from: assessment manager date: 20 december 2017 … 3... · up of both detached and semi-detached...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Charles Sturt 152. CAP Report 20/12/17
TO: Council Assessment Panel
FROM: Assessment Manager
DATE: 20 December 2017
HINDMARSH WARD
3.75 37 GREEN STREET BROMPTON SA 5007
Applicant Ms G Stojanovic
Development Application No 252/1485/17
Proposal Land Division - 252/D183/17 creating two allotments from one and Demolition of existing contributory
dwelling and construction of two, two storey detached dwellings
Owner of land Hugo La kin Pty Ltd
Legal Description Lot 94 FP 119512 Vol 5221 Fol 778
Additional Properties No related Properties
Additional Legal Descriptions No related Land
Zone Residential Character
Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton
Historic Conservation Area
Form of assessment Merit
Public notification category Category 1
Agency consultations Nil
Author Anthony bib - Development Officer (Planning)
Attachments Development Plan provisions table
Application documents
Internal comments
Development Plan 5 May 2016
Recommendation Refusal
City of Charles Sturt 153. CAP Report 20/12/17
Report
Background
The subject site has an existing contributory item with associated outbuilding to the rear. A previous application (Development Application 252/1577/16) received Development Plan
Consent for the demolition of the existing contributory dwelling and construction of a single storey detached dwelling and front fence. This application was granted consent in
September 2016 and in August 2017 was granted an extension of time by council for building rules consent to be issued (therefore the application is still current).
Proposal
The proposal seeks the demolition of the contributory dwelling and the large outbuilding to the rear, the creation of two new allotments in a hammer head formation with a front allotment of 250m2 and a rear allotment of 274m2 and the construction of two, two storey detached dwellings, to each of the new allotments.
Dwelling 1 to the front new allotment is proposed to be a 3 bedroom dwelling with the main
bedroom to the lower level and 2 bedrooms and bathroom to the upper level. A kitchen,
family and dining room all form the remaining portion of the lower level. The single garage
to the street frontage is setback behind the main face of the dwelling and the materials and
finishes to the front façade of the dwelling are of a sandstone finish and brick quoin. The side and rear lower level and upper level walls are finished in a paperbark render.
Dwelling 2 to the rear new allotment is proposed to be a 3 bedroom dwelling with all bedrooms to the upper level, with a bathroom, study nook and balcony that cantilevers out
over the rear private open space with a kitchen, dining and lounge room to the lower level.
A single carport to the dwelling is well setback behind the building line and all lower and upper level walls are finished in a paperbark render.
Site/Locality
The site is made up of a regular shaped allotment with a total area of 524 square metres. It
has a Street frontage of 12.19 metres and an allotment depth of 43.03 metres.
The site is located in Residential Character Zone Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton and
currently has a single storey dwelling located on the site. The locality is predominately made
up of both detached and semi-detached single storey dwellings being a mix of contributory
items and contemporary infill development in the form of group dwellings to the north of
the subject site (No. 43, No. 47 and No. 49 Green Street Brompton). Whilst there are some
two storey infill developments in close proximity to the locality (south of Hawker Street)
they are located in the Integrated Medium Density Policy Area 20 and do not contribute to the locality specific to this proposal.
City of Charles Sturt 154. CAP Report 20/12/17
Site and Locality Plan
Subject Site shown in blue, Locality in red
City of Charles Sturt 155. CAP Report 20/12/17
I
., .
j -
Site photo: 37 0 een Street B ompton - 27 June 2017 - Anthony Zollo Planning Officer
I - T.
Site photo: No. 35, 37 & Unit 1/39 Green Street Brompton— 20 November 2017— Subject site
highlighted with red square - Anthony Zollo - Planning Officer
City of Charles Sturt 156. CAP Report 20/12/17
Internal Consultation
Department/Staff Response
Douglas Alexander - Heritage Advisor When assessed, The traditional pattern of
development that was maintained in the
previous approval is disturbed by this land
division and is not supported. The proposed development does not reasonably Comply
with the relevant provisions of the
Development Plan. The development does
not warrant support in its Current form. The
intimate and Consistent small scale
character has been disturbed and is lost through the proposed pattern and
increased density. The design of House two
is a poorly designed functional response to
meet quantitative standards. It has an awkward bulky form, a lack of visual cohesion within itself
Recommendation - Refusal Mark Schuppan - Development and Permit The addition of the 2.7m roller door allows Officer greater manoeuvrability when exiting the
carport for dwelling two.
