Notice of Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting · with the proposal, however have suggested some conditions to be included should consent be granted by CDAP. In response to

Notice of Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Tuesday 20 September 2016

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

NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Sections 56A of the Development Act 1993 that the next COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING will be held in the Council Chambers, 571 Monatgue Road, Modbury on TUESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2016 commencing at 10.00am

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied as required

JOHN MOYLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: 14 September 2016

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 20 SEPTEMBER 2016

AGENDA

1. Attendance Record:

1.1 Present 1.2 Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting

That the Minutes of the Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 16 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

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

4.1 CDAP.070/111159/2016 - Change of Land Use to a Service Trade Premises - Non-complying at 748, 750, 752, 754 and 756 North East Road, Modbury ........ 5

Recommend to Grant Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions and the

concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission

4.2 CDAP.070/110795/2016 - Land Division adjacent Mineral Extraction Zone at 1250 Golden Grove Road, Golden Grove ...................................................... 97

Recommend to Refuse Development Plan Consent

4.3 CDAP.070/109225/2015 – Deck (Retrospective) at 63 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale ....................................................................................................... 141

Recommend to Refuse Development Plan Consent 5. Other Business 5.1 E.R.D. Court Matters Pending - Nil 5.2 Policy Considerations Planning policy considerations will be recorded in the minutes following discussion

by members.

Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting - 20 September 2016 Page 3

5.3 Pending Development Assessment Commission Concurrence - Nil 5.4 Modbury Precinct Presentation 6. Date of Next Meeting

18 October 2016


Item

4.1

RECORD NO: CDAP.070/111159/2016 REPORT NO: D16/52687 TO: COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 20

SEPTEMBER 2016

FROM: Nathan Grantham Team Leader- Planning

SUBJECT: CHANGE OF LAND USE TO A SERVICE TRADE PREMISES - NON-

COMPLYING

SUMMARY Applicant: Formula Motor Group Nature of Development: To undertake alterations and additions to the existing integrated

retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury, and to demolish existing structures, erect new signage and change the use of the property at 748 North East Road, Modbury to a service trade premises by displaying, selling and storing motor vehicles to operate ancillary to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury (Non-Complying)

Address: 748, 750, 752, 754 and 756 North East Road, Modbury Application No: 070/111159/2016 Kind of Development: Non-Complying Lodgement Date: 31 May 2016 Development Plan: Consolidated 05 May 2016 Zone and Policy Area: Neighbourhood Centre Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives Neighbourhood Centre: 1, 2, 4 and 5 Centres and Retail Development: 5 Design and Appearance: 1 Interface between Land Uses: 1, 2 and 3 Transportation and Access: 2 Outdoor Advertisements: 3, 4 and 5 Principles Neighbourhood Centre: 1 Centres and Retail Development: 1, 2 and 4 Design and Appearance: 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and

25


Ite

m 4

.1

Interface between Land Uses: 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 Transportation and Access: 8, 22, 23, 25, 27 and 38 Outdoor Advertisements: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 Public Notification: Category 3 Number of Properties Notified: 14 directly notified, plus a notice in The

Advertiser Number of Representations Received: Nil Schedule 8 Referral: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (Regard) Was a request for additional information made? Yes Issues: Non-complying land use within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone Recommendation: Grant Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions and the

concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission

1. PROPOSAL

An integrated retail motor vehicle outlet currently operates on the properties 752 to 756 North East Road, and partially from 750 North East Road. The property at 748 North East Road is currently a separate land use, and although vacant, the land has recently been used as generic shops in the form of retail.

The application before the Council Development Assessment Panel (CDAP) seeks consent to: • Change the use of 748 North East Road, Modbury, to a service trade premises to

operate ancillary to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury;

• Demolish existing structures at 748 North East Road, Modbury;

• Erect new signage and fencing at 748 North East Road, Modbury; and to

• Undertake alterations and additions to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 752-756 North East Road, Modbury.

The components of the proposal on each property are more specifically described as follows: • 748 North East Road – a change in the use of the land from ‘shops’ to a ‘service

trade premises’ for the display, sale and storage of motor vehicles. This use is proposed to operate in conjunction with the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury, and will include:

o The demolition of existing buildings, structures and pylon sign;

o The installation of a 3.0m high pre-coloured steel fence along the southern

and eastern boundaries of the land, and internally within the land;


Item

4.1

o The installation of two 7.5m wide x 1.2m high internally illuminated advertising signs. One sign will be attached to the proposed fence along the southern boundary of the land, with the other attached to the fence located internally within the land. The top of both signs will be 3.0m above natural ground level, to align with the height of the fences;

o The use of the front portion of the land for the display of motor vehicles for

sale;

o The use of the rear portion of the land for the storage of motor vehicles for sale, and those associated with the service facility at 756 North East Road; and

o The landscaping of the existing garden bed located along the North East

Road frontage of the land.

• 754 and 756 North East Road – addition to the existing showroom (that forms part of the integrated retail motor vehicle outlet) comprising: o The construction of a 2.8m wide x 4.4m long x 5.0m high canopy located over

the existing external staircase, located at the southern side of the existing showroom.

• 756 North East Road – extension to the existing vehicle service building (that forms

part of the integrated retail motor vehicle outlet) including:

o The construction of a 16.0m wide x 13.7m long (excluding a 3.0m x 3.0m eastern corner cut-off) x 5.5m high pre-cast concrete addition to the rear (south-eastern) end of the existing vehicle service facility building.

The addition will be set back 4.0m from the rear (eastern) boundary of the allotment, and will comprise four new service bays within a floor area of 204m2. The addition will be used for the servicing of motor vehicles, extending the existing use of the facility.

Plans detailing the proposal can be found in Attachments 4 and 5. 2. BACKGROUND

The history of development authorisations on the subject land that form the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet (the ‘outlet’ for the purposes of this section) that this proposal extend, are as follows: • The original outlet (showroom and vehicle service facility) at 754 and 756 North

East was approved by CDAP on 20 September 2005 (070/87141/05). This consent was consequently varied on 2 October 2007. This variation application (070/92239/2007) comprised largely minor internal and external alterations to the built form, and was also approved by CDAP.

• An extension to the showroom component of the outlet was granted consent (070/93531/2008) under delegation by Council staff on 23 April 2008.


Ite

m 4

.1

• CDAP granted consent for alterations and additions to the outlet and its associated car park on 03 July 2009 (070/95331/2008).

• Consent was granted on 14 July 2009 for a change in use of the land at 750 North

East Road to an office and store, accessory to the existing outlet.

In light of the above consents, the outlet has been operating in its current form since July 2009.

3. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The Development Regulations 2008 (the ‘Regulations’) defines a ‘service trade premises’ as:

“….premises used primarily for the sale, rental and display of – (g) motor vehicles.”

The application has been assessed as a non-complying form of development as the proposal includes a change in the land use of 748 North East Road to a ‘service trade premises’ which is listed as non-complying in the Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

The applicant submitted a Statement of Support at the time of lodgement (see Attachment 6). As the non-complying land use seeks to operate in conjunction with the existing non-complying land use of 752-756 North East Road, it was considered that the proposal is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan, and therefore warranted an assessment to determine the impacts of this development on the locality.

The applicant was advised in writing on 30 June 2016 that the application would proceed to an assessment.

4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Section 38(2)(a) of the Development Act 1993 (the ‘Act’) states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. The Neighbourhood Centre Zone does not assign any forms of development to a particular category. The development is also not listed as Category 1 or 2 in Schedule 9 of the Regulations. As a result, the application was deemed to be a Category 3 development pursuant to Section 38(2)(c) of the Act. Category 3 public notification was undertaken where adjacent land owners and occupiers, and properties potentially affected by the development, were notified in writing. A public notice was also placed in The Advertiser. No representations were received as a result of this process.

5. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The subject land fronts North East Road, which is classified as an arterial road under the care and control of the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).


Item

4.1

This section of North East Road is also subject to the prescribed road widening plan under the Metropolitan Road Widening Plan Act 1972. As the proposal includes red internally illuminated signage, the application was referred to DPTI for comment pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Regulations. Additionally, DPTI undertook an assessment of vehicle access and egress. DPTI’s response forms Attachment 10 of this report. DPTI did not have any concerns with the proposal, however have suggested some conditions to be included should consent be granted by CDAP. In response to DPTI’s recommended conditions (see Attachment 9), the applicant’s planning consultant has accepted four of the six conditions proposed, and suggests that Conditions 1 and 5 are unnecessary. Considering these conditions refer to matters unrelated to the application, Council staff agree with the applicant’s planning consultant, and therefore these two conditions have been excluded from the report’s recommendation. It is important to note that CDAP must have regard to DPTI’s responses with respect vehicle access and signage (as opposed to taking direction).

While CDAP is directed by DPTI regarding the matter of potential road widening, DPTI has raised no concerns with this.

6. SITE AND LOCALITY

Figure 1: Site and Locality Plan The site of the development comprises five separate allotments, namely 748, 750, 752, 754 and 756 North East Road, Modbury, and is located within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. The subject site comprises an approximate site area of 4,420m2 with a 112m frontage to North East Road. The allotments of 754 and 756 North East Road comprise a large pre-cast concrete building with generous glazing along its front façade.


Ite

m 4

.1

The building is modestly set back from North East Road and currently consists of the Formula Honda showroom and their vehicle service facility. While there is a car park area to the north of this building, the main car park for this integrated retail motor vehicle outlet is located south of the building, at 752 North East Road. Various forms of signage and modest landscaping areas make up the remainder of these allotments, particularly along their North East Road frontages. South of the car park is 750 North East Road, which contains a two storey detached building surrounded by car parking areas. This building is also currently occupied by Formula Honda and used for the storage of vehicle parts. However, the modest single storey component to the southern side of the building is currently being used as a lawyer’s office, dissociated to Formula Honda. The remainder of the site consists of 748 North East Road, which currently comprises a single storey commercial building comprising two shop tenancies, both of which are currently vacant. Car parking areas border the front and rear of the building. Surrounding the subject land is the Commercial Zone to the north and across North East Road to the west, with the Residential Zone abutting the east and the remainder of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone to the south. By virtue of these varying zones, the locality accommodates a number of different land uses, notably a large retail outlet (currently Clark’s Rubber) and offices to the north, two service trades premises adjacent the west, low density residential dwellings to the east and the Holden Hill Shopping Centre to the south. The other dominant features of the locality are the North East Road and Grand Junction Road arterial road networks, particularly the large signalised intersection of these two roads located south-west of the subject land.

7. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 7.1 Land Use

The proposal to use the land at 748 North East Road as a service trades premises is a non-complying form of development within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. Non-complying developments are generally inappropriate within their particular zones, as reiterated in Neighbourhood Centre Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 2. Notwithstanding, the proposed service trade premises is to act as an extension to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet (which includes a service trade premises component) at 750 to 756 North East Road. This is an existing non-complying land use. Therefore, the suitability of the intensification of this use, and how it will impact the desired character for the Holden Hill Neighbourhood Centre Zone, are the fundamental issues in determining the application. The Desired Character for the zone seeks to “provide a focus for a broad range of retail, business and community services within neighbourhoods.” The total site area for the Centre is in the vicinity of 9,200 square metres, and the majority of current retail space for the Centre is located within the core retail component at the Holden Hill Shopping Centre at 746 North East Road.


Item

4.1

Given the location, siting and orientation of the buildings at the shopping centre at 746 North East Road and 2 Kincraig Crescent (being the remaining allotment within the zone), in comparison to the subject land at 748 to 756 North East Road, it is considered there are two distinct separate sites within the zone. The subject land at 748 to 756 North East Road equates to approximately 4,420m2 in area. The Holden Hill Shopping Centre sites collectively equate to approximately 4,600m2 in area.

Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objective 4 states that “each centre should have a total retail floor area in the order of 5000 square metres”. The existing retail floor space of the shopping centre is approximately 1,500m2.

If the desired character is applied appropriately to any future development of the shopping centre at 746 North East Road, future built form should address, and be located much closer to, the North East Road / Grand Junction Road intersection. Furthermore, by incorporating basement car parking, which is becoming more common in centre redevelopments, then the desired retail floor area for the zone could be achieved by redeveloping 746 North East Road and 2 Kincraig Crescent only. A total redevelopment of the zone would see retail floor space well in excess of the desired 5000 square metres.

As such, it is considered that the proposed use of the land at 748 North East Road will not jeopardise the ability of the Neighbourhood Centre to be comprehensively redeveloped, particularly if the properties at 746 North East Road and 2 Kincraig Crescent were amalgamated and redeveloped. These properties are considered to be more appropriate for comprehensive redevelopment of the Centre for the following reasons: 1. The buildings and parcels of land at 746 North East Road and 2 Kincraig

Crescent do not effectively utilise the full development potential of the land on which they are situated; and

2. That it is more logical for 748 North East Road to extend and be used together with the current uses of 750 to 756 North East Road due to its location, orientation and vehicle access.

Furthermore, in granting consent to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet, it has been satisfied previously that a service trade premises is a land use that is suitable and complementary to the land uses within the locality and the intent of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal to change the land use of 748 North East Road to a service trade premises and to be used accessory to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road does not jeopardise the ability of the Neighbourhood Centre to achieve its desired character with respect to retail floor area. Additionally, the proposed land use will be compatible with the existing land uses within the zone and promotes an integrated centre, therefore achieving Centres and Retail Development Objective 5 and PDCs 1 and 2.


Ite

m 4

.1

Finally, the applicant’s Statement of Effect (see pages 7 to 11 of Attachment 7), suggests that the existing shopping centre at 746 North East Road appropriately serves the intended catchment area currently; meaning there is no further demand to develop the Centre for retail purposes. This argument has been supported with statistics on the ‘flows and trends’ for centres throughout Metropolitan Adelaide, and also formed the basis of the argument for the previous non-complying development consents for 752 to 756 North East Road, as a service trade premises.

7.2 Impact on the amenity and character of the locality 7.2.1 Built form and design

As discussed within the Section 1 of this report, the application proposes a number of new built form components, as well as the demolition of existing built form. Each allotment is discussed individually as follows:

748 North East Road: The application proposes to demolish the existing single storey detached commercial building located on this site. Due to the dated and unkempt appearance of this building, the site currently presents a low level of amenity, particularly in comparison to the contemporary built form of the integrated retail motor vehicle outlet to the north. While the proposal for this site does not include any significant buildings, the fencing, signage, and new landscaping, will be suitably located and designed to complement and co-ordinate with the existing built form of the retail motor vehicle outlet. The better integration of these properties will significantly improve the North East Road streetscape, satisfying Design and Appearance PDC 15. The proposed 3.0m high pre-coloured steel fencing will traverse the site and separate the vehicle storage area from the vehicle display area. While vehicles will also be displayed at the front of the site, these will be new vehicles and uniformly arranged, with the area at the rear used to store both new and vehicles associated with the service facility in a stacked parking arrangement. As the vehicle storage area will be located at the rear of the site and screened by the proposed fencing, compliance with Design and Appearance PDC 21 will be achieved. The desired character for the Holden Hill Neighbourhood Centre Zone focusses on the redevelopment of the North East Road / Grand Junction Road intersection as it is identified as a landmark site. By virtue of the location and orientation of 748 North East Road, it is considered redevelopment of this site will not impact the desired built form outcomes for the zone from being achieved in the future. 752 North East Road: The proposal includes the construction of a modest canopy to be attached to the southern side wall of the existing showroom. The purpose of the canopy is to provide shelter to the existing external staircase.


