City of Charles Sturt 38. DAP Report 1/04/15

TO: Development Assessment Panel

FROM: Manager Planning and Development

DATE: 1 April 2015

FIN DON WARD

ITEM 3.22 10 BURNS AVENUE KIDMAN PARK SA 5025

Applicant MrD Leonard

Development Application No 252/2319/14

Proposal Carport 5.0m x 6.0m x 2.6m high located forward of the dwelling 6.8m from the Burns Avenue frontage.

Owner of land Mr G N Sheehy, Ms C A Sheehy

Zone Residential

(Mid Suburban Policy Area 16)

Form of assessment Consent

Public notification category Consent Cat 2 Neighbour Notice

Representations 0 representation received, 0 to be heard

The applicant's agent, Tim Pride has asked to address the Panel in support of the proposal

Agency consultations Nil

Author, Samantha McKin lay - Development Officer (Senior Planner)

Attachments a. Development Plan provisions table

b. Application documents

C. Notification map

Development Plan 25 September 2014

Recommendation Refusal

City of Charles Sturt 39. DAP Report 1/04/15

Report

Background

The application was originally submitted in October 2014 and the applicant was

subsequently advised of concerns for the 6.8 m setback proposed as it meant that the

carport will be significantly forward of the associated dwelling. The applicant was also advised:

The Development Plan requires that garages and carports do not dominate the

streetscape and should be set back no closer than any part of its associated dwelling

and 0.5m behind the main face of the associated dwelling.

The length of the carport is not sufficient to park a B85 vehicle. (Drawing attention to

the length of the carport was for information only and to outline that the structure may not be long enough to fit a vehicle under).

Based on the above Council advised the applicant that they would be unable to support the

application in its submitted form. At this time the applicant was also advised that should

they wish to proceed with this application in its current form it would be recommended for

refusal. They were also advised that amended plans addressing the issues identified could be submitted or alternatively they may choose to proceed with the application as submitted.

In any event the applicant was advised that the following additional information would also be required.

The applicant was requested to supply:

All elevations of the proposed building showing all external materials, finishes and colours.

The applicant later advised that amended plans and details would be supplied. A

supplementary letter was supplied by the applicant on 16 January 2015. Following this the

supply of further plans was submitted on 27 January. The application then went on public notification.

Proposal

The application involves an open carport forward of the existing dwelling 6.8 metres from

the street frontage. The carport is proposed to be 6.0 metres wide and 5.0 metres in length.

The roof of the carport is proposed to be tiled in brown tiles to match the existing dwelling.

The carport is proposed to have arched fascias to match the existing dwellings verandah/

eave and fluted posts to match existing verandah! eave.

Site/Locality

The subject land is located on the northern side of Burns Avenue and is a regular shaped

allotment. The site has a frontage width of 24 metres, a depth of 31 metres and is 762 m 2 in

area. The subject site is presently occupied by an established dwelling that includes a single

garage under the main roof with an uncovered parking space located forward of the garage.

City of Charles Sturt 40. DAP Report 1/04/15

The subject land has established landscaping and a pool is located to the rear of the dwelling.

The dwelling was originally built with a double garage but this was subsequently varied in

1979 to convert one side of the garage to a study accessed off a bedroom.

The locality is residential in nature and predominantly comprises single storey detached

dwellings. There are examples of carports being sited forward of the dwelling within the

locality with setbacks for these examples being between 5.00 m and 9.9m to the street

frontage. However, the referred to examples of dwellings that includes covered parking

spaces forward of the main face of the dwelling have been established for many years prior

to the current planning policy within the Development Plan. In any case the prevailing

character of the locality is for covered parking spaces being either in line with or behind the

main face of the associated dwelling. Those parking spaces located forward of the

associated dwelling still achieve a suitable streetscape setback with adjoining dwellings.

Front property boundary setbacks within the locality are fairly consistent along Burns Avenue. Some variation to the setbacks occur for a couple of the dwellings within the

locality that are situated on corner blocks and front both Burns and Kimberly Court.