Council would approve a 3m driveway in this case to serve dwelling two.
Development Assessment
The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The
Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant
provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.
Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered
relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in further detail below.
City of Charles Sturt 157. CAP Report 20/12/17
The following table provides a summary of the proposal against the relevant provisions of .the Development Plan:
House 1 House 2 Development Plan DPP Provisions
______________ Met?
Site Area per 250m2 274m2 250m2 Yes Dwelling
Street Frontage 9.19m 3m 18m - RCZ PDC 10(a) No Width
Building Height 7.03m 7.4m RCZ - PDC 8— new No dwellings should be of similar height,
scale and
proposition of
existing dwellings.
Setbacks Front 5.40m N/A No. 39 (North East Yes
property) is 6.8m
setback
No 35 (South West property) is 3.0m
setback—Average is
4.9 metres.
Side (lower) 0.9m on On boundary RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes - House 1 North East to North East from boundaries No - House 2 Boundary & & 3.5m to when dwelling does 1.15m to South West not adjoin a public South West Boundary. road Boundary.
Side (upper) 2.0m to 1.1m to RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes - House 1 North East & North East from boundaries No - House 2 2.25 to Boundary & when dwelling does South west 2.0m to not adjoin a public boundary. South West road
Boundary.
Rear (lower) From 5.14m RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes existing rear from boundaries boundary when dwelling does 22.46m and not adjoin a public from new road proposed
rear
boundary 7.16m
Rear (Upper) From 6.om RCZ PDC 10(d) 2.5m Yes existing rear from boundaries
City of Charles Sturt 158. CAP Report 20/12/17
House 1 House 2 Development Plan DPP Provisions
Met? boundary when dwelling does 21.5m and not adjoin a public from new road proposed
rear
boundary 6.24m
Private Open 62m2 57m2 25% of allotment House 1 - Space 24.8% 20.8% size which equates Reasonably
to the following - Complies House 1 62.5m2 House 2 - 68.5m2 House 2 - No
Coverage of POS 3.5m2 6m2 House 1 - 18.75m2 Yes (7%) (10.5%) (30%)
House 2 - 20.55m2 (30%)
Carparking/Access 1 1 1undercover&1 Yes Undercover Undercover visitor 1 Visitor 1 Visitor
Qualitative Standards
Development Plan Met? Scale & Visual Impact Buildings should reflect the desired character for the No
locality and should be built to similar heights, scale and proportions.
Appearance Buildings should be constructed of materials that No complement and reinforce the character and design of the existing locality
Desired Character
The subject site is located in Precinct 66 Bowden/Brompton within the Residential Character Zone. The land is also shown to be within a Historical Conservation Area.
The zone embraces areas of historic residential character which have a high level of amenity.
The Bowden/Brompton Precinct contains some of the oldest houses. The subdivision
pattern is one of small narrow allotments. The existing significant buildings are primarily
small, single storey attached and detached single and double fronted working cottages. New
development needs to respond to the special attributes of the respective precinct, including views, vistas, existing vegetation and landmarks.
An increase in the density of housing may take place on corner sites or where dwellings replace a non-complying use or an existing building not listed as a contributory item. Existing
industrial or commercial uses in the zone ought to be replaced with residential uses as development opportunities arise.
City of Charles Sturt 159. CAP Report 20/12/17
It will be important to retain the amenity and character of the area by respecting the existing development pattern of the precincts.
The proposed demolition of the existing contributory dwelling and the construction of two,
two storey detached dwellings does not preserve the existing development patterns within
the locality as Objective 1 requires. While the proposed dwelling to the front can be seen as
reflecting the traditional character elements of the area particularly to the street scape the
upper level component does not. Further to this the hammer head land division proposal
does not provide for adequate driveway width to access the proposed rear dwelling, it does
not reinforce the traditional patterns of development in the immediate locality and an
increase in house density cannot be seen to achieve Objective 2 and 3. The design, bulk and
scale of the proposed dwellings and the land division elements do not contribute to the desired character of the zone as per Objective 6.