Item

4.1

While the height of the canopy will be approximately 5.0m, this will be dwarfed by the 9.4m height of the southern wall of the showroom. Additionally, the materials and finishes of the canopy will be complementary to the existing built form. For the reasons above, there are considered to be no planning concerns with this component of the application.

756 North East Road:

The extension to the existing vehicle service facility at 756 North East Road will be designed and located to the same height and rear boundary setback as the existing building. Due to the extent of the addition, the building will be closer, and therefore more visible than it is currently, from the rear of the adjoining residential property to the east at 4/10 Kincraig Crescent. Notwithstanding, the 4.0m setback from this common boundary will provide a sufficient separation from this rear wall to not cause any unreasonable visual impacts on the adjoining land owner/occupier, maintaining consistency with Design and Appearance PDCs 1 and 3

Furthermore, the orientation of the subject building with respect to 4/10 Kincraig Crescent will mean the addition will not cause any overshadowing of this adjoining land, therefore complying with Design and Appearance PDCs 9, 10 and 11 also.

7.2.2 Noise emissions

As the subject land adjoins the Residential Zone to the east, the impact of noise emissions from the development, particularly the extension to the service facility, was a particular focus of the assessment. In response to this, the applicant submitted an environmental noise assessment report prepared by Sonus Acoustics (see Attachment 11). In summary, the Sonus report considers the noise levels associated with the service facility extension, together with the noise levels generated by the change of land use at 748 North East Road, and compared these with criteria developed from the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (the ‘policy’). The assessment by Sonus Acoustics found that the development will achieve the policy at all residential dwellings within the vicinity of the subject land, without any specific acoustic treatments. For this reason, the proposed changes to the existing development will maintain consistency with Interface between Land Uses Objective 1 and PDCs 1(b), 2, 7 and 8.


Ite

m 4

.1

7.3 Vehicle Access, Traffic and Car parking 7.3.1 Vehicle access and movement

The addition and alterations to the vehicle service facility at 756 North East Road will not require any alterations to the vehicle access to the site. Similarly, on-site vehicle movements will remain as they are currently.

Vehicle movements between the sites will also continue as is. In particular, access from 748 North East Road will be retained via the existing right-of-way from the adjoining property located at 752 North East Road. The change in land use will in fact improve the access and circulation arrangements across all allotments, given operations on the subject land will now be coordinated. As none of the components of the application will require the alteration of any existing access points from North East Road (being an arterial road), safe and convenient access is maintained to both sites, ensuring the proposal complies with Transportation and Access Objective 2 and PDCs 8, 22, 23, 25 and 27.

As mentioned previously, DPTI was consulted on this proposal pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Regulations. As the development does not propose any additional access points from North East Road, nor are the existing access points being altered, DPTI did not have any concerns with the proposal, as confirmed in their response to Council (see Attachment 10).

7.3.2 Car parking

Referring to Table TTG/2A within the Development Plan, any non-residential development within a centre zone, and within 200m of any section of road reserve along which a bus service operates as a high frequency public transit service, requires a minimum parking of three parking spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable area.

As the proposal is within the Neighbourhood Centre with a direct frontage to North East Road (being a high frequency public transit service), the rate of three spaces per 100m2 applies to each component of the proposed development. This is opposed to the more specific land use parking rates provided within Table TTG/2, which the present land uses on the land were assessed against. As is best explained within the memorandum prepared by the applicant’s planning consultant (see Attachment 8), the proposal will in fact result in a net gain of one space for the entire development site when applying the three spaces per 100m2 rate to the proposed development. In summary, while the building at 748 North East Road is currently disused, the previous uses of the site have been various forms of ‘shops’.


Item

4.1

These shops required a minimum of 11 on-site spaces when applying the generic rate of one space per 15m2 provided by Table TTG/2 and in accordance with previous Development Plans. In applying the Table TTG/2A rate as per the new and relevant Development Plan, a total of four on-site spaces is now required, resulting in a net gain of seven (7) spaces for this property. It is important to also note that while car parking areas on 748 North East Road are not currently formalised, there is sufficient space at the front and rear of the existing building to accommodate at least 11 vehicles. The addition to the service facility will generate a demand for six additional parking spaces in accordance with the rate provided by Table TTG/2A. These six spaces, together with the four required for the proposed service trade premises at 748 North East Road, creates the 10 required spaces total, hence the net gain of one space when compared to the 11 spaces previously required.

The addition to the service facility will however require the removal of five existing parking spaces currently located at the rear of the facility. As confirmed in the email from the applicant’s planning consultant (see Attachment 9), to compensate for the loss of these spaces, parking of service vehicles will largely be accommodated for by the increased operations and size of the service facility. The vehicles not within the building being serviced will be parked on 752 North East Road where a number of the new vehicles are currently stored/parked on this site. These vehicles will be relocated to the new storage facility at 748 North East Road. As the vehicles within this storage area will be stacked parked and the numbers will vary with the amount of stock on site, it is suggested that in the vicinity of 20 vehicles (or more) could be stored within the vehicle storage area.

For the reasons discussed above, the proposal complies with Vehicle Parking PDCs 31, 32 and 33.

7.4 Advertising Displays

Outdoor Advertisements Objectives 1, 5 and 6 encourage urban landscapes that are not disfigured by advertisements or excessive signage, and for advertisements to be designed to be integrated with and complementary to the design of the development with which it is associated. This application proposes the installation of two 7.5m wide x 1.2m high internally illuminated advertising signs. One sign will be installed onto the proposed fence along the southern boundary of the land, with the other installed onto the fence located internally of the land. The highest point of both signs will be 3.0m above natural ground level, to coincide with heights of the fence-lines. As both signs with be installed on fencing, and not freestanding and detached from other built form, it is considered that Outdoor Advertisements PDCs 1, 2 and 5 are achieved through the appropriate design and location of the these hoardings.


Ite

m 4

.1

While both these signs are to be illuminated, they are not expected to cause a traffic hazard or distraction to nearby road users as they will display single signs only and not include any animation or flashing, therefore achieving Outdoor Advertisements Objective 2 and PDC 13. This opinion is further confirmed by DPTI’s assessment of the proposal (see Attachment 10). DPTI was required to be consulted on this signage as both signs comprise red illumination and will be located within 100m of the North East Road / Grand Junction Road signalised intersection. Finally, the proposal also includes the removal of an existing freestanding illuminated sign located at the front of the 748 North East Road. Removal of this sign will further reduce any visual clutter on the site, and avoid a proliferation of signage.

8. CONCLUSION

The proposed land use at 748 North East Road is discouraged in the Neighbourhood Centre Zone, with a service trade premises specifically listed as a non-complying form of development. Notwithstanding, the service trade premises will operate in conjunction with an existing service trade premises currently located within the zone. Any future service trade premises on this site would require a fresh consent, given this land use is specifically linked with the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet within the nature of the development.

Furthermore, this change in land use will not jeopardise the ability for the zone to continue to function as intended, nor will the development conflict with the future desirable redevelopment of the centre. It has also been demonstrated that the proposed land use and built form are acceptable from a parking and traffic perspective, and will not unreasonably affect the amenity of the locality with respect to noise or visual impact. On balance, it is considered that this non-complying application displays sufficient merit to warrant consent, subject to the concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission and conditions of approval.


