february 9th, 2004 - built agenda - alexandrina council · witold grzesiak an officer of the...

ALEXANDRINA COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given to the Members that a meeting of the Development Assessment Panel will be held in the

Milang Institute Supper Room on 9 February 2004 commencing at 11:00 am

Your attendance is requested. 11:00 a.m. Development Assessment Panel commencement 12:00 noon Conclusion of meeting.

JOHN COOMBE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

ALEXANDRINA COUNCIL

AGENDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2004 AT 11:00 AM

IN MILANG INSTITUTE SUPPER ROOM

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ..........................................................................3 ITEM 2. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS .......................................................................3 ITEM 3. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - NON-COMPLYING........................................4

3.1 455/1096/03 - GJ & CD Hambling .......................................................................4 3.2 455/D588/03 - L Veska / CN & JI Crabtree.........................................................10

ITEM 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - CATEGORY 3.............................................21 ITEM 5. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - LAND DIVISION COMMUNITY TITLE ..............................................................................................................21 ITEM 6. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - BUILDING ....................................................21 ITEM 7. MATTERS REFERRED FOR FOLLOW-UP........................................................21 ITEM 8. GENERAL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ...............................................................22

8.1 455/D584/03 - Weber, Frankiw & Associates On Behalf Of A & G Bennetts Nominees Pty Ltd ............................................................................................22

8.2 455/D677/03 - Vaudan Nominees......................................................................25 ITEM 9. NEXT MEETING..............................................................................................25

Alexandrina Council

Development Assessment Panel Agenda 9th February 2004

3

Development Assessment Panel Report and Agenda

on 9 FEBRUARY 2004 commencing at 11:00 am in the Milang Institute Supper Room

PRESENT APOLOGIES IN ATTENDANCE

ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Alexandrina Council Development Assessment Panel held on 19th January 2004. RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Alexandrina Council Development Assessment Panel held on 19th January 2004 as circulated to members be received as a true and accurate record.

ITEM 2. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Alexandrina Council


4

ITEM 3. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - NON-COMPLYING

3.1 455/1096/03 - GJ & CD Hambling

SUMMARY TABLE Date of Application 22nd August 2003

Subject Land 7 Fresian Drive, Strathalbyn (Dawson Creek Estate)

Assessment No. A 10568

Relevant Authority Alexandrina Council

Planning Zone Residential (Strathalbyn)

Nature of Development Erection of a 13.7 metre telecommunications tower and 64m2 antenna on top.

Type of Development Non-complying

Public Notice Category 3

Referrals Telephone discussion with Mr W Grzesiak, Aust. Telecommunications Authority 13/1/04 Katnich Dodd for structural calcs.

Representations Received 9

Representations to be heard 1 (applicant)

Date last inspected 21st January 2004

Recommendation Refuse as the application is seriously at variance with the Principles and Objectives of the Development Plan.

Originating Officer Graham Webster ESD IMPACT/BENEFIT • Environmental Loss of amenity due to possible interference to

neighbours’ televisions, radios and other electronic equipment. Degradation of the character of this exclusive offering of land known as “Dawson Creek Estate” that clearly did not envisage a 13.7 high telecommunications tower to be constructed virtually in the centre of the Estate. Loss of amenity due to size, shape and proportions of the tower not anticipated by other property owners in the Estate. Loss of amenity due to a possible increase in wind noise.

…/cont.

Alexandrina Council


5

3.1 455/1096/03 – GJ & CD Hambling (Continued)

• Social Possible loss of amenity due to a perceived effect on the type of lifestyle afforded by living in a “planned” estate that carries strict encumbrances.

• Economic Possible effect on the value of properties given that a 13.7m tower may not be seen as attractive by potential purchasers in future.