City of Charles Sturt 41. DAP Report 1/04/15

Site and Locality Plan

I . N

mg

- 2 ... • -

: ç i

I

jt1: L:i sf

• A

'•

' ? .••_ .* •

., •

. .i'1 • ø*.; *1 -'

Aid if • •• i • _ t*_ .*;Z-& 1

Jgt

4 , \ç4s

c , 4. I.. . ••

-, - . .#__ - - i• t -

• *•,

Subject Site shown in blue and Locality in red

U,

Q

0

0

ci)

CN

4

U

0

t

C

C

-

cci - o

U

o

,r.

tl

i. _

I

• _

14

-

In

a)

E (5

a) >

.

(5 U

0

a) 4

-. (5

a) E E

4-.

(I,

0

ci

ci

0

a) Ln 0

U

ca >-

a) I-

a)

E C

(5

a)

C

a) >

C

4-

0

a) C

0

0

a) .4-..

C

0

0

4-.. (0

4-.

a) Ln

UC

>

. (0

• L)

a)a)

L/) a) 4-.

IJ -1

0

0 1J

Cl.

Of

0

In

Lf)

0

-c

U

0

>-

U

C)

C

C)

>

C

0

>

C)

a-

Co 4-

0

C

C)

F- (1) U

C

o

0

C)

Co

Co

N

0

N

C

C)

>

0

a-

a-

Co

Co

0

0

Co U

C)

-c

C)

C

C)

>

C

- C

0

Co U

0

C)

E

Co 'I)

a)

C

C)

U

cI.

City of Charles Sturt

44 DAP Report 1/04/15

;

-

6 Kim berley Close - at the bottom of a cul-de-sac

5 Kimberley Close- at the bottom of a cul-de-sac

City of Charles Sturt 45 DAP Report 1/04/15

2 Burns Avenue

A

-V.,.

4,

4-

4. 22 Burns Avenue

-: ,,f ',• i'

. ': .• .

City of Charles Sturt 46. DAP Report 1/04/15

Summary of Representations and Applicants Response

Representations

The proposal underwent the Category 2 Public Notification process and no representations were received.

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.

The following table provides a summary of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan:

Proposal Development

Plan

DPP Provisions

Met?

Building Height 2.6 m (walls)

1.5 m (roof)

4.1 m (Total)

8.2m Yes

Setbacks

• Front (carport)

• Front (dwelling)

6.8 m

12.5 m

13.0 m No (*see below)

• Side 3.0 m 0.9m Yes

Carparking

• Tenant 1 1 Yes

• Visitors 1 1 Yes

* General Section - Residential Development - Principle of Development Plan Control 8

requires the following:

Garages and carports setback in accordance with the following:

(a) within the Residential Zone or Residential Character Zone - at least 5.5 metres or 0.5 metres behind the main face of the associated dwelling, whichever is the greater distance from the primary frontage

City of Charles Sturt 47. DAP Report 1/04/15

(b) no closer than any part of its associated dwelling and in any other case, be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres

Outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling.

Qualitative Standards

Development Plan Met?

Scale Maximum wall height 3 metres; Maximum Yes building height 5 metres

Appearance Garages, carports and residential outbuildings Yes

should have a roof form and pitch, building

materials and detailing that complement the associated dwelling.

Visual impact Garages, carports and residential outbuildings No should not dominate the streetscape and be

designed within the following parameters. * See below.

*p ursuan t to General Section - Residential Development - Principle of Development Plan

Control 8, the proposed structure will dominate the streetscape in that it is proposed to be situated substantially forward of the main face of the dwelling.

Desired Character

The subject site is located within Council's Residential Zone, Mid Suburban Policy Area 16. Within this Policy Area, the desired character statement seeks that "dwellings be designed

to complement and enhance the high quality pre and post-World War Two building styles and incorporating setback, siting, materials and roof forms and features consistent with and

enhancing the established character." Whilst it is acknowledged that there are some

examples of garages/carports being built forward of the main faceof the associated dwelling

within the immediate locality however these are still typically in alignment with the setbacks

of the neighbouring dwellings or locatedon cul-de-sacs where setbacks are more staggered,

the majority of dwellings in the immediate locality have a carport/garage component

setback either in line with or behind the main face of the dwelling. It should also be noted

that these examples appear to be constructed in approximately the 1980s, well before the

introduction of the present planning policy, if not well before any planning policy existed at

all. They are not representative of the Desired Character sought for the Policy Area, which

character predominates along the rest of Burns Avenue (excluding numbers 14, 22 and 11).

