DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL · 3.1 58 carlisle road, westbourne park (report no: ......

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

AGENDA 1 NOVEMBER 2006

MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 131 BELAIR ROAD, TORRENS PARK ON WEDNESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2006 AT 6.30PM. MEMBERSHIP: Ivan Brooks (Presiding Member), Cathryn Hart (Deputy

Presiding Member), Michael Picton, Stephen Fisher, Grant Hudson, John Sanderson, John Hain, Christopher Gellie, Richard Warren, Heather Chennell, Elaine Grimm, Robert Marshall and Colin Campbell.

PRESENT:

APOLOGIES:

John Sanderson

LEAVE:

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: That the minutes of the Development Assessment Panel meeting held 3 October 2006 be confirmed.

INDEX BUSINESS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING

1.1 1-7 LANCELOT DRIVE, DAW PARK (REPORT NO: 104/06)

2. NON-COMPLYING

NIL 3. APPLICATIONS REQUIRING NOTIFICATION

(CATEGORY 2 AND 3 NOTIFICATIONS) 3.1 58 CARLISLE ROAD, WESTBOURNE PARK (REPORT NO: 75/06)

3.2 WAITE ROAD, URRBRAE (REPORT NO: 94/06)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL PAGE 2AGENDA 1 NOVEMBER 2006

4. APPLICATIONS EXEMPT FROM NOTIFICATION

4.1 79 DORENE STREET, ST MARYS (REPORT NO: 107/06) 4.2 2C STATION AVENUE, BLACKWOOD (REPORT NO: 106/06) 4.3 71 WATTLEBURY ROAD, LOWER MITCHAM (REPORT NO:

105/06) 5. STATE AND CROWN

5.1 GOODWOOD ROAD, PANORAMA THROUGH TO CROSS ROAD,

CLARENCE GARDENS - UPGRADE/CONSTRUCTION OF 66 KV SUB-TRANSMISSION POWER LINES (REPORT NO: 112/06)

6. APPEALS – UPDATE

6.1 APPEALS UPDATE AS AT 20 OCTOBER 2006 (REPORT NO:

110/06) 7. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS

7.1 6 PARA STREET, EDEN HILLS (REPORT NO: 113/06)

8. REPORTS OUTSTANDING, RESOLUTIONS NOT YET AFFECTED AND DELEGATED APPLICATIONS TO

ADMINISTRATION

8.1 REPORTS OUTSTANDING, RESOLUTIONS NOT YET EFFECTED AND DELEGATED APPLICATION TO ADMINISTRATION AS AT 24 OCTOBER 2006 (REPORT NO: 108/06)

9. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.1 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE AS AT 240 OCTOBER 2006 (REPORT NO: 109/06)

10. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 11. OTHER BUSINESS: 12. CONFIDENTIAL CLOSE JASON WILLCOCKS DIRECTOR - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

3

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 1.1 1 NOVEMBER 2006 REPORT NO: 104/06

k:\agendasminutes\development assessment panel\2006\1 november 2006 - dap agenda.doc

1-7 Lancelot Drive DAW PARK 5041 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: REDEVELOP NURSING HOME AND REMOVE

SIGNIFICANT TREES APPLICANT: MIROMA RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY PTY LTD APPLICATION NO: 080/1051/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 24/07/2006 ZONE: RESIDENTIAL (CENTRAL PLAINS) POLICY AREA 8 APPLICATION TYPE: MERIT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 3 REFERRALS: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEVELOPMENT

ENGINEERING, HORTICULTURE PREPARED BY: JASON WILLCOCKS ON: 17 October 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a public hearing as it a Category 3 form of development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The owners propose to redevelop and expand the current nursing home increasing its capacity from 50 beds to 80 beds. The staged redevelopment includes demolition of existing buildings on the site and construction of a new two storey nursing home comprising single and double rooms with ensuite facilities, associated living areas, kitchen and service areas, carparking and landscaping. The proposal includes the removal of 5 significant olive trees. Refer Attachment A for a full copy of all plans, information and supporting documentation. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations the development was advertised as a Category 3 form of development. As a result 18 representations were received, from the following: In support of the proposed development with some concerns • Nick & Teresa Bendys,

In opposition to the proposed development • L Pisano & P Doherty, 188 Daws Road, Daw Park • S Maragozidis, 6 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park • L C McCarthy, 15 Perry Ave, Daw Park • J and T Whalland, 12 Day Ave, Daw Park • Mr F & Mrs F Male and Mrs H Weir, 23 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park • Mr C Salt & Miss D Ruby, 10 Perry Ave, Daw Park • G & J Rowe, 2 Perry Ave, Daw Park • R Fletcher, 8 Perry Ave, Daw Park • Mrs S Wheaton, 4 Perry Ave, Daw Park

4



• F Wong, 6 Perry Ave, Daw Park • G & F Tsamandanis, 17 Perry Ave, Daw Park • A R Laird, 11 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park • J & T Roberts, 17 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park • N Bradey, 14 Perry Ave, Daw Park • Planbuild, 223 Hutt Street, Adelaide on behalf of B & V Kavals, 25 Lancelot

Drive, Daw Park • T Anderson, 21 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park • A & N Goodall, 4 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park The issues raised by the representors are summarised as follows: • Diesel fumes from service delivery and garbage trucks • Overshadowing • Visual amenity • Access safety to adjoining property due to garage trucks and service vehicles

accessing nursing home site. • Vermin control and smell associated with waste storage areas • Obstruction access to adjoining property due to increased number of vehicles

parking in locality. • Noise of service vehicles accessing the kitchen and laundry. • Creation of carpark at No. 12 Perry Avenue and associated traffic impacts • Loading Bay safety • Two storey is not in keeping with the amenity of the area • Lack of privacy to private rear yards • Resale value • Already reduced privacy due to lack of trees, height of fence, direction of

security lighting • Building bulk and scale • Increased traffic volume to streets and carpark • Increase notice and lighting from new carpark • Removal of olive trees • Parking problems in street • Change in the amenity of the locality A copy of the representations and applicant’s response, and representor’s subsequent response to the applicant’s response are attached. Refer Attachment B. Representors have indicated their desire to be formally heard before the Development Assessment Panel in support of their representations. The applicant is also afforded the opportunity of being heard before the Development Assessment Panel to address the issues.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Development Assessment Panel formally hear the representors and the applicant, pursuant to Section 38 (10) & (11) of the Development Act, in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the nursing home and tree removal as detailed in Development Application Number 080/1051/2006 – 7 Lancelot Drive, Daw Park.