Item

4.1

9. RECOMMENDATION

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

A. RESOLVES that Development Application 070/111159/2016 is not seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Tea Tree Gully (City) Development Plan, having regard to the nature of the development, relevant zoning and locality within which the development is situated; and as such, a decision shall be made on the merits of the application; and

B. RESOLVES to GRANT Development Plan Consent to the application by Formula Motors Group before the Council Development Assessment Panel (CDAP) to undertake alterations and additions to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury, and to demolish existing structures, erect new signage and change the use of the property at 748 North East Road, Modbury to a service trade premises by displaying, selling and storing vehicles to operate in ancillary to the existing integrated retail motor vehicle outlet at 750-756 North East Road, Modbury, as detailed in Development Application No. 070/111159/2016, subject to concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission and the following conditions:

Council Conditions:

1. The development must be undertaken, completed and maintained in accordance with the stamped plan(s) and information detailed in Application No. 070/111159/2016, except where varied by any condition(s) listed below.

2. The entire premises must be kept tidy and all buildings, fences, landscaping

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

3. The hours of operation for the service trade premises herein approved must be consistent with the existing integrated motor vehicle retail outlet as follows: • Monday to Wednesday and Friday: 7.30am to 6:00pm • Thursday: 7:30am to 9:30pm • Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm Any variation to these hours of operation will require a further consent.

Reason: To minimise the impact on adjoining properties.

4. No materials or equipment are to be stored outdoors. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the site and locality.

5. All loading and unloading of goods and merchandise shall be carried out upon

the subject land and no loading of any goods or merchandise shall be permitted to be carried out in the street in conjunction with the consent herein granted.

Reason: To minimise the impact on adjacent properties, roads, road users and infrastructure.


Ite

m 4

.1

6. The materials used on the external surfaces of the service facility addition and

the pre-coloured steel finishes or paintwork must be maintained in good condition at all times. All external paintwork must be completed within 2 months of the erection of the addition.

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

7. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas must be formed, sealed with concrete, bitumen or paving, and be properly drained. They must be maintained in good condition thereafter.

Reason: To ensure useable and safe carparking.

8. Free and unrestricted access must be available to both the designated car parking spaces and the vehicle access ways at all times. Reason: To ensure useable access and appropriate off-street carparking is provided.

9. The planting and landscaping identified on the ‘Floor Plan’ prepared by

“Progetto Design’ and dated April 2016 submitted with the application must be completed in the first planting season concurrent with or following commencement of the use of the building. Such planting and landscaping must not be removed nor the branches of any tree lopped and any plants which become diseased or die must be replaced by suitable species.

Reason: To maintain the amenity of the site and locality.

10. Lighting on the subject land must be directed and screened so that overspill of light into the nearby properties is avoided and motorists are not distracted.

Reason: To minimise the impact on adjoining properties and drivers.

11. Any type of graffiti which occurs on the subject land shall be removed within 7 days of its occurrence.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of the locality.

12. The signage, herein approved, must be maintained in good repair with all words and symbols being clearly visible at all times. Reason: To ensure amenity of the site and locality.

13. The signage, herein approved, must not move, flash, blink or rotate in any

manner. Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the locality and not to distract road users.

14. The illumination of signage must be kept to a level which ensures, that no

hazard, difficulty or discomfort is caused to either approaching drivers on adjacent public roads or nuisance to adjoining residents.

Reason: To not distract road users. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Conditions:

1. Signage on the site shall be finished in a material of low reflectivity to minimise the risk of sun and headlamp glare for motorists.

2. The first two car parks inbound from each access point shall be designated for

low turnover use, such as staff parking or display of vehicles.


Item

4.1

3. Signage associated with the development shall not contain any element that

flashes, scrolls, moves or changes.

4. Stormwater run-off shall be collected on-site and discharged without jeopardising the integrity and safety of North East Road. Any alterations to the road drainage infrastructure required to facilitate this shall be at the applicant’s cost.

Council Notes: 1. The cost of rectifying any damage or conflict with existing services or

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

2. This consent does not obviate the need to obtain any other necessary approvals from any/all parties with an interest in the land.

3. Other than the signage forming part of this approval, no signage, either portable

or fixed, are to be erected or displayed on the land or on any building, structure, gate or fence. A further permission is required from Council for the erection or display of any sign.

4. You are advised that under the Fences Act you are legally required to give

notice for the removal of a fence on the common boundary. Please refer to the Fences Act for the correct procedural requirements.

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Note: 1. The Metropolitan Ride Widening Plan shows a possible requirement for a strip

of land up to 4.5 metres in width from the North East Road frontage of this site for the future upgrading of the North East Road / Grand Junction Road intersection. The consent of the Commissioner of Highways under the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act is required to all building works on or within 6.0 metres of the possible requirement. However, as all building works proposed are clear of the possible requirement, consent is not required in this instance.

Attachments 1. Aerial Photo ............................................................................................................. 21 2. Development Application Form ................................................................................ 22 3. Certificates of Titles ................................................................................................. 23 4. Site Plan, Floor Plan & Elevations (748 North East Road) ....................................... 39 5. Site Plan, Floor Plan & Elevations (756 North East Road) ....................................... 40 6. Statement of Support ............................................................................................... 41 7. Statement of Effect .................................................................................................. 56 8. Traffic/Car Parking Summary ................................................................................... 80 9. Applicant's Email (Car Parking)................................................................................ 85 10. DPTI Response ....................................................................................................... 86 11. Acoustic Report ....................................................................................................... 89


Ite

m 4

.1

Report Authorisers

Nathan Grantham

Team Leader- Planning 8397 7331

Cherie Gill

Acting Manager City Development 8397 7357

Carol Neil

Director Community and Cultural Development 8397 7341


Item

4.2


SEPTEMBER 2016

FROM: Chelsea Tully Senior Development Assessment Officer - Planning

SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION ADJACENT MINERAL EXTRACTION ZONE

Applicant: New Creation Group Nature of Development: Land Division (1 allotment into 11 Community Title lots) Address: 1250 Golden Grove Road, Golden Grove (CT 5248/636) Application No: 070/110795/2016 (070/C026/16) Kind of Development: Merit Lodgement Date: 05 April 2016 Development Plan: Consolidated 29 October 2015 Zone and Policy Area: Residential Zone Public Notification: Category 1 Schedule 8 Referral: Environmental Protection Agency (Regard) Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure – Transport

Services Division (Regard) Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives Residential Zone: 1, 2, 3

Heritage Places: 1 Interface between Land Uses: 1, 2 Land Division: 1, 2, 3 Orderly and Sustainable Development: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Residential Development: 1 Significant Trees: 1, 2 Transportation and Access: 2

Principles of Development Control Residential Zone: 3, 15 Heritage Places: 8 Interface between Land Uses: 4, 5 Land Division: 1, 2, 4 Mineral Extraction: 2, 8


Ite

m 4

.2

Orderly and Sustainable Development: 6, 8 Residential Development: 2 Significant Trees: 1, 2, 5 Transportation and Access: 22, 23, 25, 26, 27

Issues: Proximity to mining activities, access and tree impact Was a request for additional information made? Yes Recommendation: Refuse Development Plan Consent

1. PROPOSAL

This application seeks to divide one allotment into eleven Community Title lots and common property. The common property is, in the most part, 6.0m wide and will be used as the communal driveway. The proposed community lots range in size from 295m² up to 454m², with each generally having a frontage of 10m to the common driveway. The nature and layout of this division will result in 11 community lots for residential purposes that are to be developed with group dwellings. This application does not include any building work, nor does it seek to change the existing residential land use of the site.


The Development Plan does not assign the division of land as a ‘non-complying’ form of development in the Residential Zone. The development is also not listed a ‘complying’ development within Table TTG/1 of the Development Plan, or in Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations 2008 (the ‘Regulations’). The application has therefore been assessed on its merits. Having regard to the zoning of the site and the proposed creation of residential allotments, it is considered that the development is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (the ‘Act’).


Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification.


Item

4.2

Schedule 9, clause 5 lists the division of land as Category 1 development where the purpose of the division is consistent with the objective of the zone and will not change the nature or function of an existing road. With respect to this, the division of land is generally encouraged in the Residential Zone in order to increase housing diversity and achieve infill development. In addition, the proposal does not seek to alter the nature or function of Golden Grove Road with access already existing, and the creation of 10 additional dwellings is unlikely to significantly alter the operation of this road which currently accommodates up to 9,500 vehicles per day. The proposed development therefore falls within the above clause of the Regulations as a Category 1 form of development. It is also recognised that the Development Plan lists ‘land division’ as a Category 1 form of development in the Residential Zone Procedural Matters. The application was therefore assessed as a Category 1 form of development and as a result was not required to undergo public notification.

4. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

4.1 Environment Protection Authority

The division of land within 400m of an Extractive Industry Zone which creates one or more additional allotments for residential purposes is captured as an ‘Activity of Environmental Significance’ under Schedule 21 of the Regulations.

As a result, the application was referred to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Act for a ‘Regard’ response.

The EPA has advised that environmental nuisance in the form of dust and noise is likely to occur in the area as a result of the nearby Golden Grove Extractive Industry Zone (GGEIZ).

In light of this, the EPA is not in support of the application for the following reasons:

• The 300m separation distance generally required by the EPA is not sufficient in

this instance due to mined product being transported off site, bringing the impact even closer to the Residential Zone.

• There is land within 90m of the subject site which has an existing mining

licence, which increases the risk of impacts for future residents of the proposed division should the licensee commence mining activities on the land in the future.

• The proposed intensification of residential development would expose a greater

number of residents to existing interface issues, such as dust and noise

As a result, the EPA does not support the division of this site into any additional allotments.


Ite

m 4

.2

4.2 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

The application was also referred to the Commissioner of Highways (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure) pursuant to Section 37(1) as it involves development that is likely to create a new access in relation to an arterial road. The referral response is ‘Regard’ only as it does not relate to any land identified for road widening purposes.

The Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) does not support the application for the following reasons:

• Golden Grove Road is a primary freight route which plays an important role

within the arterial network, and in having regard to DPTI’s policy to minimise access points onto arterial roads, DPTI does not support any direct access onto Golden Grove Road;

• Properties located north and south of the subject site are prevented from any

access onto Golden Grove Road by an existing ‘buffer’ reserve; and

• Sight distances are restricted at various points along the Golden Grove Road frontage due to a crest in the road, therefore reducing road safety and undermining the safe operation of the road.

DPTI strongly recommends any access to the site be via the local road Persimmon Grove, and that a 0.1 metre buffer be extended along the Golden Grove Road frontage to further prevent access.

5. LEGAL ADVICE

Panel members will note this application has been presented for consideration prior to all issues being resolved. In particular, the applicant has not submitted indicative dwelling designs or any technical reports relating to the regulated tree, driveway access and interface issues discussed in Section 7 of this report. The abovementioned information was not sought from the applicant as it is the author’s opinion that there is a fundamental interface issue with the application, being that the site is not suitable for any form of division. It was therefore considered unnecessary to require the applicant to go through the expense and time delay of obtaining such information in the event that the Panel would resolve to refuse the application for this reason. Council has sought advice from Norman Waterhouse Lawyers regarding a previous development application where refusal was recommended prior to receiving all information and assessing all issues. The advice received was that if Council has sufficient information to know that no additional information would alter its decision, then it is possible to refuse development plan consent.


Item

4.2


Figure 1 Locality Plan The subject site is 1250 Golden Grove Road, Golden Grove, and is located in the Residential Zone. The site comprises a single storey detached dwelling with associated outbuildings and landscaping. There are no regulated trees on the site. The allotment is irregular in shape and 4072m² in area, has a frontage of approximately 94 metres to Golden Grove Road, and a frontage of 31 metres to Persimmon Grove. The Persimmon Grove frontage is adjacent a cul-de-sac, which consists of an unsealed road reserve, with two large Council significant trees adjacent this frontage. The subject site is elevated more than a metre above street level, with a steep embankment present in the road verge along Golden Grove Road. As a result, the site is relatively flat, having a gradual slope from the north to the south. The subject site, along with land to the south, west and north, is all located in the Residential Zone, generally comprising a low residential density of single storey detached dwellings. The subject site is not located in a Policy Area, however all surrounding land within the Residential Zone is captured in Golden Grove Policy Area 15. This reflects the exclusion of this site from the original ‘Delfin’ development, which created the residential allotments in this area back in the early 1990s. Land to the east of the site is located in the Mineral Extraction Zone. Allotments in the immediate proximity to the subject site generally comprise large parcels of land with a moderate to high level of mature vegetation that generally screen existing commercial and residential buildings that front Greenwith Road. There is also a local heritage site on an adjoining allotment fronting Greenwith Road (Greenwith Uniting Church). As noted in the EPA referral advice, existing mining activities are currently located more than 300m away from the subject site.


Ite

m 4

.2

The local area is characterised by large mature gum trees along road reserves and on private land, including the remnant River Red Gum trees located in the adjoining Persimmon Grove road verge.

7. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

7.1 Interface issues

As noted previously in this report, the subject site is located in the Residential Zone and adjoins land to the east located in the Mineral Extraction Zone.

Interface between Land Uses Objective 1 states that development is to be located and designed to minimise adverse impact and conflict between land uses. Interface between Land Uses Objective 2 also seeks to protect community health and amenity from adverse impacts of development.

There are existing mining activities occurring in the neighbouring Mineral Extraction Zone, which have land use rights and must operate in accordance with operation management plans that assist with minimising impacts on the surrounding environment and land users.

The EPA and Department of State Development (DSD, formerly Primary Industries and Resources SA) play a role in regulating these existing mining activities and working with operators to minimise the associated impacts, such as noise, dust and odour.

While this application does not include a proposal to alter the existing land use rights of the subject site or adjoining land in the Mineral Extraction Zone, it does seek to undertake the division of land for residential purposes within proximity to existing mining activities.

Interface between Land Uses Principle of Development Control (PDC) 4 also seeks to protect residents from potential adverse impacts from non-residential activities when assessing a proposal for residential development.

In recognising that the EPA is the authority that is currently responsible for regulating impacts on health and amenity such as noise, dust and odour, it is considered necessary to have high regard to their advice.

The EPA, in conjunction with DSD, is best placed to advise council on the potential impacts of nearby mining activities on future residents should the land division be undertaken as proposed (see Attachment 6).

Notwithstanding this, investigations were undertaken to determine whether any staff members at the City of Tea Tree Gully have the technical expertise or experience to advise on matters regarding the health and amenity impacts associated with the existing Mineral Extraction-Residential Zone interface.


Item

4.2

However, both the Environmental Health and Civil Assets departments of Council have advised that the EPA is best placed to determine whether it is appropriate to subject additional residents to the existing noise and dust issues that are currently being experienced by the existing residents living in this area.

Council staff were however able to provide information regarding the history of complaints regarding dust, noise and road quality impacts resulting from nearby mining activities. In these situations, Council has acted as a facilitator between residents and the relevant agency (EPA, DSD and DPTI), as Council do not have any direct regulatory powers to manage the activities associated with existing mining licences and authorised land uses.

Land Division Objective 2 seeks the division of land that creates allotments appropriate for their intended use, and Mineral Extraction PDC 2 states that development in proximity to mining operations should not be allowed where it may be exposed to adverse impacts resulting from mining activities. In accordance with the advice of the EPA, the intensification of this site will result in additional residents being exposed to existing issues. A recent assessment of dust in the local area found that while it is not considered a public health issue, it is a nuisance issue that is significant enough to warrant the application being refused.

