notice of council assessment panel meeting · the proposal is to remove two regulated trees, one...

Notice of Council Assessment Panel Meeting

Tuesday 15 October 2019

MEMBERSHIP

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

NOTICE is given pursuant to Sections 87 and 88 of the Local Government Act 1999 that the next COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING will be held in the Council Chambers, 571 Montague Road, Modbury on TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2019 commencing at 10.00AM

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied.

JOHN MOYLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: 09 October 2019

Council Assessment Panel Meeting - 15 October 2019

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 15 OCTOBER 2019

AGENDA

1. Attendance Record:

1.1 Present 1.2 Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting

That the Minutes of the Council Assessment Panel Meeting held on 17 September 2019be confirmed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

3. Business Arising from Previous Minutes - Nil

4. Reports and Recommendations

4.1 CAP.070/117478/2019 - Removal of Two (2) Regulated Trees withinNiemeyer Reserve at 30-36 Whitlam Street, St Agnes ......................................... 5

Recommended to Grant Development Approval

4.2 CAP.070/117547/2019 - Carport Forward of the Dwelling at 128 Perseverance Road, Vista ........................................................................... 49

Recommended for Refusal


5. Other Business

5.1 E.R.D. Court Matters Pending

5.1.1 CAP.070/116253/2018 - Removal of a Regulated Tree (River Red Gum) and Removal of a Significant Tree (SA Blue Gum) at 2B Kinnaird Crescent, Highbury

Outcome: The matter is currently pending a ruling from the ERD Court.

5.2 Policy Considerations

Planning policy considerations will be recorded in the minutes following discussion by members.

5.3 Pending State Commission Assessment Panel Concurrence - Nil

6. Information Reports - Nil

7. Date

19 November 2019


Item

4.1

REPORT NO: CAP.070/117478/2019 RECORD NO: D19/62404

TO: COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 15 OCTOBER 2019

FROM: Timothy Bourner Planning Officer

SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF TWO (2) REGULATED TREES WITHIN

NIEMEYER RESERVE AT 30-36 WHITLAM STREET, ST AGNES

SUMMARY

Applicant: City of Tea Tree Gully Nature of Development: The removal of two (2) Regulated Trees (1 x River Red Gum and

1 x Sydney Blue Gum) within Niemeyer Reserve Address: Niemeyer Reserve - 30-36 Whitlam Street St Agnes

Application No: 070/117478/2019 Lodgement Date: 23 July 2019 Development Plan: Consolidated 27 December 2018 Zone and Policy Area: Residential (No Policy Area) Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives

Natural Resources 1 and 8 Regulated Trees 1 and 2 Residential Zone 3 Principles of Development Control Natural Resources 1, 30 and 33 (d) Regulated Trees 1 and 2 Residential Zone 6 Public Notification: Category 2

Representations:

Number of Properties Notified: 16 Number of Representations Received: 4


Item

4.1

Names and Addresses of Representors: Didier Vollerin (*) 41 Niemeyer Crescent, St Agnes Helen Williams 39 Niemeyer Crescent, St Agnes Andrew Buxton

35 Niemeyer Crescent, St Agnes Anne Angus (*) 9 Gorton Court, St Agnes Paul Michels 45 Niemeyer Crescent St Agnes Representations marked with (*) wish to

be heard Number of Representors wishing to be heard: 2 Schedule 8 Referral: Not required Was a request for additional information made? No

Recommendation: Development Approval

1. PROPOSAL

The proposal is to remove two regulated trees, one Eucalyptus camaldulenis (River Red Gum - Tree 1) and one Eucalyptus salingna (Sydney Blue Gum - Tree 2) from Niemeyer

Reserve. Both trees are located adjacent the northern boundary of Niemeyer Reserve adjacent to the rear boundaries of 39 and 41 Niemeyer Crescent. Tree 1 is a multi-stemmed tree with a combined stem circumference of 2.6m at 1.0m above ground level, an estimated height of 22.0m and a crown spread of approximately 10.0m. Tree 2 is a single stem specimen that has a circumference of 2.3m at 1.0m above ground level, an estimated height of 24.0m and a crown spread of approximately 14.0m. In accordance with Regulation 6A(1) of the Development Regulations 2008 (the

‘Regulations’), both trees are considered as ‘regulated’. The reasons for the removal of both trees put forward by the City Arborist (applicant) are as follows:

Resident concerns regarding safety and property damage.