5



58 Carlisle Road WESTBOURNE PARK 5041 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STOREY DETACHED

DWELLING, GARAGE AND PORCH

APPLICANT: JOHN VLACHOS ARCHITECT APPLICATION NO: 080/259/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 27/02/2006 ZONE: RESIDENTIAL (CENTRAL PLAINS) ZONE (POLICY

AREA 9) APPLICATION TYPE: CONSENT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 2 REFERRALS: ENGINEERING PREPARED BY: DAVID BILLS ON: 20 JULY 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a decision due to unresolved representations. It should be noted that this application was withdrawn from the August 2006 Development Assessment Panel meeting at the request of the applicant. This was done with a view to possibly undertake amendments to the proposal. The application has not been amended and is now presented as previously proposed. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and the construction of a new single storey detached dwelling. The dwelling is configured as three bedrooms, lounge, office, kitchen/living/dining area, laundry, bathroom and double garage. The dwelling is provided with two courtyards either side of the dwelling mid way along the length of the building. The courtyards are internally and externally accessible and each is to be provided with a water feature and planter box. The dwelling is to be constructed of brick walls with a tiled roof and will have a sandstone feature façade with a stone feature blade wall at the entry. The following development statistics are applicable to the development application

SITE AREA

FRONTAGE

DEPTH CARPARKING SPACES

SITE COVERAGE

IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

SETBACK MAX HEIGHT

789.6 m2 12.24m 51.81m 2 + driveway 41.5% 49% 8m to porch 10.9m to garage Garage on side

boundary

3m to eaves 6m to roof

For further information relevant to the proposed development, refer Attachment A . PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application is a Category 2 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. The following lodged representations as a result of the public notification:

• N & M Asquith, 61 Carlisle Road • H & H Sinodinos, 59 Carlise Road

6



• S Kenny, 60 Carlisle Road • M & C Kelly, 53 Carlisle Road • V Hattam, 50 Carlisle Road • C & J Olifent, 56 Carlisle Road • Zoanetti & Berry, 52 Richmond Road • P Curtis, 53 Richmond Road • D & G McKinnon, 65 Monmouth Road

All representors opposed the development and raised the following issues in their representations:

• Design and materials • Garage on boundary • Impact on character of locality • Building setbacks • Location of air conditioning • Fencing • Size of dwelling • Proposed landscaping • Solar access

A copy of the representor concerns and the applicant’s response is contained in Attachment B . REFERRALS The application has been referred to Council’s Engineer who advises that all floor levels, drainage and access are acceptable and no concerns have been raised. Copy of comments, refer Attachment C . ASSESSMENT Development Plan The subject land is located within the R(CP) zone as described in the City of Mitcham Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions Objective(s) 14, 15, 16, 17 Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 145 Zone Provisions Objective(s) 1, 2 Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2 Policy Area 9 Provisions Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2

7



In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application the primary planning issues have been assessed relevant to the Development Plan under the following sub headings. Land Use The application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new detached dwelling within the Residential (Central Plains) Zone. This land use is consistent with the Objective of the Zone which contemplates residential land uses in the form of detached dwellings at low densities. Given that the subject land is an existing allotment, the proposed land use is considered to be at a density consistent with the intent of the Development Plan. Impact on Amenity The primary amenity impacts are those of:

• Setbacks • Appearance of dwelling • Site coverage and open space

The applicant proposes a front setback to the dwelling ranging between 8.0 metres to the entry porch to 10.9 metres to the garage and 11.6 metres to the furthermost setback part of the dwelling. The applicant’s site plan shows the relationship of these setbacks with the adjoining dwellings and with the exception of the entry porch and blade wall, the front setback is considered to be generally consistent with the adjoining dwellings. These setbacks are not expected to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the street or adjoining dwellings. The garage and part of the eastern wall of the dwelling are proposed on the side boundary for a length of approximately 11.5 metres. Whilst the Development Plan contemplates only garage walls on side boundaries, it nevertheless contemplates a length of not more than 12 metres. Accordingly this element of the proposal is considered to generally accord with the Plan. The side set back on the western side of the dwelling is proposed with a minimum setback of 1 metre and a maximum of 5.5 metres. The Plan contemplates that this setback should be 3 metres. Within the locality there is a relatively high incidence of reduced side setbacks when compared to these provisions. Additionally the front yard of the dwelling is proposed to be landscaped including two pond features. As a result of the existing setback pattern within the locality, the proposed front fencing and the proposed landscaping, the side setbacks proposed are not considered to significantly affect the amenity within the locality. The dwelling is proposed with a contemporary appearance and will have a tiled pitched roof set atop a sandstone dwelling façade. The Development Plan contemplates that the visual appearance of dwellings should reinforce the predominant character and style of development within its immediate locality and complement the local streetscape. The applicant includes a submission from Jamie Botten and Associates which rightly comments that where terminology such as complement and reinforce are used, this does not mean that that the development should mimic or replicate and existing architectural style.

8



Having had regard to the proposed dwelling design, development within the locality and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, it is considered that the proposal does complement the character of the locality, notwithstanding its contemporary appearance. The dwelling is proposed with a site cover of 41.5% and a total impervious cover of some 49%. This exceeds the site cover provision by 1.5% and is less than the total impervious cover by 1%. Accordingly the degree of variance from the Plan provisions is considered to be insignificant, particularly as the provision of private open space exceeds the Development Plan guideline by some 9%, suggesting that the level of building on the site is well below acceptable limits. Accordingly the site cover and provision of private open space are not expected to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. Traffic and Parking The development is provided with two covered car parking spaces with additional car parking available in the driveway. The car parking provision satisfies the provisions of the Development Plan. Pattern of Development The application is for a single storey detached dwelling on an existing allotment of some 789 square metres. The allotment is larger that the minimum allotment size of 550 square metres and the allotment frontage of 15.24 metres exceeds the minimum frontage of 15 metres. The primary objective of the Zone is the accommodation of detached dwellings in a manner that complements the predominant architecture, streetscape and low density character of existing development within the locality. The density and form of development is considered to complement the character of the existing development within the locality. CONCLUSION The proposal is for one single storey detached dwelling in a locality characterised by detached dwellings of a mixture of dwelling styles at low densities on medium to large allotment sizes. The proposal is for a type of development that is contemplated in the Residential (Central Plains) zone and notwithstanding its contemporary appearance, is nevertheless considered to complement the character of the locality rather than replicate it. When assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, the proposal is considered on balance to warrant CONSENT.

9



RECOMMENDATION That the application by John Vlachos Architect to construct A SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DWELLING, GARAGE AND PORCH at 58 Carlisle Road WESTBOURNE PARK 5041 as detailed in Development Application No: 080/259/2006 be GRANTED Provisional Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions of consent:- 1. The proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and plans,

relating to Development Application Number 080/259/2006 except where varied by the following conditions.