BACKGROUND The Applicant having purchased a dwelling situated at 7 Fresian Drive, in Dawson Creek Estate, Strathalbyn in 2003, now wishes to erect a free standing 13.7 metre high telecommunications tower with a 64 square metre antenna on top to aid his hobby as an amateur radio enthusiast. Land in Dawson Creek Estate was released in 1993 and was marketed to offer an exclusive lifestyle of only 15 building allotments abutting Dawson Creek within the Residential Zone of Strathalbyn. Strict encumbrances were pre -determined to protect the character and amenity envisaged for this Estate. As the term ‘amenity’ will be used in the remainder of this report it is important to restate its meaning in relation to the Development Act 1993. “Amenity of a locality or building means any quality, condition or factor that makes, or contributes to making, the locality or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable”. THE PROPOSAL The Applicant being licensed as an amateur radio operator, wishes to erect a 13.7 metre high tower. A 64 square metre antenna will be attached to the top of this tower. The tower is to be located in the rear yard 6.8 metres from the closest property boundary. A relatively poor copy of a photo of the proposed antennae is attached. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.1(a) (page 1) SITE AND LOCALITY Dawson Creek Estate lies to the west of the township centre near West Terrace and Ashbourne Road abutting Dawson Creek which is lined by mature eucalypts and other indigenous vegetation.

…/cont.

Alexandrina Council


6

3.1 455/1096/03 – GJ & CD Hambling (Continued) The applicant’s land situate Lot 13, 7 Fresian Drive is 1,000 square metres in area and is centrally located within the Estate. All fifteen blocks in this small estate are of similar proportions creating a low density residential character. Fourteen houses have been constructed along Fresian Drive, the only road in the Estate. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 38(5) this application has been treated as Category 3. A Public Notice was issued on the 6th of November 2003. COMMUNITY RESPONSE Nine (9) representations were received opposing the application, all being residents of Fresian Drive. No -one wished to be heard before the Panel. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.1(b) (page 2) Reasons for Representations varied but in the main related to residents’ concerns over the loss of visual amenity, inappropriateness for a residential area, against the intention for the Dawson Creek Estate, excessive size of the structure and possible interference with television and radio reception. RESPONSE BY THE APPLICANT The Applicant submitted his response to those representations on the 5th of December. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.1(c) (page 17) REFERRALS Wind and stability factors have been referred to external duly qualified consultants who believe the design to be appropriate. The applicant received Provisional Building Rules Consent on the 21st of October 2003. A telephone conversation took place between the author of this report and Mr Witold Grzesiak an officer of the Australian Telecommunications Authority on the thirteenth of January 2004. On learning of the height and dimens ions proposed for transmitting he said that this “may cause problems” for neighbours’ televisions, radios and other electrical equipment.

…/cont.

Alexandrina Council


7

3.1 455/1096/03 – GJ & CD Hambling (Continued) ALEXANDRINA COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following Objectives and Principles of Development Control are seen as especially relevant to this application: Council Wide – Objective 2

A proper distribution and segregation of living, working and recreational activities by the allocation of suitable areas of land for those purposes.

Whilst the activities of an amateur radio enthusiast are accepted as being within the definition of ‘hobby activities’, the erection of a 13.7 metre tower with a 64 square metre antenna raises the very point as to why the Development Plan calls for segregation of activities into suitable areas (zones). A Rural Living Zone would be far more appropriate for such an activity. As stated below, Council Wide Objective 62 clearly calls for telecommunications facilities to be placed in non residential zones. This structure is incompatible to the amenity of this locality under Council’s Development Plan Residential Zoning. Council Wide – Objective 29

The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings, and objects.

Whilst it may be reasonable to expect to see antennae on high towers in industrial, rural and rural living zones, it is not reasonable to impair the amenity of a relatively new housing estate with such a structure. Council Wide – Objective 62

Telecommunications facilities located and designed to minimise visual impact on the amenity of the local environment.

The construction of new (telecommunications) facilities is encouraged in preferred industrial and commercial and appropriate non residential zones.

Clearly the intention of the Development Plan is to discourage inappropriate communications equipment in appropriate zones. Residential Zones are not deemed to be appropriate as evidenced by this Objective.. Council Wide – Principle 58

The appearance of land, buildings and objects should not impair the amenity or character of the locality in which they are situated.

Alexandrina Council


8

…/cont. 3.1 455/1096/03 – GJ & CD Hambling (Continued)

As stated above the risk of impairing the amenity and character of the locality is significant taking into account:

• loss of amenity due to possible interference to neighbours’ televisions, radios and other electronic equipment.

• degradation of the character of this exclusive offering of land known as “Dawson Creek Estate” that clearly did not envisage a 13.7m high telecommunications tower to be constructed virtually in the centre of the Estate.