Whilst the subject site is located in the Residential Zone where residential development is encouraged, this division will add to the existing interface concerns, and based on the advice of the EPA, the allotments would not be suitable for their intended purpose, which is residential. Finally, it is important to note that while some of the existing residential allotments on the western side of Golden Grove Road are located closer to mining activities than the proposed community lots, these properties were approved as part of a State Government initiative back in the 1990s where Council had no involvement in the assessment process. Under the current legislation, Council is the relevant authority for the proposed land division and now has the ability to assess the suitability of creating further allotments.

To summarise the above, the advice from the EPA is that there is a history of complaints associated with existing issues from the nearby mining activities that affect the subject site. For this reason, the proposed development of this site, through the creation of additional residential allotments, is considered inappropriate.

7.2 Vehicle Access

Land Division PDC 4(b) states that the design of a land division should incorporate safe and convenient access to an existing public road or thoroughfare.

Transportation and Access PDC 23 also calls for development that is provided with safe and convenient access that avoids unreasonable interference with the traffic on adjoining roads, and PDC 25 states that the number of access points on an arterial road should be minimised and where possible, access gained via local roads.


Ite

m 4

.2

As mentioned in Section 4 of this report, the application was referred to DPTI for comment, and they have recommended the application be refused based on the current layout providing access via Golden Grove Road (see Attachment 7). Council’s Technical Officer Civil, Mr Wahid Yousafzai, has also reviewed the proposed access arrangement and agrees with the approach of DPTI to explore the option of gaining access via the local road (see Attachment 10).

The applicant initially indicated a preference to provide access via Golden Grove Road based on the existing access arrangement for the site.

Should the Panel be supportive of the creation of community lots on the subject site, the applicant would be willing to work with Council and DPTI to amend the proposal to achieve safe and convenient access for the common driveway (see Attachment 5). This would include an assessment of both road frontages.

In recognising the objection of DPTI, consideration needs to be given to the alternative option of access via Persimmon Grove.

Council’s horticulture team have advised that there are two significant S.A. Blue Gum trees located in the road verge adjacent the local road frontage. The structural root zones of both trees are located across the majority of the frontage such that access (and the extension of sewer) will unlikely be possible without undertaking considerable tree damaging activity to at least one of the trees.

As a result of the above advice, if the application was amended with vehicle access via Persimmon Grove, the proposal would not achieve Significant Trees PDC 5, which states that land should not be divided or developed where the division would likely result in substantial tree-damaging activity to a significant tree. For the purposes of protecting Council’s significant trees, Council’s horticulture team have therefore advised that their preference is for access to be via Golden Grove Road. Based on the above, it has not been demonstrated that it is possible to achieve safe and convenient access to the site via the Golden Grove Road or Persimmon Grove frontages. Notwithstanding this, should Panel members resolve to support the application subject to resolution of the outstanding access issue, it should be noted that an amendment to gain access via Persimmon Grove (and an extension to mains sewer) would likely change the nature of development to include tree damaging activity to a significant street tree. This would trigger the Category 2 public notification process in accordance with Schedule 9, clause 25 of the Regulations. In recognising the significant interface issues for this site, which suggest that no additional allotments should be created, it was not considered necessary to request additional information from the applicant to demonstrate indicative dwelling and access designs. As a result, it still needs to be demonstrated that the design of the common driveway will ensure all vehicles can manoeuvre on site to exit in a forward direction, as required by Transportation and Access PDC 27.


Item

4.2

Based on the current layout of the plan of division however, it is not clear that the above has been achieved, and coupled with the objection of DPTI that the access point will cause conflict on this strategic road network, in the current form of application, it does not meet the intent of Transportation and Access PDCs 4(b) and 23.

7.3 Further assessment

7.3.1 Additional Tree Matters

As noted in Section 7.2 above, any amendments to allow vehicle access via Persimmon Grove will result in tree damaging activity to at least one of the two significant trees located in the road verge adjacent the southern boundary.

Based on the current design, the development of Lots 2, 3 and 4 will likely encroach into the Tree Protection Zones of these two trees. This is because the site area of each community lot ranges from 311m² to 347m² where much of the lot will be developed to accommodate a typical three bedroom dwelling. Furthermore, there is a regulated tree located on adjoining land north of the subject site, which may also be impacted by the future development of the proposed 300m² community lots. Should Panel members resolve to support the proposal subject to further investigations of the impact on nearby regulated and significant trees, it is suggested that an arborist will be required for all nearby regulated trees in conjunction with indicative dwelling designs and the location of servicing.

7.3.2 Land Division Design and Layout

The nature of this community land division will result in individual allotments that would be developed with individual group dwellings. Residential Zone PDC 15 states that a group dwelling should have a minimum site area of 350m² for single storey and 325m² for two storey. As noted above, the applicant has not provided indicative dwelling designs, however it is anticipated that many of the sites would be developed by individual land owners with a single storey dwelling, as typically found in this Council area. Notwithstanding this assumption, seven of the eleven community lots do not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 325m² per two storey dwelling. If the single storey group dwelling site area was applied, only two of the eleven lots would achieve the minimum 350m² site area requirement. Whilst a shortfall in allotment/lot size can be supported where a dwelling that meets all other requirements of the Development Plan can be accommodated for, there is also the concern that the tree protection zones of nearby regulated and significant trees will place a greater design constraint on the already undersized lots.


Ite

m 4

.2

7.3.3 Location relative to a Local Heritage Place

It is important to recognise the proposal is consistent with the intent of Heritage Places PDC 8 given there is sufficient separation from the development site to preserve the nearby Local Heritage Place (Greenwith Uniting Church) at 1245 Golden Grove Road, Golden Grove (see Attachment 9).

7.3.4 Connection to sewer

As confirmed as part of an internal referral to Council’s Team Leader Environmental Health, Mr James Walker, the site does not have connection to mains sewer (see Attachment 11) and the proposed lots are unable to be connected to Council’s Community Wastewater Management Scheme (CWMS). To avoid the need for an on-site waste management system requiring septic tanks and soakage areas, the sewer drain running through Persimmon Grove will need to be extended to service the site. The applicant has made enquiries into the option of sewer extension. As mentioned in Section 7.2 of this report, an extension of the sewer drain to the site will need to have regard to any damage to the significant trees in the road reserve.

7.3.5 Scheme Description

The proposed Community Title land division is also subject to a Scheme Description as more than six lots are being created. This document is still in its original form (see Attachment 12) and therefore would require editing prior to the granting of Development Approval, should Panel members resolve to support the application.

8. CONCLUSION

This application has been presented to Panel members for assessment prior to all issues being resolved as there is a fundamental concern that the land is unsuitable for the creation of any additional allotments based on the advice of the EPA. In addition to the interface issue, the proposed division of land has not achieved safe and convenient access, and will likely result in substantial tree-damaging activity. Should Panel members resolve to support the creation of the additional allotments, it is recommended that this decision be deferred to allow further investigations regarding vehicle access, on site manoeuvring and a more substantial tree impact to be undertaken to determine whether the undersized allotments are suitable for their intended purpose.


Item

4.2

9. RECOMMENDATION


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

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

B. RESOLVES to REFUSE Development Plan Consent to the application by New Creation Group to undertake the division of land (1 into 11 Community Titles) at 1250 Golden Grove Road, Golden Grove as detailed in Development Application No.070/110795/2016 (070/C026/16) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed Community Title lots are not suitable for their intended

purpose.