Reason: To ensure the proposal is established in accordance with the

plans submitted.

2. All works detailed in the approved plans and required by any condition of approval shall be completed prior to the occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure that all works and conditions are completed in a

timely manner

3. The remainder of the subject land, not under buildings and paved areas, shall be landscaped and developed with trees, shrubs and appropriate surface treatment in accordance with the plan approved by Council, prior to occupation of the approved development, and such planting thereafter shall be nurtured and maintained in a tidy and healthy state to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To maintain the visual amenity of the locality

4. Stormwater shall be disposed of in such a manner that it does not flow or

discharge onto land of adjoining owners, lie against any building or create insanitary conditions

5. Temporary debris and sediment control measures shall be installed to ensure

debris, soil, soil sediments, and litter are maintained within the construction site. At no time shall debris, soil, soil sediments, and litter from the construction site enter Council’s drainage system, Council’s road network, or neighbouring properties. Pollution prevention measures, shall be in accordance with the “Environmental Protection Authority’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Codes of Practice”;

• For the Community • For Local, State, and Federal Government • For the Building and Construction Industry

6. The maximum stormwater discharge rate to the street water table, from any

single outlet, shall be limited to 20 Litres/sec., with a maximum discharge velocity of 2 metres/Sec. (Reference Storm Drainage design in Small Urban catchments; ARRB-Special report No.34; J. Arque)

7. All earthworks associated with the development shall be stabilized in

accordance with standard engineering design and practices against erosion

10



and failure. No earthworks must encroach across neighbouring property boundaries

Notes:

1. New heavy duty commercial entrance vehicle & kerb crossover(s), intended for use by vehicles of a gross vehicle mass of greater than 15 Tonne, shall be constructed to Council’s satisfaction and in accordance with Council’s Engineering detail SD-600, Sheets 23-B & 24-B. An application to construct an invert/crossover in a public street must also be lodged with Council.

11



Waite Road URRBRAE 5064 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: VARY APPROVED PLANS 080/1096/2005 - POLY

TUNNELS AT UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE APPLICANT: UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE APPLICATION NO: 080/550/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 21/04/2006 ZONE: INSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION TYPE: MERIT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 3 REFERRALS: NIL PREPARED BY: DENNIS BATGE (PLANNING CONSULTANT) ON: 12 OCTOBER 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a decision due to the application being a Category 3 form of development. The public hearing for this application was conducted on 3 October 2006. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS

APPLIC. NO: DESCRIPTION DECISION 0801096/05 Poly Tunnels Approved

A pair of poly tunnels has been approved on the same site in the above mentioned application. In that application the height of the structures was incorrectly stated as being only 3 metres and their impact was assessed accordingly and approved. This application is for the same use as previously approved but the overall height is varied to 5.9 metres. One tunnel has been erected but was the subject of a request by Council to the University of Adelaide to either remove the structure or make a further application to have the higher structures assessed afresh and on their merits. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application proposes to vary an application to construct two poly tunnels at the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide. These structures were approved in a previous application 080/1096/05. One of the poly tunnels was constructed but exceeded the height of the approved structures and so an application was made to vary the earlier approval. Since construction of the first poly tunnel a number of residents in the residential area adjoining the site raised concerns about the impact of the structures on the amenity of the locality. On this basis it was decided to treat the current application as a category 3 form of development.

The structures are each 24.1 metres in length, 8.9 metres wide and 5.9 metres in height. They consist of a steel frame with an opaque plastic ‘twin skin’ cover to the walls and roof and are fitted with aluminium framed sliding doors and external

12



ground mounted air conditioning units. New, additional landscaping is proposed for the area between the structures and Waite Road in order to screen them from view from nearby residences. They are located approximately 55 metres from the Waite Road boundary. For further information relevant to the proposed development, refer Attachment A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application is a Category 3 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. The following lodged representations as a result of the public notification:

• Bill Lang, 12 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose) • Rae M Lang, 12 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose) • Margaret Brown, 8 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose)

• Greta Mercer, 14 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose) • Jim Poole, 10 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose) • Eve Lever, 6 Waite Road Urrbrae (oppose) • Michael Pryce, 13 Pulleine Avenue Netherby (oppose) • Jim Wilson, 4 Waite Road Urrbrae • Wayne Learmonth, 1 Ashwood Place Urrbrae (oppose) • Pat Ireland, 2 Grandview Avenue Urrbrae (support with concerns)

The concerns are summarized as follows:

• impact on amenity • height, bulk and scale of the structures • nature of the development in the Institutional zone • light spillage • noise • insufficient resident consultation • ancillary environmental impacts A copy of the representor concerns and the applicant’s response is contained in the 3 October 2006 Development Assessment Panel Agenda, Item 1.1, B1-B52. ASSESSMENT Development Plan The subject land is located within the Institutional Zone as described in the City of Mitcham Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Metropolitan 1, 43 Council Wide Provisions Objective(s) 5,

13



Principle(s) of Development Control 40, 74, 75, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 154,177, Zone Provisions Objective(s) 1, 2, Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2, 4, In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application the primary planning issues have been assessed relevant to the Development Plan under the following sub headings. Land Use The use of the land for poly tunnels which are similar in terms of their function to glass houses are consistent with the educational and research function of the Waite Institute. These tunnels replace the glass houses which had reached the end of their useful life and have therefore, been demolished.

The land use as proposed is considered consistent with Objectives 1 and 2 of the Institutional Zone.. The use is consistent with the intended use of the Waite Institute for educational and research purposes.

Impact on Amenity This application seeks approval for two poly tunnels on the same site as those previously approved, the only difference being the total height of the structures being 5.9 metres as opposed to 3 metres. The land use is consistent with the long term use of the land by the Waite Institute and in terms of land use will not change the amenity of the locality. The increase in height to 5.9 metres to the top of the roof of the structure is not considered excessive, particularly with the size of the grounds and the separation distances between residential and institutional land uses. Traffic and Parking The structures are replacements for glass houses and do not change the fundamental nature of the use of the land nor does it alter parking demands or traffic movements. This is not an issue. Landscaping The applicant proposes to establish additional landscaping between the proposed poly tunnels and the existing line of large trees that are growing near the Waite Road boundary of the subject land. Inside of that line of trees there are numerous other trees and shrubs of varying sizes and species. The existing vegetation does provide a substantial degree of visual screening as viewed from Waite Road and the frontage of dwelling on the eastern side of that road. However, given the height of the structures and their generally white appearance, and the fact that they will be seen from some residential; vantage points along the Wait Road some additional middle level landscaping that will provide additional visual screening is desirable.