Tree 1 poses a risk to private and public safety

Both trees have contributed to damage to a building of value


Item

4.1

The applicant has provided a report assessing the trees against the relevant Development Plan objectives and provisions (Attachment 4). An engineering report was also supplied to demonstrate the impact to the adjacent dwelling (Attachment 5).

2. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The application to remove regulated trees constitutes ‘tree damaging activity’, which is not listed as a ‘complying’ development within Table TTG/1 of the Development Plan, or in Schedule 4 of the Regulations.

The Development Plan also does not assign the removal of regulated trees to a ‘non-complying’ form of development in a Residential Zone.

The application has therefore been assessed “on merit”.

Removal of regulated trees is an envisaged kind of development to occur within the Residential Zone. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (the ‘Act’).

3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states that a Development Plan or the Regulations may assign different forms of development to a category for the purposes of public notification. Schedule 9, clause 13 states “except where the development falls within clause 25 of Schedule 9, any development which comprises a tree-damaging activity in relation to a significant tree” is assigned to a Category 1 form of development. Clause 25 states “Except where the activity is undertaken under section 54A of the Act, any development which comprises a tree-damaging activity in relation to a regulated tree on land owned or occupied by a council where the council is the relevant authority in relation to the development” as Category 2.

The application was then processed as a Category 2 where four representations were received, two in support of the application and two objecting to the proposal (Attachment 6). A further submission was received after the public notification period had closed which was in support of the proposal. Although this representation does not qualify as being valid, it is attached to this report for information at the discretion of the Council Assessment Panel (CAP) (Attachment 7). The two representations in support of the proposal are summarised below:

Significant damage to the dwelling requiring expensive repairs

Expected future damage

Trees too close to dwellings

Cost of repairs of damage caused by trees


Item

4.1

The two representations objecting to the development are summarised as below:

Trees are beautiful, produce a green line, and attract birds and rain

Trees prevent wind from ripping off roofs

Trees prevent soil from being washed away in floods

Do not believe the trees are sole source of damage

The trees are healthy and thriving

Frequented by koalas

Other contributing factors to property damage, i.e. soil type, perimeter paving, stormwater

The representations were forwarded to the applicant to respond in accordance with section 38(8) of the Act. The applicant’s response can be found in Attachment 8 and was received within the timeframe required by section 38(9) of the Act and regulation 36(1) of the Regulations. The response has been summarised below:

Roots which grow under footing can cause upward pressure on the footings

Roots in the vicinity of footings will absorb the majority of available moisture

Australian Standards AS 2870 (residential Slabs and Footings) has included design procedures for sites with trees present

Clay soils can heave when wet and shrink when dry causing damage to structures

The subject trees contribute to the visual amenity however there are significant pockets of established plantings including trees within the reserve

Further tree plantings are programmed for 2020

Red Gums do provide food for fauna, however the loss of this tree will not have a significant impact as there are numerous other established native Eucalyptus within a 20 metre radius

16 trees are proposed to replace the subject trees along the path leading to Whitlam Street

Replacement shrubs will be planted to the fence line.

Whilst other vegetation on 41 Niemeyer has been implicated in contributing to the cracking of the dwelling, Council has limited input to non-regulated vegetation on private land

Recent plantings and future planned plantings will compensate for the loss of the subject trees

An existing understorey will maintain some of the benefits of the trees

Root barriers were considered as an alternative, however due to the close proximity to the boundary this would render the trees unstable and a continuing danger to residential dwellings

The response by the applicant was unable to satisfy all the concerns of the representations not in support of the removal of the two Regulated Trees.


Item

4.1

4. SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is a Council owned and managed reserve known as Niemeyer Reserve. The extent of the reserve is shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Niemeyer Reserve

Niemeyer Reserve has road frontages to Gorton Court, Niemeyer Crescent and Whitlam Street, and is bound by residential development comprising detached dwellings fronting both Niemeyer Crescent and Gorton Court. The Niemeyer Reserve consists of six allotment parcels with a total area of 7962m2

comprising open grass and maintained vegetated areas including small and large shrubs, and numerous large trees. Niemeyer Reserve is the largest section of public open space in the locality forming part of a larger continuous corridor of open space leading further east. The locality applicable to this proposal is outlined by the red dashed line within figure 2 below. Figure 3 also identifies the location of Tree 1 and Tree 2 within Niemeyer Reserve.