2. In particular, the proposed Community land division is at variance to the following provisions of the Development Plan:

a) Residential Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 15 in

that the proposed Community Title lots do not meet the minimum site area requirements for group dwellings, being 350m² for single storey and 325m² for two storey.

b) Interface between Land Uses Objective 1 as the development has not been designed to minimise adverse and conflict between land uses as it creates additional residential allotments in proximity to existing mining activities.

c) Interface between Land Uses Objective 2 as the development does not protect community health and amenity from adverse impacts of development as it subjects additional residents to existing interface issues.

d) Interface between Land Uses PDC 4 in that the creation of additional residential properties is not in keeping with the requirement to protect residents from potential adverse impacts from non-residential activities.

e) Land Division Objective 2 – based on the advice of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the proposed Community Title lots would not be suitable for their intended use which is residential.

f) Land Division PDC 4(b) – based on the advice of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI), the land division does not incorporate safe and convenient access to an existing public road or thoroughfare.

g) Mineral Extraction PDC 2 – based on the advice of the EPA, the development should not be allowed as it is in proximity to mining operations where it may be exposed to adverse impacts resulting from mining activities.


Ite

m 4

.2

h) Significant Trees PDC 5 in that the land division would likely result in substantial tree-damaging activity to a significant tree and therefore should not be divided.

i) Transportation and Access PDC 23 – based on the advice of DPTI, the development does not provide safe and convenient access that avoids unreasonable interference with the traffic on adjoining roads.

j) Transportation and Access PDC 25 as the development does not utilise the opportunity for access via a local road.

Attachments 1. Aerial Photo ........................................................................................................... 109 2. Development Application Form .............................................................................. 110 3. Certificate of Title ................................................................................................... 111 4. Plan of Division ...................................................................................................... 114 5. Correspondence from Applicant ............................................................................. 115 6. EPA Referral Response ......................................................................................... 117 7. DPTI Referral Response ........................................................................................ 123 8. Internal Horticulture Referral Response ................................................................. 125 9. Internal Heritage Referral Response ...................................................................... 128 10. Internal Traffic Referral Response.......................................................................... 130 11. Internal Health Referral Response ......................................................................... 132 12. Scheme Description ............................................................................................... 133 Report Authorisers

Chelsea Tully

Senior Development Assessment Officer - Planning

8397 7223

Cherie Gill


Carol Neil



Item

4.3


SEPTEMBER 2016

FROM: Nathan Grantham Team Leader- Planning

SUBJECT: DECK (RETROSPECTIVE)

SUMMARY Applicant: Miss D Krzys Nature of Development: Deck with associated Privacy Screening and Balustrade

(Retrospective) Address: 63 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale Application No: 070/109225/2015 Kind of Development: Merit Lodgement Date: 25 June 2015 Development Plan: Consolidated 27 June 2013 Zone and Policy Area: Residential Zone Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15 Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives Design and Appearance: 1 Sloping Land: 1 Principles of Development Control Residential Zone: 1, 2, 6 and 11 Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15: 1 and 3 Design and Appearance: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 Residential Development: 7, 8, 9, 18 and 25 Public Notification: Category 3 Number of Properties Notified: 7 directly notified, plus a notice in The

Advertiser Number of Representations Received: 2 Names and Addresses of Representors: Mr S Moody 61 Greendridge Court, Wynn Vale


Ite

m 4

.3

Mr F Smith 62 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale Number of Representors wishing to be heard: Nil Schedule 8 Referral: N/A Was a request for additional information made? Yes Issues: Impact on the amenity of the locality Recommendation: Refuse Development Plan Consent

1. PROPOSAL

The application before the Council Development Assessment Panel (CDAP) seeks retrospective consent for the construction of a deck located toward the rear north-east corner of the subject land. The deck is irregular in shape and comprises the following: • A total floor area of 15 square metres; • A finished floor level up to 2.1 metres above natural ground level; and • A length of 7.9 metres abutting the north-western side boundary.

The deck uses typical timber boards for flooring, black tubular fencing as a balustrade and solid material and timber boarding (also finished in black) to enclose a portion beneath the deck as it sits above the common fence-line. Additionally, a 1.8m high privacy screen is proposed along a 3.8m section of the north-western side of the deck. Initially, a temporary screen of these dimensions had been installed by the land owners, however this screen only provided approximately 70 percent privacy (refer Attachment 9). The applicant has now altered the existing temporary screen so it now provides 100 percent privacy (refer Attachment 10).

2. BACKGROUND

There is a history of unauthorised development being undertaken on the land, most notably a swimming pool, decking, retaining walls and earthworks which were installed / constructed in 2009. These works were all eventually removed from the land following enforcement proceedings pursued by Council at the time.

Following the removal of these structures, no significant works had been undertaken on the land until 2013, when the construction of a new deck at the rear of the land commenced.

Council staff was first notified of the deck in April 2015. Shortly after this initial notification, the structures were inspected, which then revealed that the decking had been undertaken without development approval.

The land owners were issued with enforcement notices pursuant to Section 69 and 84 of the Development Act 1993 (the “Act).


Item

4.3

The Section 69 enforcement notice was later removed once the land owner had undertaken the necessary works to ensure the safety of the structures. The directions of the Section 84 notice however are still pending, and this application seeks to rectify the breach of the Act. Initially, Council staff believed that all decking currently located on the land, which can be identified in aerial photography (see Attachment 1), required development approval. However, after further investigations, it was determined that the only unauthorised structure currently located on the land that constitutes ‘development’, is the deck identified in the plans and drawings submitted with this application (see Attachments 4, 5 and 6), and described within Section 1 of this report. By virtue of the construction, height and/or location of the remainder of the decking at the rear of the land, Council staff determined that portions were either not ‘building work’, or those that were, are exempt from requiring development approval in accordance with Schedule 3 (l) of the Development Regulations 2008 (the “Regulations”).


The proposal does not meet any criteria within Table TTG/1 of the Development Plan, nor Schedule 4 of the Regulations to be considered as a complying form of development. Further, the Development Plan does not list a ‘deck’ or ‘decking’ as a non-complying form of development within the Residential Zone. Therefore, the application has been assessed as a merit form of development.


Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. A deck is not assigned to either Category 1 or 2 within the Development Plan, nor specifically assigned to Category 1 or 2 within Schedule 9 of the Regulations.

Having regard to the size and location of the development relative to a neighbouring property, the proposal was not considered to satisfy the criteria referred to within Schedule 9 Part 1, 2(g) of the Regulations – a development considered to be of a minor nature only, which will not unreasonably impact on the owners or occupiers of land within the locality.

The application was therefore advertised as a Category 3 development where the owners and occupiers of land adjoining and adjacent to the site were notified in writing. A public notice was also placed in The Advertiser. Two representations were received as a result of this process (see Attachment 7), however neither formally requests to address the Panel.


Ite

m 4

.3

The following summarises the planning related concerns raised by the representors: • The visual impact caused by the location and size of the deck, together with the

materials used to construct the deck.

• Loss of privacy caused by overlooking from the deck.

The applicant’s response to the representations (see Attachment 8) did not propose any amendments to the structure in order to attempt to appease the concerns raised.


Figure 1: Locality Map and Location of Representors Received

The subject land is known as 63 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale, and is located within Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15, in the Residential Zone. The subject allotment is regular in shape and comprises a site area of approximately 859m2, with an 18m wide frontage to Greenridge Court. A Council drainage easement and an SA Water sewer easement traverse the rear of the land. Both easements are 4.03m in width. The subject land comprises a substantial fall of approximately 6.0m from the front south-west corner toward the rear north-eastern corner. A single storey detached dwelling with a conventional hipped roof form and carport under the main roof are located within the front portion of the land. The rear yard is terraced into two levels to compensate for the slope of the site, with an open lawn area directly to the rear of the dwelling, and a large decking area at the lower level and very rear of the site. The locality is low density residential, comprising a consistent pattern of development of largely single and two-storey detached dwellings on allotments of similar sizes to the subject land. Similar to the subject land also, the steep and undulating topography of the locality means that the majority of residential properties have terraced rear yards. Adjoining the rear of the subject land is a narrow, but extensive, Council recreational reserve, which includes scattered tree plantings that border a pedestrian footpath.