14



The structure that has been erected is visible from Cross Road from some vantage points. It is not as critical that it be densely screened from this northern aspect but some softening by the judicious planting of vegetation is desirable. The plans lack detail as to the precise location and species of trees and further details should be provided prior to full development approval. This should go some way to alleviating the fears of residents concerning any possible illumination of the tunnels at night. Visual Impact The visual impact of the tunnels as viewed from Waite Road and from residential premises along that road is marginal and would be readily ameliorated by supplementing the existing vegetative screening that exists along the Waite Road edge of the subject land. The construction of two Poly tunnels compared to the one that is currently in place will not markedly increased the visual impact of the development as viewed from Waite Road. This will simply bring the view of the structure approximately 11 m closer than is currently the case. This is not particularly significant although the view from Cross Road will be the end of two such tunnels. The visual impact of the structures is assisted to some extent by virtue of the fact that the site levels are lower than those of the dwellings on the eastern side of Waite Road and the extensive nature of the grounds in which they are to be sited. This together with the substantial vegetation that is in existence between the structures and the boundary of Waite Road maintains a reasonable outlook over the land. The zone objectives are to encourage an open and rural character. These kinds of structures are associated with rural character, however, in the context of this urban locality maximisation of landscape screening is considered desirable. CONCLUSION When assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan the application warrants Provisional Development Plan Consent. The proposed development and use of the land is consistent with the relevant objectives and principles of the Development Plan, having particular regard to the Institutional Zone. The visual impacts of the development in this setting with substantial landscaping that can readily be supplemented. RECOMMENDATION That the application by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE to construct VARY APPROVED PLANS 080/1096/2005 - POLY TUNNELS AT UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE at Waite Road URRBRAE 5064 as detailed in Development Application No: 080/550/2006 be GRANTED Provisional Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions of consent:- 1. The proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and plans

relating to Development Application Number 080/550/06 except where varied by the following conditions of consent.

15




plans submitted. 2. A detailed landscaping plan be submitted for Council approval prior to erection

of the poly tunnels and providing a detailed planting layout legend of species, height and spread of each type of plant used to provide comprehensive screening of the development here in approved as viewed from the Waite Road boundary of the subject land, and a softening of the appearance of those structures as viewed from Cross Road. Such landscaping shall be maintained in good health and condition for the life of the development and shall be replaced if it dies or become seriously diseased, all to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

Reason: To ensure that landscaping effectively visually screens the

development here in approved with sufficient detail to ensure that such landscaping is effectively implemented.

3. All works details in the approved plans and required by any condition of

approval shall be completed prior to the occupation or use of the development. Reason: To ensure that all works and conditions are completed in a

timely manner. 4. All stormwater shall be effectively disposed of from the subject site to the

Council drainage system. Reason: To prevent discharge of stormwater onto the adjoining

properties. 5. Stormwater shall be disposed of in such a manner that does not flow or

discharge onto land of adjoining owners, light against any building or create insanitary conditions.

6. The wastewater discharge emulating from the evaporative air conditioning

coolers for the poly tunnels shall be connected directly to the sewer system to the satisfaction of Council.

7. Shielding shall be installed to all external security lighting to prevent lighting

overspill causing nuisance to nearby residential properties to the satisfaction of Council.

8. Any noise from airconditioning or the equipment to comply with EPA

requirements for such equipment.

16



79 Dorene Street ST MARYS 5042 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT 2 SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS

INCLUDING GARAGES AND PORCHES APPLICANT: Mr M Q ZANATTA APPLICATION NO: 080/1146/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 08/08/2006 ZONE: RESIDENTIAL (CENTRAL PLAINS) POLICY AREA 10 APPLICATION TYPE: MERIT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 1 REFERRALS: ENGINEERING, BUILDING PREPARED BY: DENNIS BATGE (PLANNING CONSULTANT) ON: 12 OCTOBER 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a decision as the development abuts the previous appeal site. Hackett v City of Mitcham. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing timber framed detached dwelling on a corner allotment, the removal of a significant tree and the construction of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Each dwelling comprises:

• 3 bedrooms • Meals/kitchen area • Family room • Double garage • Tiled hipped roof (colour & materials not specified) • Brick veneer construction (brick colour not specified)

The following development statistics are applicable to the development application

UNIT NO:

SITE AREA

FRONTAGE


SITE COVERAGE

IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

SETBACK MAX HEIGHT

1 418.2m2 18.29m 22.7m 4 41.4% 80.4% 4.6 & 4.7m 5.5 2 418.2m2 23m 18.29m 4 41.5% 81.4% 5.1m 5.4

For further information relevant to the proposed development, refer Attachment A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. REFERRALS The application has been referred to Engineering and Building and no concerns have been raised.

17



ASSESSMENT Development Plan The subject land is located within the R(CP) Zone, Policy Area 10 as described in the City of Mitcham Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions Objective(s) 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2, 3, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 74, 75, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, Zone Provisions Objective(s) 1, 2, 4, Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2, RPA10- 1, 3, In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application the primary planning issues have been assessed relevant to the Development Plan under the following sub headings. Land Use In general terms, subject to assessment against all relevant provisions of the Development Plan, semi-detached dwellings are appropriate to the Zone and Policy Area in which the subject land is situated. Impact on Amenity The development is generally satisfactory in amenity terms in most respects. However, although the dwelling adjoining on the southern side of the subject land will have two rear yards in close proximity to its rear yard. The proposal does not meet the minimum 5 metres rear yard set-back requirement and therefore has less than the desired separation from the boundary of the premises on the southern side of the land. Traffic and Parking Parking provided on site adequately meets relevant requirements satisfactory access and egress arrangements. This is satisfactory. Landscaping Significant Trees The proposal includes the removal of what appears to be a healthy significant tree. It is a relatively large Ash tree with a height of approximately 8 metres and a significant canopy spread of approximately 13 metres. It is in the order of 8 metres in height with a significant canopy spread of approximately 13 metres.

18



In the Crystal Avenue streetscape, although not a landmark, the significant tree is one of the larger ones along that section of the street and does makes a positive contribution to the greening and character of the immediate locality in a manner that visually compliments street trees. There is no justification in design or arboricultural terms to justify the removal of this tree and the removal is not supported. Visual Impact The development is either marginal or detrimental in a number of respects. These include:

• Site coverage is slightly exceeded; • Site area at 418 square metres is marginally below the 425 square metres

specified for the Residential (Central Plains) Policy Area 10; • Impervious coverage at 80.4% for Residence 1 and 81.4% for Residence 2 is

well in excess of the 60% requirement • Setbacks at 4.74 metres to Dorene Street and 4.6 metres to Crystal Avenue

are minimal in terms of general setback conditions and those specified in Council Wide Principle 18;

• The Loss of the significant tree; • Lack of proposed landscaping; • Dwelling 1 requires solid fencing along portion of the Crystal Avenue frontage

in order to meet open space requirements set out in Council Wide Principle 17;

• The building will have a total length of almost 37 metres and it will be evident that this is an infill development comprising a large building on a small site and is inconsistent with the predominant character of the locality.

