NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that the following CDAP meeting will be held in the District

Council of Robe, Meeting Room, Royal Circus, Robe on Tuesday 15 September 2009 at 10.30am.

Bill Hender CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ROBE

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL Tuesday 15th September 2009, 10.30am

1. PRESENT 2. APOLOGIES 3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

3.1 CDAP Meeting held 18th August, 2009 Recommendation: Moved ______________- that the minutes of the CDAP Meeting held on 18th August 2009 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. Seconded Cr ______________

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 5. ADDRESS – nil 6. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

M & J Hancock, Development Application No. 822/021/09, Lot 35, 20 Reserve Road, Boatswains Point.

7. LIST OF APPROVALS

Recommendation:- That the list of Delegated Authority approvals be received.

7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 7.1 Application No. 822/032/09 Owner: IH & SB Dickinson Subject Land 5 Williams Avenue, Robe Zone Residential Zone

Proposal Proposed Residential Flat Building Public Notification Category 2

Item No. 3.1

District Council of Robe

Council Development Assessment Panel

Minutes of the District Council of Robe Council Development Assessment Panel (CDAP) Meeting held on the 18th August 2009 commencing at 10.25am at 20 Reserve Road, Boatswains Point, Robe for an on-site inspection. Present Panel Members - Cr J Mathews, Cr P Riseley, Cr W Peden and Mr N

Hansen

In attendance - Minute Taker; M Gibbs and CEO; Bill Hender Apologies D Chapman, R Miles and D Stanhope. On-site Meeting M & J Hancock

At the request of Mr & Mrs Hancock the Panel met on-site to discuss Development Application No. 822/021/09 for an extension to an existing shed at Lot 35, 20 Reserve Road, Boatswains Point. The application was refused at the April DAP meeting and they have appealed to the ERD Court. Mr & Mrs Hancock requested that the Panel reconsider the proposal.

Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10.45am and was recommenced at the Council Chambers, Royal Circus, Robe at 11.05am.

Election of Chairperson Cr Peden moved that Cr Riseley be nominated as Chairperson for

the DAP Meeting. Seconded Cr Mathews Carried Confirmation Of Minutes CDAP Meeting 17th March 2009

Cr Mathews moved that the minutes of the CDAP meeting held on 21st April 2009 be taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. (D1/2010) Seconded Mr Hansen Carried

Report List of Development Approvals

Mr Hansen moved that the list of Developments Approvals from 1 April 2009 – 31 July 2009 be noted and tabled. (D2/2010) Seconded Cr Mathews

1. Whether existing use rights exist

Carried Development Applications

7.1 Development Application No. 822/021/09 Applicant: M & J Hancock Owner: As above Subject Land: Lot 35, 20 Reserve Road,

Boatswains Point Zone: Settlement Zone Proposal: Extension to existing dwelling Public Notification: Nil

Cr Peden moved that the Panel grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make a decision on the application subject to the following questions being answered:-

2. Was the shed at Lot 1, Sail Street, Boatswains Point approved at that height?

3. When will a review of the Development Plan be undertaken? (D3/2010)

Seconded Cr Mathews

1. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and the conditions imposed by this consent, except where minor changes are required to comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Carried

7.2 Development Application No. 822/039/09 Owner: D Stanhope Subject Land: 14 Main Road, Robe Zone: Historic Conservation Zone,

Town Centre Policy Area Proposal: Alterations and additions to an

existing Motel involving the construction of 12 units contained within 3 two-storey buildings

Public Notification: Nil

Cr Peden moved that:-

2. A scheduled detailing material and colours of all external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Development Approval.

3. A detailed landscaping plan specifying all areas to be landscaped, species to be used, maturity at time of planting and mature heights of plants shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Development Approval. The establishment of all landscaping shall be undertaken within 6 months of the completion of the building/development works and thereafter shall be maintained in good health and condition to the satisfaction of Council. Any dead or diseased plants or trees should be replaced to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

4. Tree species to be established in the road reserve will be nominated by the Council and shall be mature or semi mature species which shall be planted on removal of the existing street trees on Harold Street.

5. The crossovers and driveways to each carport shall be paved in brick concrete or pavers, or a combination of the above, drained and constructed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, prior to occupation of the development.

6. Approval shall be obtained from the District Council of Robe (pursuant to Waste Control Regulations) for the plumbing and drainage system and connected to the Septic Tank Effluent Drainage Scheme (STEDS), prior to the issue of the Development Approval.