Item

4.3

This reserve separates the subject land from residential properties located east of the subject land.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 Land Use

The subject land is located within the Residential Zone and contains a detached dwelling and existing ancillary structures. The deck is considered to be a ‘domestic structure’ to be used in conjunction with the existing residential use of the land, and therefore is appropriate for the zone in accordance with Residential Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1.

6.2 Visual impact on the amenity of the locality 6.2.1 Built form and location

As discussed within Section 1 of this report, the deck is irregular in shape and has been constructed with a total floor area of 15m2; a finished floor level up to 2.1m above natural ground level; and abuts a portion of the north-western side boundary for a length of 7.9m.

While the deck comprises a relatively modest floor area, its height and its location abutting a common side boundary are of concern.

While the Development Plan does not provide any quantitative provisions that stipulate accepted boundary setbacks for decks, Design and Appearance PDC 4 (a) suggests that the length and height of a building (which includes decking structures) should be limited when sited on side boundaries in order to minimise their visual impact. As the highest point of the structure (being the top of the privacy screen) sits approximately 4.0m above natural ground level, the structure is highly visible from the rear private open space area of the adjoining property 61 Greenridge Court, as well as the Council reserve to the rear. While the screening has been altered over time, and additional external materials have been added since the time of the photo, Attachment 9 provides a perspective of the height and scale of the structure as viewed from the rear private open space area of 61 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale. Furthermore, Attachment 10 provides a more recent photo of the structure, as viewed from the Council reserve adjacent the rear boundary. For the above reasons, it is considered that the deck fails to satisfy this provision as its overall bulk and scale currently presents an unreasonable visual impact on the amenity of the locality.

6.2.2 Building materials and finishes

The largely recycled materials that have been used to construct the deck are considered to be contributing to the unreasonable visual impact on the adjoining residential properties, as well as the wider locality.


Ite

m 4

.3

The use of these materials and finishes do not provide the structure with any substantial visual interest or articulation. Instead, the largely solid and disjointed materials, together with their black finish, only increases the overall bulk and scale of the structure, and therefore it is considered the deck fails to achieve Design and Appearance Objective 1, together with the design parameters described within Design and Appearance PDCs 1, 3 (a, b and c) and 10. Furthermore, the materials and finishes used for the deck, together with the balustrading and privacy screen, do not complement the existing built form, particularly boundary fencing. Due to the height of the finished level of the deck, the structure predominantly sits above the existing fence-line (refer Attachments 9 and 10). As the existing boundary fencing is finished in a natural/earthy colour, there is considered to be a distinct contrast with the black finish of the deck. This contrast in colours and materials sees the structure failing to achieve Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15 PDC 3, Residential Zone PDC 11(a) and Design and Appearance PDC 10.

6.3 Overlooking

As is the case with most decks within residential areas, the potential for overlooking into adjoining properties is always a strong consideration. Different to most proposals though is that this potential issue can be measured on-site given the deck has been constructed. When the deck was first inspected, a ‘makeshift’ screen had been installed which provided approximately 70 percent privacy. As this was not considered sufficient at the time by Council staff, the applicant has now proposed to install a solid screen which will provide 100 percent privacy, as illustrated on the elevation drawings (see Attachment 5).

Without any privacy screening, there is no doubt that there are direct views from the deck into the rear private open space area of 61 Greenridge Court. However, given the topography of the locality, the rear yard of 61 Greenridge Court, and portions of the rear yards of other adjoining and adjacent properties (namely 62 and 64 Greenridge Court and 17 Celandon Court located opposite the reserve at the rear) can currently be viewed from other vantage points within the subject land. For this reason, it is considered important to determine whether the location and height of the deck, exacerbates current levels of overlooking from the subject land. To determine this, the use of the deck should be considered. Firstly, in considering how the deck relates to the remainder of the decking area, one could assume that its use is to act as a connector between the upper level of the rear yard, and the lower level decking area. This is how the use of the deck is described by the applicant in their response to the representations (see Attachment 8). Conversely, while its floor area is relatively modest (15m2), it is also considred that the deck is large enough to be actively used at an increased frequency and duration, such as for seating, dining and/or entertaining.


Item

4.3

Notwithstanding whether the deck is used passively or actively, its location abutting the north-western side boundary and its height above natural ground level means that views into the rear of 61 Greenridge Court are far more direct than they would be if the land was at natural grade. For this reason, it is recommended that should the Panel grant the application Development Plan Consent, a condition should be imposed to ensure that a suitably designed, finished and permanently fixed privacy screen is erected along the north-western elevation of the deck. This will ensure compliance with Residential Development PDC 25 and Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15 PDC 3.

7. CONCLUSION

It is considered that the development fails to satisfy a number of qualitative provisions of the Development Plan. Given the visual impact caused by the bulk, scale, materials and finishes of the deck and, to a lesser extent, the impact of overlooking and necessary screening to adjoining residential properties, the development is not considered to be appropriate.

It is the author’s opinion that the deck currently is, and will continue to be, a negative development outcome that detrimentally impacts the amenity of the locality and, therefore, refusal is recommended.


Ite

m 4

.3

8. RECOMMENDATION


A. RESOLVES that Development Application 070/109225/2015 is not seriously at

variance with the relevant provisions of the Tea Tree Gully (City) Development Plan, having regard to the nature of the development, relevant zoning and locality within which the development is situated; and as such, a decision shall be made on the merits of the application; and

B. RESOLVES to REFUSE Development Plan Consent to the application by Miss D T

Krzys for a deck at 63 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale, as detailed in Development Application 070/109225/2015 for the following reasons:

1. The deck is will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality.

2. In particular, the deck is at variance with the following provisions of the

Development Plan:

a. Design and Appearance Objective 1 which seeks development of a high architectural standard that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environmental and built form.

b. Sloping Land Objective 1 which seeks development on sloping land that is designed to minimise environmental and visual impacts.

c. Residential Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 11(a) which

seeks residential development that incorporates the use of durable materials that complement the existing built form.

d. Golden Grove Residential Policy Area 15 PDC 3 which states that privacy

screens should be sited and deigned to complement adjoining fencing and not be overly obvious or detract from the existing prevailing fencing character within the locality from adjoining roads or public open space.

e. Design and Appearance PDC 1 which states that the design of a building

may be of a contemporary nature and exhibit an innovative style provided that overall form is sympathetic to the scale of development in the locality and with the context of its setting with regard to shape, size, materials and colour.

f. Design and Appearance PDC 4(a) which states that where a building is

sited on or close to a side boundary, the side boundary wall should be sited and limited in length and height to minimise the visual impact of the building as viewed from adjoining properties.

g. Design and Appearance PDC 10 which states that building, landscaping,

paving and signage should have co-ordinated appearance that maintains and enhances the visual attractiveness of the locality.


Item

4.3

Attachments 1. Aerial Photo ........................................................................................................... 150 2. Development Application Form .............................................................................. 151 3. Certificate of Title ................................................................................................... 152 4. Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 155 5. Elevation Drawings ................................................................................................ 157 6. Plan View............................................................................................................... 158 7. Representations..................................................................................................... 159 8. Response to Representations ................................................................................ 165 9. Photo of Deck from rear of 61 Greenridge Court, Wynn Vale ................................. 168 10. Photo of Deck from Council reserve ....................................................................... 169 Report Authorisers

Nathan Grantham

Team Leader- Planning 8397 7331

Cherie Gill


Carol Neil



Notice of Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting · with the proposal, however have suggested some conditions to be included should consent be granted by CDAP. In response to

Documents