The development will contribute to an alteration of the visual character and amenity of the locality in a manner that does not satisfactorily meet the desired character requirements for the policy area. Pattern of Development Within the locality development predominantly comprises detached dwellings on individual allotments of a similar size to the subject land with substantial setbacks from front boundaries ranging from 7 to 10 metres with most approximating 8 metres. Generally the dwellings are set off the side boundaries although some carports are either on or near the side boundary. Dwellings are predominantly of simple design and construction and are several decades old, with many dwellings appearing “ready” for redevelopment. There are some notable exceptions to the above mentioned pattern of development, mainly on corner allotments where the land has been divided in two and dwellings constructed on them.

On the opposite side of Crystal Avenue there is a pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 9 Crystal Avenue. These sites appear to have been created by cutting off the rear of No’s 6 and 8 Styles Avenue. These dwellings however are set well back from the street frontage at approximately 18 metres. There are 2 new detached dwellings under construction diagonally opposite on the corner at No. 62 Dorene Street.

19



The infill development is not however of the style of long low building on corner allotment s that is proposed in this application. The style and layout of this development is inconsistent with the established pattern of development in the locality. CONCLUSION When assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan the application warrants refusal. The proposed development will create a building with a significant dimension to the Crystal Avenue streetscape that will present a character inconsistent with the predominance of detached dwellings, limited setbacks from road frontages and rear yards and removes a significant tree without sufficient justification. Importantly, the proposal will lead to the removal of a significant tree without sufficient justification. RECOMMENDATION That the application by Mr M Q ZANATTA to construct CONSTRUCT 2 SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS INCLUDING GARAGES AND PORCHES at 79 Dorene Street ST MARYS 5042 as detailed in Development Application No: 080/1146/2006 be REFUSED Provisional Development Plan Consent on the following grounds:- The development is contrary to the following provisions of the City of Mitcham Development Plan: Metropolitan Adelaide Objective 9, 43. Principles 9, 11. Council Wide Objective 4, 5, 14, 19, 22, 27. Principles 3, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 37, 40, 145, 149, 150, 179, 180, 181. Residential (Central Plains) Zone Objectives 1, 2, 4 Principles 1, 2.

20



2C Station Avenue BLACKWOOD 5051 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A VERANDAH APPLICANT: SUNSCAPE HOME IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO: 080/1088/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 31/07/2006 ZONE: RESIDENTIAL (BLACKWOOD URBAN) APPLICATION TYPE: CONSENT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 1 REFERRALS: NIL PREPARED BY: DENNIS BATGE (PLANNING CONSULTANT) ON: 12 October 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a decision due to site coverage exceeding the level for a delegated decision. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development comprises the construction of a freestanding gable roofed structure clad on the roof with clear sheet and a small section of flat roof between the freestanding section and the existing dwelling. The dwelling is at the rear of a group of three medium density dwellings constructed down the allotment. The following development statistics are applicable to the development application

SITE AREA FRONTAGE


SITE COVERAGE

IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

REAR SETBACK

MAXX HEIGHT

543 N/A N/A N/A 53.7% 60.7% Nil

For further information relevant to the proposed development, refer Attachment A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. ASSESSMENT Development Plan The subject land is located within the Residential (Blackwood Urban) (RBU) zone as described in the City of Mitcham Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions Objective(s) 14,18. Principle(s) of Development Control 3, 17, 19, 23, 27. Zone Provisions Objective(s) 1

21



Principle(s) of Development Control 1, 2, 5, 6. In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application the primary planning issues have been assessed relevant to the Development Plan under the following sub headings. Land Use The proposed development is for the purpose of providing sheltered but not enclosed outdoor entertaining area. This is consistent with the residential use of the land and the Residential (Blackwood Urban Zone). Impact on Amenity The structure is located on the northern side boundary. This is consistent with the dwelling on no.2B. It is also adjacent a covered area of the dwelling abutting the northern boundary. The structure is not visible from Station Avenue The structure is consistent with the character of development in this area of medium density housing. The will be not noticeable impact on amenity from either public or private areas. Landscaping The verandah site is on an area free of vegetation. There are two trees on the land but these are close the rear boundary. And accordingly no vegetation will be affected and adequate space for landscaping remains available. Visual Impact The structure is small in scale with a total height of approximately 3.3 metres clad with clear roof sheeting and with an unobtrusive location, will not have any significant visual impacts. A site coverage of 53.7% will not appear abnormally tight in this location. This is a special consideration where the existing surrounding dwellings also have high site coverage. The subject dwelling is already covering some 45% of the total site but the proposed verandah is open will form part of the usable open space there would still be plenty of usable open space, more than required by the Development Plan even with the proposed structure. Pattern of Development Development within this locality comprises non residential development on the western side of the subject land and predominantly medium density unit type residential development .

22



CONCLUSION When assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan the application warrants consent. The site coverage is not excessive in an area that is a mix of centre type of development and medium density development. The proposed covered entertainment area will improve the amenity of the private open space of the dwelling with which it is associated. RECOMMENDATION That the application by SUNSCAPE HOME IMPROVEMENTS to CONSTRUCT A VERANDAH at 2C Station Avenue BLACKWOOD 5051 as detailed in Development Application No: 080/1088/2006 be GRANTED Provisional Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions of consent:-

1. The proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and plans, relating to Development Application Number 080/1350/06 except where varied by the following conditions.


plans is submitted. 2. Stormwater shall be disposed of in such a manner that it does not flow or

discharge onto land of adjoining owners, lie against any building or create insanitary conditions.