7. Stormwater management details, be furnished to Council prior to the issue of the Development Approval. (D4/2010)

Seconded Cr Mathews Carried

Meeting closed at 11.25pm. Next meeting: 8th September, 2009 _________________________________ Chairman ------------------------------ date

Item No. 7

DEV. NO. APPLICANT'S NAME OWNERS NAME DESCRIPTION NO. STREET Plan

822/031/09 LONGRIDGE SARAH HOUSING GROUP PC COSTANZO

DOUBLE STOREY TIMBER FRAMED DWELLING 2 SHIPARD COURT 28

822/044/09 R MACLEAN JER MACLEAN

REMOVAL OF LIMESTONE TOWER ON STATE HERITAGE BUILDING 24 SMILLIE STREET 1OF

822/051/09 J HINGE C TUCKER DWELLING 5 HEALEY COURT 43

822/009/09 TC BROWN TC BROWN REMOVE EXISTING SHED & ERECT NEW DWELLING

LAKE GEORGE HUNDRED 74B

822/064/09* TEMPLETON CONSTRUCTIONS P/L

DEPT OF EDUCATION & CHILDRENS SERVICES SCHOOL CLASSROOMS 1 UNION STREET 21

822/036/09 LONGRIDGE SARAH HOUSING GROUP A STUART SINGLE STOREY DWELLING 2

BOATSWAINS POINT ROAD 234

822/033/09 CM & KM LEWIS JD & RB GOMMERS DWELLING 12 DENNIS AVENUE 19

822/046/09 BLUE LAKE HOMES PTY LTD MA PARKER DWELLING 8

CHARLES BONNEY DRIVE 40

822/043/09 GA YOUNG & SONS NANGKITA HOLDINGS PTY LTD MACHINERY SHED

WATERHOUSE HUNDRED

822/037/09 MAC SHEDS W HIGGINS EXTENSION TO EXISTING SHED 34 ROBE STREET 2

822/047/09 BLUE LAKE HOMES PTY LTD BW CONSTABLE DWELLING

WATERHOUSE HUNDRED 10

* Exempt from Planning Consent under National Building Economic Stimulus plan

TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS ___________________________________________________

ACCESS PLANNING (SA) PTY LTD ABN 57 089 702 241

200 KENSINGTON ROAD, MARRYATVILLE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5068 TELEPHONE (08) 8364 1956 FAX (08) 8364 1960 EMAIL plan@accessplanning.com.au

20 August, 2009 Ref. 4980rept Chief Executive Officer District Council of Robe PO Box 1 ROBE, SA 5276 ATTENTION: Michelle Gibbs Dear Michelle, RE: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING, 5 WILLIAMS AVENUE, ROBE As instructed, the following is a general planning assessment of the abovementioned development application. In preparing this report I reviewed the council file on the application and generally familiarised myself with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and the subject land. 1.0 DEVELOPMENT DETAILS Proposed Development: Proposed Residential Flat Building Development Application Number: 822/032/09 Applicant: Chapman Herbert Architects 76 Gray Street MOUNT GAMBIER SA 5290 Owner: I.H. & S.B. Dickinson 64A Richmond Street COLLEGE PARK SA 5069 Property Address: 5 Williams Avenue, Robe Certificate of Title(s): Volume 5303 Folio 454 Land Use: Single Storey Detached Dwelling Zone: Residential Public Notification: Category 2 Authorised Development Plan: Robe (DC), Consolidated 11 January 2007, Map

Ro/9

ACCESS PLANNING

2.0 SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY The subject land consists of a rectangular shaped allotment comprising an area of approximately 696sq. metres, located within the Residential Zone. The land is more particularly described as Allotment 42 in DP 7294, Hundred of Waterhouse. The site has a northern frontage of approximately 18 metres to Williams Avenue. The subject site is generally flat and currently improved by a modest single storey detached, brick dwelling, along with two (2) sheds sited to the rear of the allotment which encroach upon land to the western boundary, identified as 7 Williams Avenue. The land is immediately adjoined by residential development in the form of single story detached dwelling to the south and a two storey dwelling to the west, while the allotment to the east is vacant. The subject land takes access from Williams Avenue via a driveway to the western boundary of the allotment. The cross-over provides access to properties at both 5 and 7 Williams Avenue. Land within the locality gently slopes in association with the localities coastal proximity and consists of a mixture of single and two storey dwellings, primarily of detached form. The subject land and locality is depicted below in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: Subject Land and Locality Source: Map Ro/9 of Robe (DC) Development Plan, Consolidated 11 January 2007

Subject Land

ACCESS PLANNING

Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Subject Land and Locality Source: Nature Maps, 2009 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development seeks to add a second storey addition to the building. The proposed first floor will be utilised by the applicants for occasional use, whilst the ground floor component will be used by family and friends with the potential to be used as a long-term rental. The nature of the development changes the use of the land from a detached dwelling to a residential flat building. The proposed development will consist:

- Two (2) bedrooms, main with walk-in-robe and ensuite; Ground Floor

- Separate shower and toilet; - Laundry; - Open plan kitchen and family area; and - Living and dining area

- Two (2) bedrooms; First Floor

- Bathroom; - Separate toilet; - Combined kitchen and laundry; - Living area; and