Item

4.1

Figure 2 - Site and Locality

Figure 3 - Tree 1 and Tree 2 Locations


Item

4.1

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 Consideration against Tree Preservation Criteria

The Development Plan contains several provisions that determine whether a regulated tree is worthy of retention in the first instance. Regulated Trees Objective 1 seeks the conservation of regulated trees that provide important aesthetic and/or environmental benefit. Further, Regulated Trees Objective 2 seeks development in balance with preserving regulated trees that demonstrate one or more of the following:

(a) significantly contributes to the character or visual amenity of the locality (b) indigenous to the locality (c) a rare or endangered species (d) an important habitat for native fauna.

In assessing against the above objectives, the City Arborist Report advised the following:

Both trees form part of the local tree character and are dominant, shade giving trees within the local reserve.

Both trees are mature specimens that contribute to the character and are highly visible from Niemeyer Crescent and surrounding streets

Tree 1 is indigenous to the locality, Tree 2 is endemic to New South Wales

Neither tree is listed as rare or endangered

No observed hollows were observed but the trees provided food and roosting opportunity

Whilst both trees do provide some aesthetic and environmental benefit, their contribution is not seen as “significant” as required in Objective 2. With the abundance of other large trees and vegetation in the public reserve, the subject trees are only a partial contributor to the amenity and environment of the locality and this aesthetic and environment is not reliant on the subject trees. The subject trees are not considered to be visually notable elements of the locality. Tree 1 is indigenous to the locality however, neither tree is considered rare or endangered, and both trees only provide limited habitat. With regard to Objective 2, both trees have limited important and aesthetic or environmental benefits to warrant their conservation in accordance with Regulated Trees Objective 1 and 2(a) and Natural Resources PDC 33(d).


Item

4.1

5.2 Arboricultural Removal Criteria Regulated Trees PDC 2 states:

‘A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

(a) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short (b) the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety (c) the tree is causing damage to a building.’

When assessed against the above principle, the City Arborist has advised that:

Neither Tree 1 nor Tree 2 are diseased or have a short life expectancy.

Tree 1 does pose a material risk to public and private safety due to a poor quality stem union with an increased risk of catastrophic failure.

Tree 2 does not pose a material risk to private of public safety.

Evidence has been provided demonstrating that both trees have contributed to damage to the adjacent dwelling at 41 Niemeyer Crescent.

Based on the above, the conclusions of the City Arborist Report have determined that both trees should be removed. With regard to the City Arborists assessment, the proposal satisfies Regulated Trees PDC 2 (b) and (c) criteria for removal.

6. CONCLUSION

The regulated trees are assessed to have only a limited contribution to the character and amenity of the local areas. Neither tree possess attributes worthy of preservation as the contribution to the visual amenity is not considered significant nor are the trees considered to be a notable visual element in the landscape. Furthermore, the City Arborist report identified structural defects in Tree 1 posing a risk to public and private safety with the supporting engineering report identifying both trees as contributors to damage to the adjacent dwelling. It is also noted that the City Arborist anticipates replanting of 16 trees in more appropriate locations in the area come 2020. This number of trees exceeds the minimum legislative requirements. Replacement plantings will form a condition to any authorisation issued. On balance, it is considered that the trees satisfy the relevant provisions of the Development Plan relating to regulated tree removal. The removal of Tree 1 (Eucalyptus camaldulenis, River Red Gum) and Tree 2 (Eucalyptus salingna, Sydney Blue Gum) is warranted subject to conditions.


Item

4.1

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

B. RESOLVES to GRANT Development Approval to the application by The City of Tea Tree Gully to remove two regulated trees (1 x River Red Gum and 1 x Sydney Blue Gum) within Niemeyer Reserve at 30-36 Whitlam Street St Agnes as detailed in Development Application No.070/117478/2019 subject to the following conditions and advisory notes:

(1) The development shall be undertaken, completed and maintained in

accordance with the plan(s) and information detailed in Application No. 070/117478/2019 except where varied by any condition(s) listed below.

(2) Four (4) trees shall be planted on the land to replace the trees herein approved for removal. The trees cannot be planted within ten (10) metres of an existing dwelling or in-ground swimming pool located on the land or any adjoining land. The plantings shall be completed in the first planting season following the issuing of this consent and shall be maintained in good condition thereafter. Reason: To ensure compliance with the legislative requirement for the planting of replacement trees, pursuant to section 42(4) of the Development Act 1993.

Note(s):

(1) The cost of rectifying any damage or conflict with existing services or infrastructure arising out of this development will be borne by the applicant.