3. That the proposed verandah remains open sided at all times.

71 Wattlebury Road LOWER MITCHAM 5062 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A DOMESTIC OUTBUILDING - GARAGE APPLICANT: MR J D SHELTON & MS J A YARDLEY APPLICATION NO: 080/1350/2006 LODGEMENT DATE: 14/09/2006 ZONE: RESIDENTIAL (CENTRAL PLAINS) POLICY AREA 8 APPLICATION TYPE: CONSENT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: CATEGORY 1 REFERRALS: NIL PREPARED BY: DENNIS BATGE (PLANNING CONSULTANT) ON: 12 October 2006

BACKGROUND This application is presented to the Panel for a decision due to the proposal’s site coverage exceeding the level of delegation. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

23



The development comprises a garage style outbuilding for storage purposes in the rear yard of a newly completed semi-detached dwelling. The building measures 3.4m x 4.9m and has a floor area of 16.6 m2. The following development statistics are applicable to the development application

SITE AREA

FRONTAGE CARPARKING SPACES

SITE COVERAGE

IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE

SIDE & REARSET

BACK

MAXX HEIGHT

506m2 9.6 N/A 45.5 62% 0.6m 3m

For further information relevant to the proposed development, refer Attachment A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application is a Category 1 form of development pursuant to Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Development Act and Regulations. ASSESSMENT Development Plan The subject land is located within the R(CP) Zone Policy Area 8 as described in the City of Mitcham Development Plan. The main provisions of the Development Plan which relate to the proposed development are as follows: Council Wide Provisions Principle(s) of Development Control 23. Zone Provisions Objective(s) 2. Principle(s) of Development Control 2, 3. In assessing the merits or otherwise of the application the primary planning issues have been assessed relevant to the Development Plan under the following sub headings. Land Use The shed is for storage purposes and storey to a dwelling erected on the land. The use is therefore consistent with the objectives of the Residential (Central Plains) Zone and the approved use of the subject land. Impact on Amenity The shed is modest in size with dimensions of 3.9 x 4.9 metres and a maximum height of 3 m. There are no neighbouring dwellings or other buildings adjacent the site of the shed. This, together with the small scale and domestic use of the shed, is not likely to adversely impact upon the residential amenity enjoyed by occupiers of adjoining land.

24



Traffic and Parking The shed will not in any way impact upon vehicle movements or parking on the subject land. Landscaping & Significant Trees There is no landscaping or significant trees adjacent the shed site. There will therefore be no impact on existing vegetation. Sufficient space remains available for the planting of vegetation within the rear yard. Visual Impact As stated above, the shed is small in scale and will be clad in Merino colourbond sheeting and will have a high standard of appearance. The shed is sited in the rear yard and will not impact upon the streetscape or unduly impact on the outlook from the private open space of adjoining residential premises. CONCLUSION When assessed against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan the application warrants Provisional Development Plan Consent. The shed is for domestic purposes and of a scale consistent with that purpose. Notwithstanding that the total site coverage for the property will be 45.5% this is not considered excessive, considering, that it will maintain sufficient private open space of 22% of site area and will not adversely impact upon the low density character and amenity of the locality, given the small area of the shed involved it will not change the existing situation greatly.

25



RECOMMENDATION That the application by MR J D SHELTON & MS J A YARDLEY to construct A DOMESTIC OUTBUILDING - GARAGE at 71 Wattlebury Road LOWER MITCHAM 5062 as detailed in Development Application No: 080/1350/2006 be GRANTED Provisional Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions of consent:-

2. The proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and plans, relating to Development Application Number 080/1350/06 except where varied by the following conditions.


plans is submitted.

2. Stormwater shall be disposed of in such a manner that it does not flow or discharge onto land of adjoining owners, lie against any building or create insanitary conditions.

26



GOODWOOD ROAD, PANORAMA THROUGH TO CROSS ROAD, CLARENCE PARK - Upgrade / Construction of 66 kv Sub- Transmission Power Line DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT 66KV POWERLINE - PANORAMA TO

CLARENCE GARDENS APPLICANT: ETSA UTILITIES APPLICATION NO: 080/1284/2006 (49/080/0013/2006) LODGEMENT DATE: 05/09/2006 ZONE: VARIOUS, INCLUDING STATE HERITAGE AREA AND

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL PLAINS APPLICATION TYPE: CONSENT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: NIL REFERRALS: HERITAGE PREPARED BY: JASON WILLCOCKS ON: 25 OCTOBER 2006

PROPOSAL To report to the Development Assessment Commission on a proposed upgrade / construction of a 66 kv sub-transmission line from Panorama to Clarence Gardens under section 49 (5) of the Development Act, 1993. BACKGROUND Council has received a copy of a proposal submitted on behalf of ETSA Utilities for the upgrade / construction of a new 66 kv line to link ETSA substations at Panorama and Clarence Gardens. The proposal has been forwarded to Council by the Development Assessment Commission under Section 49 of the Development Act, 1993. The proposal involves: • Upgrading the existing 66 kv line from the Panorama substation corner

Goodwood Road and O’Neil Street north to Piccadilly Circuit intersection, thence via Light Place and Rozelles Avenue to Winston Avenue

• Construction of a new 66 kv along Winston Avenue thence Leith Avenue and

Clovelly Avenue to the substation at the corner of Cross Road and Clovelly Avenue.

The development involves replacing existing poles with new 20m high poles (on a 1 to 1 basis), and involves two sets of 6 cables in place of the existing 3 cables between Panorama and Winston Avenue. Existing poles on the proposed route are 9m high in Winston Avenue and 19-20m high on the remainder of the route generally. Existing low voltage and 11 kv lines will be attached to the new replacement poles at their current height. The report accompanying the application provides an assessment of the proposal against the Mitcham Development Plan, technical information, and visual assessment of the proposal, prepared by consultants KBR. Relevant extracts are at Attachment A.

27



ASSESSMENT A number of development plan provisions are of relevance to assessment of the proposal; these include as follows: Metropolitan • Objective 9 – Safe, pleasant, convenient and efficient residential zones. • Objective 30 re economy of the provision of public services (covering siting and

appearance of substations) • Objective 43 re appearance of land, buildings and objects not impairing amenity

of localities Council Wide • Objective 5 re streetscapes and landscapes not impaired by condition and

appearance of land, building and objects • Principles 96, 97 & 98 dealing variously with siting and landscaping of public

utilities, underground installation of electricity and telecommunications • Principles 145 & 146 re appearance of land, buildings and objects Zoning: State Heritage Area – Colonel Light Gardens • Objective 1 re conserving and reinforcing the heritage value and integrity of the

original three dimensional garden suburb design Principle 49 re location of telecommunications and electricity structure so as to complement the suburbs heritage value and not detract visually, with electricity poles……designed and located to retain the areas heritage value.

The matter has been referred to Council’s heritage advisor who has advised as follows: • State Heritage Area Colonel Light Gardens provisions seek to minimise

impact of public utilities including powerlines and poles. Where these exist in the suburb, they are in rear lanes or within the tree canopy except for the current high voltage line route.

• Goodwood Road, Light Place and Rozells Avenue are within the State

Heritage area. The provisions of the Zone seek to minimise not increase the visual impact of electricity infrastructure.

• While pole heights are generally at 19m to 20m within the State Heritage

Area, the replacement poles have a greater cross section thus adding to visual bulk; additional heavy duty cables and support arms are also proposed. This impact is not minor and will affect the amenity in the subject streets and will also be clearly visible over trees and roof tops from adjacent streets.