The proposal is considered to be unreasonably at variance with the provisions within the
Development Plan relating to desired character.
Land Use/Land Division
The proposal seeks to continue the residential use of the land by way of infill development, with the demolition of the existing contributory item and outbuildings.
Detached dwellings are an envisaged form of development within the Zone. The size of the
land currently of 524m2 can accommodate the minimum site area of 250m2 per detached dwelling required in the precinct. If it was divided in a side by side layout with narrow
frontages to the street this would more closely align with the Desired Character for the area
which seeks to reinforce the pattern of subdivision with small narrow allotments. The form
of the division proposed, placing one allotment to the rear of the other with the front site being 250m2 and the rear site being 274m2 is not in keeping with the traditional pattern of
development that the plan seeks to reinforce.
Principle of bevelopment Control 13 requires a minimum site area of 250m2 and a frontage
of lOm for a detached dwelling with frontages of 7 metres for a semi-detached dwelling and
6 metres for a row dwelling. The proposal does not achieve the minimum 10 metre frontage
requirements for a detached dwelling even if the lots were side by side but would more
closely reflect the established character if the allotments were offered in this way with each
having a frontage of just over 6 metres. The proposed 3 metre frontage for the dwelling
located to the rear is out of character with the locality and desired character and also fails to
achieve a suitable driveway width if landscaping is also provided in this space.
Residential Character Zone PDC 10 also outlines that a new dwelling should not be
developed to the rear of another dwelling where its access relies on a driveway adjacent
to/alongside an existing dwelling unless the site has a minimum width of 18 metres. The
existing allotment has a total width of 12.19 metres, which is well short of this provision.
While the intended land use for detached dwellings may fit with those envisaged for the
zone and precinct the pattern of division, street frontages achieved and access
arrangements to the allotment at the rear fail to do so.
City of Charles Sturt 160. CAP Report 20/12/17
Visual Appearance/Built Form
The proposed dwelling to the front allotment is of a bulk and scale that is reasonably
consistent with the locality at ground level. The setback to the front façade of the lower
level of the dwelling provides for a reasonable design and setback that does not dominate
the streetscape and integrates with older built form in the locality. The upper level has
potential not to compliment the streetscape in the locality as there are no other two storey
dwellings present. This element however has been setback a considerable distance, at some
12 metres back from the front boundary, and well behind the neighbouring buildings that
are setback 3metres to 6.5 metres, so as to not have a detrimental impact on the locality.
The proposed dwelling to the rear has a significant cantilever of the upper level over its rear
yard space. Such a construction technique is not consistent within the locality. Two storey
dwellings to the rear in general are not consistent in the locality, with recent infill
development being only single storey in height and fronting the primary street frontage (not
in a hammerhead configuration). The proposal is therefore considered not to be of a similar
height, scale and proportions along with materials that complement the character and design of existing buildings. The setback provisions of 2.5m to all boundaries are also not
achieved, further exacerbating the visual dominance of the structure.
The proposal is therefore considered to be at variance with the relevant provisions of the
Development Plan with respect to build form, bulk and scale especially for the rear dwelling.
Private Open Space/Landscaping
Private open space areas for each dwelling have been designed to the rear, with dwelling 1 achieving a private open space of 62m2 or 24.8% of the site area, which reasonably complies with council's requirements. Dwelling 2 has only provided 57m2 or 20.8% for private open space, which does not comply with Council's Development Plan Provisions.
The site for the rear dwelling provides for a small 300mm strip of landscaping to the right
hand side of the driveway. The design of this landscaping is well short of the 1.0m wide strip
sought by the Development Plan. This is a result of trying to meet the Australian Standard width of 3.Om with a 300mm overhang for access to the rear allotment.
Therefore the proposed development in regards to provision of private open space for the
rear dwelling is inadequate and landscaping to the handle of the rear allotment does not achieve the policy intent of the Development Plan.
