Avenue localities. Furthermore, the development incorporates a good degree of articulation and a varied combination of quality finishes and construction materials. The dwellings are considered to achieve good internal amenity with functional links to the designated private open space provision. All dwellings are considered to have comparable setbacks with existing residential development in the locality and each dwelling is provided with adequate onsite undercover car parking provision. The private open space areas nominated for each of the proposed dwellings is considered to be of an appropriate size and orientation and are well linked to the internal living areas. Negative aspects of the proposal are the compromised access to northern light for the centrally located two-storey dwelling (ie. Dwelling 2) and the single-storey detached dwelling as well as to the lack of on-site visitor car parking for Dwelling 3. In addition, the proposed dwellings result in site coverage that is higher than the majority of existing dwellings within the locality. That said, this negative aspect is not considered to be fatal to the merits of the Application as a whole. Overall, the proposal is not considered to be seriously at variance with the Development Plan and is considered to be sufficiently in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan to warrant Development Plan Consent. RECOMMENDATION That having regard to the relevant provisions of the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan and pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993, Development Plan Consent be granted to Development Application No 155/132/13 by Mr R D’ Onofrio to construct three (3) detached dwellings (two (2) two-storey and one (1) single-storey) and undertake alterations and additions to an existing masonry fence, on the land located at 71 and 73 Stephen Terrace, subject to the following requirements, conditions and notes:


Item 4.3

Page 35

Relevant Plans Pursuant to Section 44 (2) and (3) of the Development Act 1993 and except where varied by a Condition specified hereunder, it is required that the development be undertaken, used, maintained and operated in accordance with the following relevant plans, drawings, specifications and other documents:

• floor plans and elevations prepared by Roc D’ Onofrio Building Designer and received by the Council on 6 February 2014; and

• site plan prepared by Roc D’Onofrio Building Designer and received by the Council on 10 February 2014 Conditions 1. The portion of all upper floor windows, other than windows on the front (north-western) elevation, less

than 1.7metres above the internal floor level shall be treated prior to occupation of the building in a manner that permanently restricts views of adjacent properties being obtained by a person within the room to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate. (Suggested treatments include, but are not restricted to, permanently fixed translucent glazing in any part of the window below 1.7 metres above the internal floor level or a window sill height of 1.7 metres above the internal floor level.)

2. All stormwater from buildings and paved areas shall be disposed of in accordance with recognised engineering practices in a manner and with materials that does not result in the entry of water onto any adjoining property or any building, and does not affect the stability of any building.

3. The existing front and side masonry fence currently located within 4.5 metres of the intersection of the Stephen Terrace and Ninth Avenue property boundary shall be demolished in order to meet the Department, Planning, Transport & Infrastructure potential future requirements pursuant to the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act 1972.

4. The London Plane street tree located on the Ninth Avenue verge proposed to be removed as part of this

development, shall be replaced or relocated at the Applicant’s cost under the supervision of the Council’s Horticultural and Arboricultural Services Coordinator.

5. Stormwater discharge from the subject land shall remain at pre-development levels. On-site retention

of stormwater will be required during high rainfall events. Sufficient onsite storage (above or below ground) shall be provided to contain stormwater runoff from the contributing catchments for a 5 year Average Recurrence Interval rainfall event.

6. The crossover at the point of the property boundary must be a minimum of 100mm above the adjacent

top of kerb level.

7. All areas nominated as landscaping or garden areas on the plans, herein approved, shall be planted with a suitable mix and density of trees, shrubs and groundcovers prior to the occupation of the premises, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate.

8. All plants existing and/or within the proposed landscaped areas shall be nurtured and maintained in

good health and condition at all times with any diseased or dying plants being replaced, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate.

9. Each of the dwellings, herein approved, shall be provided with a 2000 litre rainwater tank, which is to be connected to the roof water outlets and plumbed to at least a water closet, a water heater and/or laundry cold water outlet.

10. No stormwater from this development shall discharge on-surface to Stephen Terrace and/or Ninth

Avenue.

11. The existing crossover invert that is located adjacent the subject land on the Stephen Terrace frontage shall be reinstated to kerb and gutter prior to the occupation of the dwellings to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council or its delegate. All costs shall be borne by the Applicant.


Item 4.3

Page 36

Notes to Applicant 1. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to Advice Note Number 3 in Schedule 8 Referral Response by the

Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI), dated 16 April 2013, relating to stormwater road discharge. Any enquires should be directed to Mr Paul Silvestri on telephone number 8343 2744, of the Transport Service Division of DPTI.

2. The Applicant is reminded of its responsibilities under the Environment Protection Act 1993, to not harm the environment. Specifically, paint, plaster, concrete, brick wastes and wash waters should not be discharged into the stormwater system, litter should be appropriately stored on site pending removal, excavation and site disturbance should be limited, entry/exit points to the site should be managed to prevent soil being carried off site by vehicles, sediment barriers should be used (particularly on sloping sites), and material stockpiles should all be placed on site and not on the footpath or public roads or reserves. Further information is available by contacting the EPA on 8204 2004.

3. The granting of the consent does not remove the need for the Applicant to obtain all other consents

which may be required by any other legislation or regulation. The Applicant’s attention is particularly drawn to the requirements of the Fences Act 1975 regarding permission from any neighbours affected by new boundary development or boundary fencing. Further information is available in the ‘Fences and the Law’ booklet available through the Legal Services Commission available at www.lsc.sa.gov.au. Alternatively a hard copy can be mailed to you on request by contacting the Planning Department on 8366 4530 or 8366 4508. The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the need to consult all relevant electricity suppliers with respect to high voltage power lines. Any alterations to the location of stobie poles or overhead powerlines must be approved by SA Power Networks. It is likely that any costs associated with this work would be the responsibility of the owner/applicant.

4. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the Environment Protection Authority’s Guidelines IS NO 7

“Construction Noise”. These guidelines provide recommended hours of operation outside which noisy activities should not occur. Further information is available by contacting the Environment Protection Authority on 8204 2004.

5. The Applicant is advised that any works undertaken on Council owned land (including but not limited

to works relating to crossovers, driveways, footpaths, street trees and stormwater connections) will require the approval of the Council’s Urban Services Department, prior to any works being undertaken. Further information may be obtained by contacting Council’s Urban Services Department on 8366 4513. All works on Council owned land required as part of this development are likely to be at the Applicant’s cost.

6. This Development Plan Consent will lapse within 12 months of the date of this notice unless full

Development Approval has been obtained.

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. The Applicant is advised that the eave overhang of Dwelling 1 will need to be non-combustible and fire rated in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

9. The Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan shows that a 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre cut-off may be required form the Stephen Terrace/Ninth Avenue corner of this site for possible future road purposes. Consideration should be given to setting aside the 4.5 by 4.5 metre cut-off for future road purposes as part of any development of this site. All building works, including fencing, must be kept clear of the corner cut-off area and any vegetation must be low growing in nature to preserve sight lines across the corner.


Page 37

5. OTHER BUSINESS

(Of an urgent nature only)

6. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Nil

7. CLOSURE

development assessment panel agenda & reports

Documents