The heritage advisor does not support the proposal and suggests alternative route be selected. Administration believes the following comments should also be noted and brought to the Commission’s attention:

28



1. Although the application was submitted by the Development Assessment Commission under Section 49 of the Development Act, 1993, Administration considers that the matter should have been forwarded under Section 49A (dealing specifically with electrical infrastructure of up to 66kv and less than 5 km in length).

2. The Heritage Advisor’s concern over the selection of the route through a

State Heritage Area and its resultant impact on the Area is strongly endorsed. 3. Administration considers that the visual impact of the larger poles in Winston/

Leith/Clovelly Avenues will be significantly greater than indicated in the KBR report. While existing 11kv lines and poles are generally slightly above tree canopy height and substantially obscured, the doubling of height will render the replacement poles visible well above the tree canopy from public vantage points. In addition although no details were supplied, as indicated above, it is anticipated that the additional poles will be increased in cross section, and therefore bulkier, adding to the visual impact of the larger poles. Further, Winston Avenue, an important connector road carrying substantial traffic, has limited verge width to accommodate the above ground infrastructure proposed. No road safety audit appears to have been undertaken of potential increases in risk to safety.

4. The additional cabling to be installed as part of the infrastructure while clearly

necessary for the effective operation of the system appears not to have been considered in the visual assessment contained in the KBR report. The additional cabling will add to the visual clutter along the route, and the overall visual impact of the proposed development.

5. The Development Act requires that Section 49 or 49A projects exceeding $4

million need to be publicly notified. Although it is acknowledged that at $3.0 million, the project does not exceed the cost threshold, the proposal is nonetheless likely to have significant visual impacts at the least, and as such should be given public notification to allow community review and comment.

6. Replacement of infrastructure represents the most timely point to consider

carrying out undergrounding of these powerlines, given that this is a significant infrastructure project in any event. Given this timing and the above described impacts, there is a strong case for undergrounding either along the selected route or preferably along Goodwood Road direct to Cross Road, thence to the substation, which has not been explored in any detail in the report. Undergrounding of powerlines has already been undertaken within other arterial roads within the plains area within the City (Belair Road, South Road), some of this work being completed under the PLEC scheme.

It is considered that in the light of the foregoing, the matters raised above point to the need for a more comprehensive assessment of the proposal, including in particular: • A re-evaluation of the route selected and an exploration of an alternative route

not involving the State Heritage Area; • The merits including cost/ benefit of undergrounding the proposed powerline in

lieu of the proposed overhead installation for the Winston/ Leith/ Clovelly Avenue and State Heritage Area sections in particular;

• Other options for less bulky replacement poles with lower height.

29



RECOMMENDATION That the Development Assessment Commission be advised that the City of Mitcham objects to the proposal by ETSA Utilities for the upgrade / construction of a 66 kv sub-transmission line from Panorama to Clarence Gardens, as described in Development Application 49/080/0013/06, on the following grounds: 1. The application was submitted by the Development Assessment Commission

under Section 49 of the Development Act, 1993. Administration considers that this is an error in procedure and the proposal should be forwarded to Council under Section 49A of the Act.

2. The proposal is a project with significant visual impacts to a wide section of

the local community and as such should be given public notification to allow community review and comment.

3. The proposal is contrary to advice from the Heritage Advisor for the City of

Mitcham as the Mitcham Development Plan provisions aim at minimising not increasing the visual impact of electricity infrastructure in the State Heritage Area

4. The visual impact from the greatly increased height and/or bulk of the

replacement poles and the additional cabling will be significantly greater than indicated in the KBR report; rendering them more visible above the tree canopy from public vantage points in the locality. The additional heavy duty cabling will add to the visual clutter along the route, therefore requiring more care in route selection and overall design than has been proposed.

5. No road safety audit appears to have been undertaken of potential increases

in risk to safety created by the significantly bulkier poles within the limited verge width of Winston Avenue as collector road or the other local streets.

6. Given that this is a significant infrastructure project, the applicants should be

requested to consider providing an amended proposal involving undergrounding the proposed powerlines within the State Heritage Area, Goodwood Road and Winston – Leith-Clovelly Avenues as a recommended priority.

1



APPEALS UPDATE AS AT 20 OCTOBER 2006 (Ref: FF.01.2885) (Prepared: Mario Russo on 20 October 2006) (Function/Activity: Development Control/Reporting) PROPOSAL To inform Panel Members of the status of outstanding appeals. RECOMMENDATION That the report be received - For information only.


APPEALS

Current as at 20 October 2006

No.

ERD No APPLICATION NUMBER

NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICATION

APPEAL LODGED

DESCRIPTION PLANNERS RECOMMENDATION

DAP DECISION

ERD COURT PROGRESS


1. 04-411 - Panagiotidis 1 Winns Road, Blackwood

Nov 2004 Appeal against section 84 notice

- - Hearing deferred to November to allow Mr Panagiotidis to clean up yard in stages.

2. 05-445 080/1507/2004 Terra Equities

52 Price Street, Melrose Park

November 05 Appeal against refusal

Approval Refusal Hearing held on 4 July 2006, awaiting reserved judgement from Supreme Court.

3. 06-180 080/1066/05 Rossi 27 Kandahar Cres, CLG

May 06 Appeal against refusal

Approval Refusal Hearing scheduled for 18 December 2006.

4. 06-206 080/684/2005 Hanag Investments Pty Ltd

4 Western Avenue, Pasadena

June 06 Appeal against condition of approval

Approval under delegation

- Directions hearing held on 2 August 2006. Still pending withdrawal of appeal.

5. 06-233 080/207/2006 Atkins 22 Kyeema Avenue, Cumberland Park

June 06 Appeal against refusal

Approval Refusal Compromised plans approved by Council at its 1 August 2006 meeting. Awaiting court judgement.

7. 06-359 080/530/06 Kermode 20 Ackland Avenue, Clarence Gardens

Sept 06 Appeal against refusal

Approval Refusal Appeal to be heard January 2007


APPEALS

Current as at 20 October 2006

No.