• loss of amenity due to size, shape and proportions of the tower not anticipated by other property owners in the Estate.

• loss of amenity due to a possible increase in wind noise • possible loss of amenity due to a perceived effect on the type of lifestyle

afforded by living in a “planned” estate that carries strict encumbrances. Council Wide – Principle 80

Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of its locality or cause nuisance to the community: (a) by the emission of noise, vibration, …electrical interference…

There exists the possibility of increased localised wind noise as winds pass through this structure. Also, according to telephone advice received from Mr Witold Grzesiak an officer of the Australian Telecommunications Authority on the thirteenth of January 2004, transmitting through a system as significant as requiring a tower 13.7 metres high and an antenna of 64 square metres in area may cause problems for neighbours’ televisions, radios and other electrical equipment. RECOMMENDATION That the Development Assessment Panel refuse Application 455/1096/03 on the grounds that this application is seriously at variance with the Principles and Objectives of the Alexandrina Council Development Plan and in particular: 1. That this structure is incompatible to the amenity being strived for

under Council's Development Plan Residential Zoning and contrary to Council Wide Objective 2. 'A proper distribution and segregation of living, working and recreational activities by the allocation of suitable areas of land for those purposes.'

Alexandrina Council


9

…/cont. 3.1 455/1096/03 – GJ & CD Hambling (Continued)

2. That it is reasonable to envisage that the amenity of this locality will

be impaired by the appearance of this object in contravention of Council Wide Objectives 29 & 62 and Council Wide Principle 58.

'The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings, and objects'. 'The construction of new (telecommunications) facilities is encouraged in preferred industrial and commercial and appropriate non residential zones'.

'The appearance of land, buildings and objects should not impair the amenity or character of the locality in which they are situated.'

3. That on advice received from the Australian Telecommunications

Authority there exists the possibility of loss of amenity and nuisance due to possible electrical interference in contravention of Council Wide Principle 80.

'Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of its locality or cause nuisance to the community:

(a) by the emission of noise, vibration, ... electrical interference ...'

Alexandrina Council


10

3.2 455/D588/03 - L Veska / CN & JL Crabtree

SUMMARY TABLE Date of Application 26th June 2003

Subject Land Lot 2 Island View Drive, Clayton

Assessment No. A13587


Planning Zone Waterfront

Nature of Development Land division – creating 1 extra allotment

Type of Development Non-complying


Referrals Dept Environment & Heritage SA Water PIRSA DAC

Representations Received 20

Representations to be heard 5

Date last inspected 14th January 2004

Recommendation Refusal

Originating Officer Ben Green ESD IMPACT/BENEFIT • Environmental Creation of additional allotments in the

Waterfront Zone will increase development pressures and wastes in these environmentally sensitive areas.

• Social The possible impact on adjoining landowners in the Country Township Zone with the potential loss of natural outlook and views if another dwelling is constructed on the new title. The perception of a development of this nature being a Non-complying development and therefore that it should not be approved.

• Economic Benefit to the applicant due to an increase in land value and potential sale of the additional allotment. Also to the Council with additional rating revenue.

Alexandrina Council


11

…/cont. 3.2 455/D588/03 – L Veska / CN & JL Crabtree (Continued)

BACKGROUND This land division application was given approval to proceed with assessment at the Development Assessment Panel meeting on the 21st of July 2003. Since this time the applicants have engaged a planning consultant to undertake a detailed Statement of Effect and the application was put on Category 3 Public Notice. The applicant has also submitted a response to the representations and all necessary referrals have been received. THE PROPOSAL Nature of the Development Under Principle of Development Control 12 of the Waterfront Zone in the Alexandrina Development Plan, Land Division creating an additional Title is a Non-Complying form of development. Detailed Description The applicants’ proposal is to divide Lot 2 Island View Drive, Clayton to create one additional allotment. The allotments proposed will be 1.0ha and 1.7ha in area and will each have a substantial frontage to Island View Drive. The larger northern allotment proposed will retain the dwelling currently under construction with associated sheds and carport. The smaller southern allotment will retain the existing boatshed and tractor shed complex. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(a) (page 23) The Applicant has provided a detailed Statement of Effect as required by Regulation 17 (1) of the Development Regulations, that includes a Land Management Agreement (LMA) over the proposed new Title to be created, which would be a legally binging agreement between the Council and the owner of the Title created. The applicant argues that the LMA will minimise the impact of this application & ensure that existing remnant indigenous vegetation will be conserved, protected and enhanced by:

o A single storey dwelling with loft to be strategically located on the western boundary adjacent to the Island View Drive intersection to minimise any adverse impacts on the adjoining property owners.

o No new tracks are to be established and vehicle access is to be restricted.