(2) This consent does not obviate the need to obtain any other necessary

approvals from any/all parties with an interest in the land.


Item

4.1

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph................................................................................................... 15 2.⇩ Development Application Form............................................................................... 16 3.⇩ Certificate of Title ................................................................................................... 17 4.⇩ City Arborist Report ................................................................................................ 21 5.⇩ Engineering Report ................................................................................................ 27 6.⇩ Statements of Representation ................................................................................ 36 7.⇩ Additional Resident Submission ............................................................................. 42 8.⇩ City Arborist Response to Representations ............................................................ 43

Report Authorisers

Timothy Bourner

Planning Officer 8397 7251

Nathan Grainger

Manager City Development 8397 7200

Carla Leversedge

Acting Director Community & Cultural Development

8397 7218

Council Assessment Panel Meeting - 15 October 2019 Page 49

Item

4.2

REPORT NO: CAP.070/117547/2019 RECORD NO: D19/62988

TO: COUNCIL ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 15 OCTOBER 2019

FROM: Henry Beesley Planning Officer

SUBJECT: CARPORT FORWARD OF THE DWELLING AT

128 PERSEVERANCE ROAD, VISTA

SUMMARY

Applicant: SA Pergola Specialists Nature of Development: Carport forward of the dwelling

Address: 128 Perseverance Road VISTA SA 5091 Application No: 070/117547/2019

Lodgement Date: 2 August 2019 Development Plan: Consolidated 27 December 2018 Zone and Policy Area: Residential (No Policy Area)

Relevant Development Plan Provisions: Objectives

Design and Appearance 1 Landscaping, Fences and Walls 1 Transport and Access 2 Residential Zone 3

Principles of Development Control Design and Appearance 1, 3, 15, 22, 23 Landscaping, Fences and Walls 1, 2 Residential Development 6, 7, 8 Transportation and Access 31, 33 Residential Zone 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 Public Notification: Category 1

Schedule 8 Referral: Not Required

Was a request for additional information made? Yes

Issues: Carport dominance, visual amenity, front setback, visitor car

parking Recommendation: Refusal


Item

4.2

1. PROPOSAL

The application seeks planning consent for a freestanding flat roof carport at 128 Perseverance Road, Vista. The proposed carport is to be positioned forward of the dwelling over an existing paved driveway, adjacent to the southern side boundary of the site, and will be setback from the front boundary 3.4m. The carport will be 7.0m deep with a width of 5.98m, resulting in a floor area of 41.86m², a post height of 2.4m, and 2.96m at its highest point. The entirety of the carport is finished with paperbark pre coated iron. Specific details in relation to the carport can be seen in Attachments 4 and 5.

2. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The Development Plan does not assign a carport as a ‘non-complying’ form of development nor is a carport listed as ‘complying’ in Table TTG/1. Whilst carports are listed in the Development Regulations 2008 (“the Regulations”) as ‘complying,’ this does

not apply to carports that are located forward of the building line of a dwelling on the same site. The application has therefore been assessed on merit. Having regard to the zoning of the site and the proposed residential land use that is envisaged in the zone, it is considered the development is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 (“the

Act”). 3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Section 38(2)(a) of the Act states the Development Plan or the Regulations may assign development to a category of public notification. Carports are not listed within the Development Plan as either Category 1 or 2. Having regard to Schedule 9 Part 1, 2(d) of the Regulations, carports are assigned to Category 1. The development is therefore Category 1 and does not require public notification.


Item

4.2

4. SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is located entirely within the Residential Zone and is located on the western side of Perseverance Road. The site is regular in shape and measures 20.65m along the eastern (frontage) and western boundaries and 32.5m along the northern and southern boundaries. The resulting site area is 671.12m2. The site currently consists of a conventional style single storey detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1970, as illustrated in figure 1 below. A number of ancillary structures are present to the rear of the existing dwelling. The dwelling is typical of the majority of dwellings located within the locality that are predominantly single storey detached dwellings featuring wide frontage façades with an associated single carport or garage.

Figure 1 – View of the subject site from Perseverance Road

The subject site has a fall from east to west of approximately 2.0m, consistent with the general topography of the locality. The front yard is open with areas of paving, established landscaping and mature shrubs. The dwelling has undergone alterations and additions approved in 1978, converting what was once a garage or carport under main roof to a portion of the dwelling. A single width carport appears to have once existed on the site forward of the additions, however this has been removed from the site for more than three years and no original approval for the carport can be verified.


Item

4.2

Figure 2 illustrates the locality considered applicable to the subject site shown by the red dotted line below.