ERD No APPLICATION NUMBER

NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICATION

APPEAL LODGED

DESCRIPTION PLANNERS RECOMMENDATION

DAP DECISION

ERD COURT PROGRESS


8. 06-368 080/1173/06 Juczenko 32 Eynesbury Avenue, Kingswood

Sept 06 Appeal against refusal

Refusal n/a Appeal to be heard on 12 December 2006

4



6 PARA STREET, EDEN HILLS (Ref: 080/1340/2006) Mark Swanbury (Prepared: 24 October 2006) (Function/Activity: Development Control/Regulating ) PROPOSAL To inform members of the on going problems associated with Development Application No. 080/1340/2003 situated at 6 Para Street, Eden Hills for Mr R.B. and Mrs J E Jacobs. BACKGROUND The owner’s (C/- Michael Grear Surveys) were granted approval on the 21 November 2003 to divide their property, refer Attachment A, creating one additional allotment at the previously mentioned property address, with 17 conditions and including 3 conditions from Development Assessment Commission being imposed on this development. On the 18 May 2006 Council was requested by Michael Grear Surveys to release Section 51 “DAC” clearance as their client had informed them that all the conditions associated with the development had been completed. As is the normal process a site inspection was carried out by myself on 9 June 2006, which revelled that civil works on - site did not match with the approved land division plan. This was conveyed to the owner who advised that there had been an amended plan, which had not been provided or checked and accepted by Council. Subsequently a meeting was scheduled on 10 July 2006 with Mr R.B. Jacobs, Mr Vahid Bhahaskaran – Koukourou Engineers, Mario Russo – Manager Development and Mark Swanbury – Development Officer Engineering to discuss and agree on the proposed civil works to be completed on site, prior to Section 51 “DAC” clearance being granted. A confirmation letter dated 10 July 2006 of the meeting and outcomes was forwarded to Mr Jacobs to alleviate any confusion on these matters in the future. Council was advised by email dated 13/9/06 from Mr Bhahaskaran that Mr Jacobs had completed the civil works overall and that a final inspection could now be scheduled etc. Subsequently a joint site inspection involving Mr Bhahaskaran and Mark Swanbury was arranged on the 22 September 2006, revealing a number of items still not completed satisfactorily. An example of some of the outstanding items are, as follows: • Removal of excess spoil from both the large and small detention basins from

site and from adjoining TransAdelaide land etc.

5



• Grassing up of large detention basin (which discharges stormwater into Council stormwater system) prior to Section 51 “DAC” clearance.

• Replacement / repair of post and wire fencing removed by owner to access site to carry out civil works etc.

• Stormwater overflow pipe from small detention basin required to be placed underground.

• Confirmation that road pavement has been installed as per design indicated on Drawing no. 66083.01 sheet 1 Rev. F dated 13 Sept. 06.

• Certificate of Compliance from the applicants Consulting Engineer that all works on site have been satisfactory completed.

A letter summarising these items was forwarded to Mr and Mrs Jacobs on 29 September 2006. DISCUSSION Mr Jacobs is strongly disputing Council’s outstanding items listed in Council’s letter of 29 September 2006, and requesting Section 51 “DAC” clearance to be granted immediately. Administration holds the view that the conditioned works need to be completed to Council’s satisfaction. In this regard Mr Bhahaskaran has advised in writing that he concurs with the issues raised by Council and subsequently advised his client to carry out the outstanding works in accordance with appropriate engineering standards and practices in his email to Mr Jacobs dated 13 October 2006. He suggested a competent civil contractor should be engaged to carry out the relevant works, and following a site inspection to verify satisfactory completion, Mr Bhahaskaran will subsequently issue a “Certificate of Compliance”. Jason Willcocks, Director, Planning and Development has advised Mr Jacobs that Council has no basis to change its view in this matter and that it has received verbal and written confirmation that the applicants consulting engineer Mr Bhahaskaran concurs with Council’s view in this matter. In summary Council will not be in a position to release Section 51 “DAC” clearance until it has received a “Certificate of Compliance” from the applicants consulting engineer and a final on - site inspection verifies that all civil works have been satisfactory completed. RECOMMENDATION That the report be noted.

6



REPORTS OUTSTANDING, RESOLUTIONS NOT YET EFFECTED AND DELEGATED APPLICATIONS TO ADMINISTRATION (Ref: FF.01.779) (Prepared: Mario Russo on 24 October 2006) (Function/Activity: Governance / Committees) PROPOSAL To inform members of reports and actions which have been requested and their current status. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At meetings of the Development Assessment Panel, reports are often requested concerning certain items which must be submitted to subsequent meetings. Actions are also requested and their current status is recorded in the attached table. Also attached for Members’ information are the outcomes of applications that have been delegated to Administration to approve under delegated authority, subject to specified amended plans and/or conditions being met. Attachment A is a table detailing the reports outstanding and resolutions not yet effected and a brief summary of their status. RECOMMENDATION That the report be noted.

7



QUESTIONS ON NOTICE AS AT 24 OCTOBER 2006 (Ref: FF.02.115) (Prepared: Mario Russo on 24 October 2006) (Function/Activity: Governance / Committees)

PROPOSAL

To inform members of responses and actions which have been requested and their current status.

BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION

At meetings of the Development Assessment Panel, responses are requested to issues raised by a Panel member, which must be submitted to subsequent meetings. Their current status is recorded in the table below.

as at 24 October 2006

DATE FILE NO DETAILS OFFICER

3/10/06 080/553/03 10.1 46-50 BLYTHEWOOD ROAD, MITCHAM At its 3 October 2006 meeting C Hart asked the following questions: Q1. Under what provision of the Development Act or its regulations is

the decision–making process being delayed?

A1. The proposal has been deferred pursuant to the provisions of Section 39(4)(a) of the Development Act 1993. Where a relevant authority may permit an applicant to vary an application or plans, drawings and other documents that accompany the application. If the relevant authority does not permit such variations, then the application has the right to withdraw the application, pursuant to 39(a) of the Development Act 1993.

Q2. Did the Council request further information, and if not under what

provision is the applicant being permitted to “provide further information”?

A2. As state above, the applicant has provisions in the Development

Act to provide further information at any time in support of this application. This can be made right up to the time of assessment.

Q3. Is the applicant varying the application, and if so, what provision is

being made for objectors to consider the variation? A3. The applicant has advised that he wishes to amend the application

by incorporating further design features relating to environmental sustainability for the purposes of delivery a leading 5 Green Star energy efficient development. The applicant is also obtaining further legal and planning advice to be submitted as part of the application. Once this further information has been received, an assessment will be made if it constitutes a significant change to the proposal and wether it needs to be re-advertised. Minor

MR

CURRENT STATUS OF RESPONSES REQUESTED OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

8



changes and amendments to address concerns raised by representors do not need to be re-notified, pursuant to Regulation 20(3) of the Development Act.

Q4. If the independent planner has advised that the application be

refused by the DAP, why is it still under review by Council’s Planning Department?

A4. The application as it stands is not under review. What will be assessment is any additional information that may be forthcoming from the applicant, against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The information will have to be significant for there to be any change to the recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION That the report be noted.

Date post:	27-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangthien
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL · 3.1 58 carlisle road, westbourne park (report no: ......

Documents