Alexandrina Council


12


o No use of chemical, synthetic fertilisers, fungicides, pesticides or herbicides except as weed control.

o No grazing except by indigenous fauna and small numbers of sheep. o No intensive or irrigated agricultural/horticultural production or activity

undertaken on this land. o Selected local indigenous plants will be retained and fenced to allow

regeneration of target species. o Long term control of veldt grass by cutting/spraying etc & also long term

control of general weeds. o Re-establishment of riparian vegetation at waters edge. o Screening of buildings with tree planting list provided.

REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(b) (page 24) SITE & LOCALITY The subject land lies on the corner of Island View Drive and Alexandrina Drive on the entrance into Clayton from Milang and has an area of approximately 2.7ha. The property is roughly rectangular in shape and rises to the northern boundary and also has a gentle rise towards the centre of the property. The majority of the property is cleared of vegetation except for tree planting undertaken along the road boundary and some mature vegetation around the tractor and boat sheds. The property has two distinct raised, potential development sites on it, the northern site comprises a Council approved architecturally designed dwelling currently under construction and associated shedding and water tanks. There is also a boat and tractor shed complex located in the southern portion of the allotment. Both sites gain access from Island View Drive. The boat shed is currently being lived in by the applicants with Council approval on a limited basis until such time that the dwelling is liveable. There is a gazetted road abutting the eastern boundary of the subject land that has not been constructed and is unlikely to be due to its proximity to the water. Around the site to the south and east of the road reserve is all public reserve and the Lake commonly known as ‘Dunns Lagoon’ with no built development evident. Across the road in a westerly direction is the start of the township of Clayton in the form of Residential allotments of around 1000m2 in area, zoned Country Township (Clayton). Across Alexandrina Drive in a northerly direction from the subject land is currently vacant land zoned Country Township. Council staff currently are assessing a 60 plus Residential allotment subdivision application with the main issue being water supply. The applicant has stated that the subject land was previously used for sand extraction in the 1960’s and lucerne cultivation.

Alexandrina Council


13


REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(c) (page 68) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION & STATEMENT OF EFFECT The application was put on Category 3 Public Notification pursuant to Section 38(5) of the Development Act 1993 on the 23rd of October 2003. There were 20 representations received within the required time frame. Of the 20 representations 16 were against the proposal, 3 were conditionally against the proposal and one was in support of the proposal. Five of the representors indicated they would like to be heard before the Development Assessment Panel when making the decision. Sarah Bolt originally lodged some concerns with the proposal after being sent information regarding the application at her remote place of employment. However upon returning to Clayton and viewing the plans and speaking with the applicants after careful consideration she has since changed her opinion on the application and has sent through correspondence to Council to this effect. This representor lives directly opposite the proposed dwelling site on the southern corner of Shoreline and Island View Drive. The representation that supported the application stated they initially had concern with the proposal but realised after speaking with the applicant that with the Land Management Agreement put in place there are tight controls to the effect that the land will be in effect properly managed on environmental grounds. This representor also lives across the road from the subject land towards the northern section of the property. This is a brief summary of the main issues raised by the representors. Copies of the representations submitted are attached, and should be referred to for a comprehensive understanding of the representors concerns. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(d) (page 69)

o Non-Complying Development – associated perception that applications of this nature should not be approved as these are developments that Council do not support. Some residents believe that they were advised of this by Council staff in the past.

o Development has been conditional on this property in the past to only

allow one dwelling on the property so therefore this development should not proceed as it is in contradiction.

o Impact on Views – site lines reduced of Dunns Lagoon and the Coorong

with the introduction of an additional dwelling.