Figure 2 – Locality Map

The locality comprises dwellings of varying ages on moderate to large sized allotments with large, generally well maintained open front yards. The existing streetscape is characterised by wide frontages, a consistent front setback pattern, grassed verges with footpaths on both the eastern and western sides of the street and the occasional street tree of varying maturity. Ancillary residential structures in the locality, including carports, are generally positioned inline or behind the primary building line of their associated dwellings. There are two examples of carports forward of the building line within the locality, namely 137 and 145 Perseverance Road, with 137 Perseverance Road being approved in 2003 whilst 145 Perseverance Road has no record of a development approval.


Item

4.2

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 Land Use

The subject land is located within a Residential Zone, and contains a detached dwelling and existing ancillary structures. The proposed carport will be ancillary to the existing residential use of the land, and therefore is appropriate for the zone, as per Residential Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1 and 5.

5.2 Built Form

Residential Zone PDC 10 sets design parameters relevant to residential sheds

garages and similar outbuildings. These parameters are outlined in the table 1 below: Table 1 – Compliance with Residential Zone PDC 10

Parameter Value Proposed Compliant

Maximum floor area

60 square metres 41.86 square metres

Yes

Maximum building height

5 metres (measured from natural ground)

2.96 metres Yes

Maximum wall height/height of posts

3 metres (measured from natural ground)

2.4 metres Yes

(d) Minimum setback from side and rear boundaries (not being a boundary with a primary street or a secondary street)

0 metres (based on length not exceeding 8.0m, with structures occupying less than 50% of the boundary)

1.4 metres

Yes

Minimum setback from a primary street frontage

5.5 metres (in order to provide a car parking space between the building and street frontage).

3.4 metres, and no visitor parking elsewhere on site

No

Whilst the proposed carport satisfies some of the quantitative provisions of the Development Plan, the carport’s location forward of the dwelling with setback of 3.4m is considered to result in an undesirable development outcome. The impacts of which are discussed in section 5.3 below. The proposal is finished with paperbark pre coloured iron which satisfies Design and Appearance PDC 3 and Residential Development PDC 6 in that the colours

and materials are not highly reflective and are complementary to the existing dwelling.


Item

4.2

5.3 Impact of Character and Amenity

The Development Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the character and amenity of a locality, and this is repeatedly conveyed throughout the Development Plan. Design and Appearance Objective 1 seeks for development to be of a high

design standard and appearance that responds to and reinforces the positive aspects of the local environment and the built form, whilst Residential Zone Objective 3 anticipates development that will contribute to the desired character of

the locality.

The Desired Character Statement for the Residential Zone states:

...the zone is residential in nature and characterised by a variety of dwelling styles and ages set within high quality streetscapes. In the most part the zone is characterised by spacious setbacks that contribute to uniform streetscapes that are high in amenity and provide large front gardens and opportunities for on-site car parking. It is expected that development will continue to provide setbacks that create these opportunities and enhance streetscape amenity.

The locality is considered to be true to this desired character statement having open and well landscaped front yards with a consistent building line that provides a high level of streetscape amenity. Design and Appearance PDC 22 states that the setback of buildings from public

roads should be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other buildings in the locality, and contribute positively to the function, appearance and/or desired character of the locality. Dwelling street setbacks along Perseverance Road in this locality range between 6.5m and 9.0m. Secondary residential structures are predominantly set behind the primary building line of their associated dwellings. The proposed carport is to be set back 3.4m from the front boundary. This results in a projection 6.0m forward of the primary building line of the subject dwelling, the building line of the immediately adjoining dwellings to the north and south, and the consistent line of development within the locality along the western side of Perseverance Road. The projection of the carport from the dwelling is considerably forward of prevailing setbacks in the locality resulting in an undesirable visual intrusion to the pattern of development and resulting streetscape amenity that currently exists. Further to the above, Residential Development PDC 8 states that garages,

carports and residential outbuildings should not dominate the streetscape.

Despite an effort to minimise impacts through a flat roof and open sided design (as opposed to a gable or hipped roof design), the carport will be remain a highly notable feature within the streetscape that will also negatively impact the visual attractiveness of the site and locality.


Item

4.2

Subsequently, the proposal does not respect the setbacks of neighbouring development, or contribute to the positive elements of the streetscape. The proposal will dominate the appearance of the site when viewed from within the locality that will, in turn, form a negative element that departs from the Desired Character Statement of the Zone.