Overshadowing
The proposal of two, two storey detached dwellings has been designed to minimise
overshadowing into neighbouring windows and ground level private open space to the
south-west. The upper level the proposed front dwelling has an upper level setback of 2.25m and would overshadow the rear site's driveway.
The rear dwelling has proposed an upper level setback to the south-west of 2.0 metres
which again would overshadow the proposed driveway and carport and have minimal effect
on the neighbouring land to the south-west of the site.
City of Charles Sturt 161. CAP Report 20/12/17
The proposal addresses the relevant provisions within the Development Plan in terms of
minimising overshadowing.
Overlooking/Visual Privacy
Both dwellings are two storey in form and as such, there is potential for overlooking from
the upper levels to the side and rear of dwelling 1 and in all direction for the rear dwelling.
Most of the upper level windows to the dwellings are shown to be treated with fixed and
obscure glass or sill heights to a height of 1.5 metres above the finished floor level to ensure
that overlooking is minimised from the development.
Therefore, the relevant Development Plan provisions relating to overlooking are considered to be satisfied.
Heritage
The proposal seeks to demolish an existing contributory item and replace it with two, two
storey detached dwellings in a hammer head configuration via the land division that forms
part of this proposal.
The existing contributory item has previously been approved for demolition under an
existing Development Plan Consent which is still valid (DA 252/1577/16). The contributory
item is in poor condition. The applicant has provided a report by NGS Engineers stating that
to make the building habitable would be extremely expensive and not economically viable.
An inspection of the site was conducted by Council's Heritage Advisor (Douglas Alexander) who concurs with this conclusion. The proposed demolition of the contributory item can
therefore be supported because it achieves Principle of Development Control 4 within
General Section, Historical Conservation Area as the condition of the dwellings is unsound
and cannot reasonably be rehabilitated.
The proposed dwellings being two storey in nature and being designed with a cantilevered
upper storey does not achieve Principle of Development Control 1 of General Section,
Heritage Conservation and Objective 5 and Principle of Development Control 1 of General
Section Historical Conservation Area within councils Development Plan in that the
significance of the upper level design is considered to be over development and too large for
the locality.
Dwelling 1, does achieve a number of Principles of Development Control within the
Development Plans Historic Conservation Area requirements in that it generates a
reasonable balance of Contemporary design along with the table ChSt/4 Development
Guidelines for Residential Character Zones in that the scale proportion and mass along with
materials and setbacks is reasonably sympathetic in the locality. While the upper level
design does not achieve PDC 13 in its nature, it is setback at a reasonable distance from the
road frontage to be supported. The proposal for dwelling 1 reasonably complies with
Principle of Development Control 5 and Principle of Development Control 9 in that at ground level it takes appropriate cues from the locality in its façade design and conserves the
existing streetscape.
City of Charles Sturt 162. CAP Report 20/12/17
Dwelling 2 has been designed as a contemporary dwelling to the rear allotment. Whilst there is cues within the locality of development taking place to the rear of existing dwellings,
the proposed dwelling being two storeys in nature does not contribute to the desired
character and does not compliment the historic significance of the area. The design of the
upper level cantilever has been proposed due to the large size of the dwelling.
As outlined earlier in this report, the two storey dwelling to the rear does not reflect
traditional character elements within the locality. The Development Plan promotes an
increase in housing densities within the Precinct, however the proposed bulk and scale of
dwelling 2 does not achieve Objectives 3 and 6 within the Zone section, Residential Character Zone within the relevant Development Plan.
The proposed land division being a hammerhead in its design does achieve the minimum
site areas requirements however, it does not maintain the traditional patterns and scale of
allotments with the locality that are typically narrow and face he primary street. Therefore,
the hammerhead formation is not supported.
The proposal for new dwellings, specifically in relation to dwelling 2, is not of a height, scale
and proposition that reinforces the older style residential buildings contained within the
locality and is considered to be an over development for the locality. As such, the proposal is considered at variance with the provisions within the Development Plan and is not
supported in its current design.
Stormwater Management
A stormwater management plan has not been provided during the amendment stages of the
proposal. Council agreed with the applicant should an approval be granted the stormwater
management could be set as a reserved matter.