Alexandrina Council


14


o Impact on Property Values – reduced values due to loss of views and

impact/further development on waterfront land.

o Loss of Amenity – should be protected by allowing only minimal or restricted development, unique environmental location.

o Environmentally Sensitive Area – vegetation, waterway, birdlife, fish etc

o Another Title in a Flood Prone area.

o Nature Reserve Area – already had the one dwelling and associated

outbuildings permitted that should be the limit and not any further development as proposed.

o Septic located to close to the Lake – associated impacts of runoff of

irrigation on the waterway and wetlands.

o Sheep grazing close to waterway and wetland as stated in the LMA could have impacts on the waterway.

The applicant provided a response to the representations within the required time frame, which is thorough and well informed. The applicants response addressed all the objections by looking at the common concerns that emerged and then where necessary addressed specific concerns raised by the representors. The applicant also provided a further 6 representations of support from landowners living around Clayton. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(e) (page 124) CONSULTATION The application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Department (EHO, Kim Vivian) and Technical Services Department (TSO, Dennis Zanker), General Inspector (Kevin Dodd) and Council’s Natural Resource Officer (David Cooney) for comment as detailed below: Technical Services – No Comment. Environmental Health – Effluent disposal is required to be 100m from the pool level of the River Murray and Lakes and above the 1956 flood level. It is their opinion that these requirements can be met by the proposal put forward by the applicant.

Alexandrina Council


15


REFER ATTACHEMENT 3.2(f) (page 169) General Inspectors – Stated in relation to fire prevention that the landowner is ultimately responsible for the spread and control of fire on or through the land. The landowner has the obligation to undertake this requirement. On inspection from the Bushfire Prevention Officer an assessment is made of the property and if required a Section 40 Notice under the Country Fires Act can ensure the work is carried out. Natural Resource Officer – Initially had concerns with this application but due to the quality of the Land Management Agreement he is of the opinion that the long term preservation of the subject land through the LMA (with a few minor changes listed below) would be a more secure result than the potential harm a different owner could cause through a number of legitimate activities on the land. REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(g) (page 170) Suggested amendments to the LMA are as follows:

1. The boundary to be fenced or defined with bollards to keep in stock but more importantly to show what is public land.

2. That the boatshed be decommissioned by way of having no toilets to then only have the proposed second dwelling with this facility.

3. Height of slashing, stock duration/numbers/types and fencing all need reconsideration and looked into most appropriate outcome.

REFERRALS The Development Assessment Commission reinforced that the proposed plan of division involves the creation of an additional allotment in the Waterfront Zone at Clayton and is listed as non-complying in Principle of Development Control 12 as no additional allotments are envisaged in the Mount Lofty Ranges Primary production Area. The proposal is not considered to be protecting the natural open character and features of the zone as envisaged in the zone objectives. The Commission also stated that as the application is Non-Complying should the Council approve the application that the concurrence of the Development Assessment is required. SA Water stated that the financial, easement and internal drain requirements for water and sewerage services of the SA Water Corporation. PIRSA had no comments on the application.

Alexandrina Council


16


Department for Environment & Heritage have stated that in terms of obligations under the RAMSAR convention the proposed development is not technically within the RAMSAR boundary. However developments adjacent to a RAMSAR site should consider any adverse impacts that they may cause on the site. It was stated that the Statement of Effect addresses most of the environmental concerns adequately apart from the type of septic tank system anticipated to be used for the proposed dwelling. (Problems discussed in referral attached) REFER ATTACHMENT 3.2(h) (page 172) ALEXANDRINA COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following Objectives and Principles of Development Control are seen as especially relevant to this application: COUNCIL WIDE Objectives 1,2, 15, 18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 40, 60 Principles 2, 3, 6 , 7, 77/78 and 160-166 STRAHALBYN REGION Objective 5,10, 11,1314 and16 Principle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 42 WATERFRONT ZONE Objective 1: A zone containing land developed for low intensity primary

production purposes or managed for conservation. Objective 2: Protection of the natural open character and features of the

zone. Objective 3: Maintenance of the water quality of Lake Alexandrina and

associated watercourses. Objective 4: Prevention of development on land inundated by the 1956 flood

where that development could be damaged by flooding or which may impede the natural drainage of surface flow of waters.