5.4 On-site Car Parking

Detached dwellings require one undercover parking space and one visitor parking space in accordance with Table TTG/2. Currently, no undercover vehicle parking

exists on site as the result of the enclosure of the original carport approved in 1978. Two uncovered vehicle parking spaces remain forward of the main face of the dwelling currently utilised by the residents of the site. Currently the dwelling does not satisfy the Development Plan by way of providing a covered parking space, however covering both spaces to form two private parking spaces will forgo an opportunity for a visitor space within the site. Whilst no parking restrictions apply to this section of Perseverance Road, it is a high traffic volume road where kerbside parking is impractical. The loss of dedicated off street parking is considered to result in traffic impacts well beyond the subject site noting that the Council verge is already being used for resident and visitor parking. Widening the driveway to accommodate an uncovered visitor park adjacent to the proposed carport is considered to reduce opportunities for open and well landscaped front setbacks and will further detract from the streetscape returning more of the vegetated Council verge to hardstand or a trafficable surface. As proposed, the removal of opportunities for off street visitor parks is considered to result in negative impacts to the locality and cannot be supported.

5.5 Landscaping

Landscaping Fences and Walls Objective 1 and PDC 1 seek development to be

enhanced with appropriate plantings and other landscaping using locally indigenous plant species where possible, with landscaping being used to screen driveways and parking areas from view.

Whilst the subject site currently comprises low level landscaping and a number of mature trees and shrubs, this landscaping is unlikely to screen the carport to any substantial degree. Further to this, the proposal does not provide any details regarding additional landscaping to screen the proposed carport. It is unlikely, however, that any such screening would mitigate the impact of the proposal on the streetscape and locality.


Item

4.2

6. CONCLUSION

The proposal is finely balanced. Covered car parking spaces are desired by the Development Plan noting that the absence of car parking has been a long standing situation for this site. However, covered car parking should not come at the expense of the general amenity of the locality, which is to be retained and enhanced. Whilst the proposed carport satisfies a number of the quantitative provisions of the Development Plan, the carport does not satisfy the front setback criteria whilst also failing multiple qualitative provisions of the Development Plan. Given the consistent built form and streetscape character of the Perseverance Road locality, the carport is considered to unreasonably impact on the amenity and character of the locality due to its location forward of is associated dwelling, and reduction in off street parking opportunities. On balance, the proposed carport does not warrant planning consent and is to be refused.

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

B. RESOLVES to REFUSE Development Plan Consent to the application by SA Pergola Specialists to construct a carport forward of the dwelling at 128 Perseverance Road, Vista, as detailed in Development Application No.070/117547/2019 on the following grounds:

(1) The proposed carport has an adverse impact on the streetscape and

amenity of the locality.

(2) The carport is at odds with the existing character of the locality together with the desired character statement of the Residential Zone.

(3) The carport does not satisfy the front setback requirements in the

Development Plan.

(4) The carport does not allow for sufficient off-street parking for visitors to the site.


Item

4.2

(5) In particular, the proposed carport is at variance to the following provisions of the Development Plan:

(a) Residential Zone Objective 3 and Residential Zone PDC 6 which

states that development should contribute to the desired character of the zone.

(b) Residential Zone PDC 10 which states that sheds, garages and

similar outbuildings should be designed with a minimum setback from the primary street of 5.5 metres, in order to provide a car parking space between the building and the street frontage.

(c) Design and Appearance Objective 1 which seeks development of a

high design standard and appearance that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

(d) Design and Appearance PDC 22(a) and (b) which state that the

setback of buildings from public roads should be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other buildings in the locality, and contribute positively to the function, appearance and/or desired character of the locality.

(e) Residential Development PDC 8 which states that garages, carports

and residential outbuildings should not dominate the streetscape.

(f) Transportation and access PDC 31 which states Development

should provide off-street vehicle parking and specifically marked accessible car parking places to meet anticipated demand in accordance with Table TTG/2 - Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements.

Attachments 1.⇩ Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................... 58 2.⇩ Development Application Form ............................................................................... 59 3.⇩ Certificate of Title .................................................................................................... 63 4.⇩ Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 65 5.⇩ Floor Plan & Elevations ........................................................................................... 66

Report Authorisers

Henry Beesley

Planning Officer 8397 7288

Nathan Grainger

Manager City Development 8397 7200

Carla Leversedge

Acting Director Community & Cultural Development

8397 7218

notice of council assessment panel meeting · the proposal is to remove two regulated trees, one...

Documents