Traffic Management and Parking
The proposed development has two access points off Green Street, one to each proposed
dwelling. The driveway and access for dwelling one complies with the relevant provisions within the Development Plan.
Dwelling 2 provides for at least 1 undercover car parking and 1 visitor car park. The driveway
access is to 2.7m in width with a 300mm landscaping strip. This is not supported by council's
traffic engineers as the width does not comply to with Australian Standards 2890.1 which
indicate a minimum width of 3.0 metres for low volume traffic movements. An additional
1.0 metre landscape strip should be provided in addition to the 3.0 metre wide driveway. (A total width should be 4.0 metres).
City of Charles Sturt 163. CAP Report 20/12/17
Conclusion
This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 5 May
2016.
The proposed land division includes the demolition of an existing contributory dwelling and
construction of two, two storey detached dwellings in a hammerhead arrangement.
The land division proposal does not achieve the relevant sized handle to the rear allotment
to provide safe and convenient access and has not.been supported by Council's traffic
engineer. The hammerhead pattern of development is also not supported by Council's
heritage advisor as it is at odds with the traditional pattern of allotments in the locality.
The proposed two storey dwellings are considered an over development for the locality as
the bulk and scale of the dwellings particularly dwelling 2, are not in keeping with the relevant Principles of Development Control which seek development that reflects the single
storey narrow frontage traditional workers cottage built form.
The proposed dwellings are not consistent with the locality and nature of past infill
developments within the street and does not contribute to the desired character within the
Historic Conservation Area.
Overall the proposal is considered to be significantly at variance with the Development Plan.
Refusal is therefore recommended.
Recommendation
Reason for Decision
The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer -
Planning and agrees with the assessment outlined in that report.
That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is
considered to be unreasonably at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles
Sturt (City) Development Plan consolidated 5 May 2016.
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Approval be
REFUSED to Development Application Number 252/1485/17 for the following
reasons:
• General Section - Land Division - Objective 2; Principle of Development Control 2(a);
Principle of Development Control 4(b); Principle of Development Control 5(b)
• General Section - Heritage Conservation - Objective 1; Principle of Development
Control 1 (a) and (d)
• General Section - Historic Conservation Area - Objective 2; Objective 3; Objective 5;
Principle of Development Control 1; Principle of Development Control 2; Principle of
Development Control 13(a) and (b); Principle of Development Control 17
City of Charles Sturt 164. CAP Report 20/12/17
• General Section - Transport and Access - Principle of Development Control 33; Principle of Development Control 39
• Zone Section - Residential Character Zone - Objective 1; Objective 3; Objective 6;
Principle of Development Control 7; Principle of Development Control 8; Principle of
Development Control 10(a)(d); Principle of Development Control 12; Principle of Development Control 14
In that:
• The size of the proposed allotments is not of a sufficent size and dimensions to
accommodate dwellings that meet Development Plan requirments.
• The design of the land division does not provide for a safe or convenient access to the rear allotment
• The heritage conservation of the area and place has not been achieved.
• The proposal adversely impacts on the aeshetic and architectural culture of the place and area.
• The proposal does not promote, conserve andenhance the significance and historic
character of the area and place.
• The proposal does not compliment the historic significance of the area.
• The proposal does not contribute to the desired character.
• The proposal does not fulfil the guidelines set out in table ChSt/4 - Development
Guidelines for Residential Character Zone and Local Heritage Places.
• The proposals two storey component does not attempt to reduce the impacts on the locality via utilisation of the roof space.
• The land division proposed does not maintain a traditional pattern of allotments.
• The overall width of the existing site is not sufficent to accommodate a hammerhead development.
• The proposed driveway to the rear allotment is not consistent with Australian
standards AS 2890.
• The proposal does not preserve the existing development patterns and built form.
• The proposal does not contribute to the character of the zone and therefore should not be undertaken.
• The new dwellings, particularly dwelling 2, are not of a size, bulk and scale that is
consistent with the character and design of existing buildings.
• The overall frontage is less than that required for a detached dwelling when it replaces a contributory item.