Principles 1 Buildings should not be erected other than those:

(a) necessary for navigation, public works, public recreation facilities or park management;

(b) located at Clayton between Gorge and Lowther Streets for residential and associated domestic purposes;

(c) required for the establishment of recreation, tourist facilities or facilities for boat mooring, servicing or storage of boats adjacent to Milang or Clayton; or

(d) associated with management of primary production.

Alexandrina Council


17


2 Buildings, other than those required for public works or recreation

facilities, should not be undertaken within 100 metres of the waterfront outside of townships.

3 Buildings other than agricultural buildings should not exceed 6.0 metres

in height above natural ground surface level. 4 New allotments should not be created within land inundated by the 1956

flood, except where required to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives of the zone where the zone adjoins Milang or Clayton.

5 Development which restricts public access to the waterfront or impeding

the safe movement of boats and other waterborne craft should not be undertaken.

6 Dwellings and other buildings for human occupation should be

connected to an adequate all-purpose septic tank soakage system. 7 Development liable to degrade the natural features and character of the

zone should not be undertaken. 8 Development liable to pollute or contaminate Lake Alexandrina or

adjoining watercourses, or affect detrimentally the quality of water near the Milang pumping station should not be undertaken.

9 Development liable to cause pollution or contamination of Lake

Alexandrina or the lower River Murray, prejudice the conservation of water resources or cause environmental damage should not be undertaken.

10 Development involving the use of materials or structures which are

unsightly or in a poorly maintained or dilapidated condition should not be undertaken.

11 Buildings and structures erected in this zone should be designed and

constructed in an unobtrusive location so as to harmonise with the character of the locality.

Non-complying Development 12 All kinds of development are non-complying in the Waterfront

Zone, except the following:

Land Division creating an additional allotment is not exempt.

Alexandrina Council


18


COMMENTS Land division creating an additional title is clearly defined as a non-complying development in the Waterfront Zone. This restriction is in place to protect environmentally sensitive wetland and highly visible waterfront land from being divided in to increasingly smaller units for rural living or residential uses. The Alexandrina Development Plan Structure Plan for Clayton parts (b) and (g) addresses the issues of maintaining waterfront land (as this land is zoned) free from unsightly development and ensuring that the attractive waterfront aspects of the town are retained. Objective 1 of the Waterfront Zone suggests that land in the Waterfront Zone should be managed for conservation purposes. A key strategy for implementing this goal is the restriction of land division, and encouraging the amalgamation of allotments or realignment of boundaries to minimise the development potential on the land. Dividing waterfront land to create an additional allotment and new dwelling as proposed in the application is an intensification of development on the land and not in line with the principles of conservation laid out in the Development Plan. Principle of Development Control 4 of the Waterfront Zone refers to land division facilitating the development of the land in accordance with the objectives for the zone. The objectives of the Waterfront Zone relate primarily to maintaining low intensity primary production, conservation, and the protection of natural open character, water quality and natural drainage flows in flood prone areas. The division of land for private sale and to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling, even when linked with a Land Management Agreement, is an increase in density and development and not directly compatible with the goals of conservation and low density natural open space. I believe that a land division to facilitate the objectives of the zone would, for example: be to create a reserve allotment for public open space, or possibly include a Land Management Agreement ensuring no further development would occur on the new allotment other than conservation works. If the land division is approved the additional privately held allotment creates an expectation for an additional dwelling. The Waterfront Zone does not encourage new dwellings, and as part of this allotment is within the 1956 flood zone, any application for a dwelling would most likely be treated as non-complying (WF Zone Principle of Development Control 12 Detached Dwelling (c)). Any new dwelling may meet standard requirements for septic tanks, stormwater, maximum height etc, but these physical aspects of the application should not be the only considerations. Preventing further intensification of land use by allowing another dwelling with associated residential activity, domestic animals, waste and all that goes with increasing the amount of people residing in the area is also an important issue and would contribute to changing the very nature of this waterfront area.