As such it is considered that the desired character statement for the Policy Area envisages a

setback for garages that is in keeping with this pattern of development in the locality and

now seeks to avoid the introduction of new development with setbacks such as those sited

in examples raised and seeks to minimise the visual impact of covered parking spaces.

Further, General Section, Design and Appearance, Principle of Development Control 22

seeks that "Except in areas where a new character is desired, the setback of buildings from public roads should:

City of Charles Sturt 48. DAP Report 1/04/15

(a) be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other

buildings in the locality

(b) contribute positively to the function, appearance and/ or desired character of the locality".

The Development Plan is therefore considered to provide a clear direction in relation to the

placement of garages and carports within the Mid Suburban Policy Area 16. As outlined in

the provisions above, there is clear intent of the Development Plan to locate the

garage/carport component behind the main face of the dwelling and to be of a similar setback to the dwelling in order to reflect the character of the locality.

The form of the proposed carport compliments the existing dwelling in terms of its bulk and

scale and utilises similar materials to the established dwelling. However, the established

prevailing character within the locality does not comprise carports and garages sited

substantially forward of the associated dwelling and neighbouring dwellings in the streetscape context. On this basis the proposed carport is not considered to compliment the established or desired character within the locality or policy area

Land Use

Domestic structures in association with the primary use of the site for a dwelling within the Residential Zone are envisaged. However, General Section, Residential Development

Principle 8 requires a front property boundary setback for garages and carports of 5.5

metres or 0.5 m behind the existing dwelling, whichever is greater. The proposed

development does not meet this provision as it will be located forward of the associated dwelling. The proposed carport will also be visually dominant within the streetscape.

Visual Appearance/Built Form

The desired character for the Mid Suburban Policy Area 16 states that development should

be designed to complement and enhance the high quality and pre and post World War Two

building styles and incorporate setbacks, siting, materials, roof forms and features

consistent with and enhancing the established character. The proposed development does

not meet the setbacks required in that the carport is proposed to be forward of the main

face of the dwelling. In addition, the proposed carport will not reflect the prevailing character of the locality.

The carport proposed is 6 metres in width and 6.8 m from the front property boundary while

the dwelling is 12.5 m from the front property boundary, resulting in a visually prominent

carport particularly when combined with being situated well forward of the associated dwelling and those adjoining.

While the built form of the carport and its finishes do integrate with the existing dwelling

this does not overcome the significant failure to integrate with the established setbacks and

as a result the proposed carport is not considered to achieve appropriate siting on the land.

City of Charles Sturt 49. DAP Report 1/04/15

La ndsca ping

The subject land contains an existing dwelling with associated established landscaping. No further landscaping is proposed.

Traffic Management and Parking

The Development Plan requires one covered carparking space to be provided for the dwelling. This is already provided by the existing garage adjacent to the dwelling. Uncovered visitor parking is also presently available within the driveway. On-site parking requirements are thus met and exceeded by the current arrangements for parking and would continue to be met and exceeded by the proposed development.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 25 September 2014.

The proposed carport is considered to be at variance with the relevant Objectives and Principles of the Development Plan. The siting of the proposed carport will have detrimental visual impact on the streetscape and the locality. The proposed carport is considered inconsistent with the relevant Development Plan provisions that relate to setbacks, visual impact and desired character.

For these reasons the proposed development does not have sufficient merit to warrant Development Plan Consent.

Recommendation

A. Reason for Decision

The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer - Senior Planner dated 1 April 2015 and agrees with the assessment outlined in that report.

B. 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 25 September 2015.

C. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Approval be REFUSED to Development Application Number 252/2319/15 for the following reasons:

City of Charles Sturt 50. DAP Report 1/04/15

The proposed development is at variance with:

• General Section - Design and Appearance - Building Setbacks from Road

Boundaries -Principles of Development Control 22, 23;

• General Section - Residential Development - Garages, Carports and

Outbuildings -Principle of Development Control 8;

• Residential Zone, Mid Suburban Policy Area 16 - Desired Character Statement; Objective 1; Principle of Development Control 1; and

• General Section - Orderly and Sustainable Development Objectives 1 & 4

In that development will:

• Fail to maintain suitable setbacks consistent with relevant policies and does not

contribute to the desired character of the policy area;

• Have an unreasonable visual impact on the adjoining residential dwellings and streetscape; and

• Not create orderly development or a pleasant environment in which to live.