Alexandrina Council


19


The design and siting of the proposed dwelling do minimise its visual and environmental impact. The issue of rights over views was addressed adequately by the applicants response. The issue of property values is not a valid argument on planning grounds. Flood risk is closely debatable, as is the appropriateness of the septic due to its close proximity to the waterway. However from the mapping information available it seems as if the proposed location of the dwelling is likely to be acceptable under the current Health Code. Environmental impact and the effect of the proposal on the character and amenity of the locality are hard to quantify. It is my opinion that especially where an application is non-complying the precautionary principle should be applied to any potential future environmental impacts. When making an assessment on how land is used the issue of the future ownership of the land is not a valid argument in relation to planning. The fact that a land management agreement binds the new owner to undertake certain requirements should not be given greater importance or weight than if the land was sold as a whole and purchased by a new owner. Any change of land use or new development must be assessed against the Development Act and Development Plan, under the current ownership or new ownership. This application is non-complying, and although the applicant has gone to great lengths to incorporate a Land Management Agreement and provide additional details (dwelling plans etc.) to demonstrate to Council that it has sufficient merit to be approved, I believe that this is not enough to demonstrate that the application has significant merit and should be approved. The additional information and Land Management Agreement are designed to minimise and somewhat disguise the impact of the proposal. They do not change the basic nature of the proposal, which is clearly not compatible with the provisions of the Waterfront Zone. As land prices rise and pressure for rural living lifestyles increases, Council is continually receiving an increasing number of applications for non-complying land divisions in General Farming, Grazing, Watershed, and Waterfront Zones. These applications are rarely supported by the Development Assessment Panel or the Development Assessment Commission. That land division is classed as non-complying in these areas is in indication of the importance of this policy to preserving primary production and environmentally and/or culturally important land from rural living and residential pressures.

Alexandrina Council


20


Most importantly in conclusion, I believe that the best way for Council to ensure that future urban development happens in an orderly fashion is to ensure that planning decisions are consistently made in accordance with the current zoning in the Development Plan, and that the Development Plan is continually updated to reflect the community and council’s goals for specific areas. I do not believe that this proposal is in keeping with the relevant provisions within the Development Plan, in particular those relating to land division, character and amenity. As such I believe that if approved, the proposal may jeopardise the future orderly development (or protection from development) of the waterfront land in Clayton.

RECOMMENDATION That the Development Assessment Panel refuse the non-complying land division application 455/D588/03 creating an additional allotment in the Waterfront Zone at Lot 2 Island View Drive, Clayton as it is at variance with the following relevant requirements of the Alexandrina Development Plan; Strathalbyn District Objective 1 (Clayton Structure Plan)

b) identification of the waterfront land which should be kept free from unsightly development, and maintenance of public access to that land;

g) identification of a future urban area where control over rural or urban development will ensure that the attractive waterfront characteristics of the town are retained.

Principle 1 Development should be orderly and economic. Division of

land for urban purposes should be by infilling or compact and contiguous extensions to existing developed areas.

Waterfront Zone Objective 1: A zone containing land developed for low intensity primary production purposes or managed for conservation.

Objective 2: Protection of the natural open character and features of the zone. Principle 1 Buildings should not be erected other than those:

(a) necessary for navigation, public works, public recreation facilities or park management;

Alexandrina Council


21

…/cont. 3.2 455/D588/03 – L Veska / CN & JL Crabtree (Continued) (b) located at Clayton between Gorge and Lowther Streets for residential and associated domestic purposes; (c) required for the establishment of recreation, tourist facilities or

facilities for boat mooring, servicing or storage of boats adjacent to Milang or Clayton; or

(d) associated with management of primary production. Principle 4 New allotments should not be created within land inundated

by the 1956 flood, except where required to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives of the zone where the zone adjoins Milang or Clayton.

ITEM 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - CATEGORY 3

ITEM 5. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - LAND DIVISION COMMUNITY TITLE

ITEM 6. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - BUILDING

ITEM 7. MATTERS REFERRED FOR FOLLOW-UP

Alexandrina Council


22

ITEM 8. GENERAL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

8.1 455/D584/03 - Weber, Frankiw & Associates On Behalf Of A & G Bennetts Nominees Pty Ltd

SUMMARY TABLE Date of Application 16th June 2003

Subject Land Lot 606 in DP 54155 & lots 113 & 114 in DP 56009, Eyre Court, Mount Compass

Assessment No. A 9418 & A 16781


Planning Zone Country Living

Nature of Development Land division – creating 6 additional allotments

Type of Development Consent on Merit


Referrals N/A

Representations Received N/A

Representations to be heard N/A

Date last inspected

Recommendation Refuse to support amended plans

Originating Officer Georgia West ESD IMPACT/BENEFIT • Environmental The subject land is steep, partly covered with

vegetation, which is holding fragile, predominantly sandy soil, having the potential for erosion and other environmentally unsustainable impacts. Although the land is zoned for development, consideration has to be given to the topography and vegetation and micro eco system, prior consent is granted.

• Social The “creation” of six allotments will provide accommodation for six households, in a pleasant country living environment on reasonable size allotments, overlooking an existing golf course.

…/cont.

Alexandrina Council


23

8.1 455/D584/03 – WEBER, FRANKIW & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF A & G BENNETTS NOMINEES PTY LTD (Continued)

• Economic Benefits accrue to the applicant who will have the potential to develop six additional allotments in the sub division, subject to extensive earthworks and engineering, that will need to be carried out to provide essential street construction and development, in difficult terrain, within a Bushfire Prone Area.

BACKGROUND This application was refused by the Development Assessment Panel at its meeting on the 7th of October 2003. The applicant has appealed to the Environment, Resources and Development Court against the refusal. Please refer to the previous planners report for details on the proposal, subject land, and detailed Development Plan assessment. REFER ATTACHMENT 8.1(a) (page 175) THE PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted amended plans for discussion at the Environment, Resources and Development Court Conference to be held on the 17th of February 2004. The amened plans seek to take into account the existing vegetation on the allotments. The applicant has also stated that they are willing to place building envelopes over the proposed allotments to be managed with a Land Management Agreement or encumbrance. REFER ATTACHMENT 8.1(b) (page 186) COMMENTS The original report on this application detailed a number of concerns about this proposal, in summary:

• Construction of a new road from an existing ‘dead end’ and expectations of original land purchases on Eyre Court that this would remain a ‘court’ or dead end.

• Environmental and visual impact of major earthworks required for proposed road to meet minimum gradient and width requirements, in particular for garbage collection and emergency vehicles.

…/cont.

Alexandrina Council


24

8.1 455/D584/03 – WEBER, FRANKIW & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF A & G BENNETTS NOMINEES PTY LTD (Continued)

• Environmental and visual impact of major earthworks required to level/construct house sites on the proposed allotments.

• Environmental impact of clearance of remaining native vegetation (not just large trees) for dwelling sites, access etc.

• Stormwater and sewerage. The land division was not considered to have been designed in a manner complementary to the natural land form of the area, and does not ensure maximum retention of native vegetation as required by Principle of Development Control 9 of the Country Living Zone. The earthworks associated with the proposal are likely to lead to undue erosion of the land, and the location, slope and nature of the land is not considered suitable for the proposed purpose of the division (Council Wide Principle of Development Control 6). I do not believe that the amended plans address the original reasons for refusal sufficiently to warrant support. RECOMMENDATION The Development Assessment Panel does not support the amended plans lodged for discussion at the Environment, Resources and Development Court conference.

Alexandrina Council


25

8.2 455/D677/03 - Vaudan Nominees

File Ref: 455/9677/03 Officer: Joanne Nightingale

REPORT Council received a Land Division 455/D576/03 on 11th June 2003. This application was refused at a meeting of the Development Assessment Panel on 21st July 2003. The applicants then submitted an amended plan for direction from the Panel at a meeting held 25th August 2003. Application 455/D677/03 (received 2nd December 2003) constitutes these amended plans presented as a new application. This application has been deemed to be Non-complying and therefore required a Statement of Support. This Statement was requested in writing on 29th December 2003 and received by Council on 27th January 2004. This did not enable enough time for the Officer to write a comprehensive report on the application but due to its urgent nature we request a Development Assessment Panel meeting prior to the March Council meeting. REFER ATTACHMENT 8.2 (page 192) RECOMMENDATION That the Development Assessment Panel advise of a convenient meeting date.

ITEM 9. NEXT MEETING

Meeting closed at ………………………………………………

february 9th, 2004 - built agenda - alexandrina council · witold grzesiak an officer of the...

Documents