Subject Land

ACCESS PLANNING

- North-west (street) facing deck. The building will have 2 independently accessible entries which allow the two floors (dwellings) to be used independently of each other. The proposed additions will result in building with a total height of some 7.4 metres above ground level. The front wall of the building will be maintained at its current street setback of approximately 9.3 from Williams Avenue; whilst the proposed deck will have a setback of 6.1 metres from the street. The development will include the retention of the two (2) sheds to the rear of the dwelling both of which currently encroach a minor distance on to the neighbouring property. The ground floor component of the development will maintain its current brick finish, whilst the proposed first floor addition will consist of the following materials & finishes; Cladding: Hardies horizontal ‘linea’ board Window and door frames: Aluminium; Door finishes: Not specified Decking: Timber Decking balustrade: Galvanised pool fence Roof: 25 degree pitch- colourbond steel (colour not identified) The proposed dwelling is best described as being simple in form and shape with high, slab sided walls unrelieved by any particular articulation a result imposed on the development by need to build over existing supporting walls. Some level of variation/articulation is provided by the change of wall cladding together with the upper level deck. The development proposes to use the existing garage at the rear of the site as a double garage for use by those occupying both levels. Access to this structure will be via an existing 2.7 metre wide driveway which runs the length of the western boundary. In addition, the plans show a “future” casual car park located between the dwelling and Williams Avenue. An existing gabled verandah and lattice work to the rear of the dwelling will be removed. The site has access to mains water and an on-site septic system which is to remain. Details of the proposed development are more particularly detailed in the attached plans. 4.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 38 of the Development Act 1993 and in accordance with clause 18(a) of Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008, the proposed development undertook Category 2 notification.

Clause 18(a) identifies a building of 2 storeys comprising dwellings as a Category 2 development.

No submissions were received during the consultation period.

ACCESS PLANNING

5.0 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT In assessing the development proposal I have had regard to the relevant Residential Zone and the Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan, consolidated 11 January 2007. Those provisions which are considered to be relevant to the proposal and my assessment of them are as follows: RESIDENTIAL ZONE Objectives: 1 & 2 Principles: 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 15 COUNCIL WIDE General Objectives: 1 Principles: 1, 4, 8 & 11 Form of Development Objectives: 4 Movement of People and Goods Objectives: 9 Principles: 73, 77 Residential Development Objectives: 18, 19 & 21 Principles: 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43, 46, 51, 54 & 55 Appearance of Land and Buildings Objectives: 23 Principles: 173, 174, 177 & 178 Natural Resource Management Objectives: 44 & 51 Waste Disposal Principles: 64 Infrastructure Principles: 82 5.1 RESIDENTIAL ZONE DESIRED CHARACTER STATEMENT

New development in the area should enhance the seaside character, through appropriate design, including interesting roof forms and parapets, building articulation, use of light colours and coloured materials, appropriate landscaping and location of vehicle garaging. Buildings should not exceed two storeys in height, and should avoid plain box-like forms and detailing

.

Objective 1: Development designed and sited to maintain and enhance Robe’s heritage and village character.

ACCESS PLANNING

Objective 2: A zone accommodating a variety of dwelling types where individual site conditions, character and design are appropriate and a safe and pleasant streetscape is established or maintained. Principles 1 Development should be primarily for residential purposes with community facilities of appropriate scale and design in suitable areas. 2 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone. 3 Medium density development, including semi-detached dwellings, group dwellings and residential flat buildings should generally be integrated throughout the residential areas where individual site conditions are satisfactory and design and layout are appropriate to the character of the locality. 5 Dwellings should be designed and sited in such a way and be of such a scale as to be unobtrusive, and in particular: (a) the profile of dwellings sited on ridgelines, in areas of native vegetation and adjacent to the foreshore should be low; (b) the mass of buildings should be minimised by variations in wall and roof lines and by floor plans which complement the contours of the land; and (c) eaves, verandahs and pergolas should be incorporated into designs so as to create shadowed areas to off-set the bulky appearance of buildings. 13 The site area per dwelling of any type (averaged for group dwellings or dwellings in a residential flat building) should not be less than 400 square metres. 15 Dwellings should be setback to the street as follows: (a) not less than 6.0 metres; (b) where a dwelling is proposed on a corner allotment a distance of 6.0 metres from one road and 3.0 metres from the secondary road; and (c) in relation to development between existing buildings, a setback distance equal to the average of the setback distances of those existing buildings. The Development Plan does not preclude the development or residential flat buildings throughout the zone subject to design which is sympathetic to the locality. Principle 13 stipulates an average site area per dwelling (400m2

which is met by the proposed development, so the land use itself is appropriate in the Residential zone.

In essence however, there are a number of fundamental problems with the proposed development, these include: 1 The design lacks articulation; 2 The proposed 6.2 metre setback to the deck is inappropriate having regard to the

established street setbacks in the locality; 3 Car parking is inadequate or inappropriately laid out on site; 4 Open space is inadequate for the upper floor dwelling. The desired character for the zone encourages buildings to be appropriately designed, including appropriate building articulation, landscaping and the avoidance of box-like forms and detailing. While there are examples in the locality of two storey dwellings of significant bulk particularly the adjoining dwelling to the west, and primarily as a result of the large blank wall which forms the western elevation, the bulk and scale of the proposed building is considered inappropriate with respect to the desired character and Principle 5.

ACCESS PLANNING

Whilst there are other examples of two storey buildings in the locality, it has long been held that: “....the existence of undesirable precedents cannot be called in support of new proposals; each application falls to be determined on its own merits and in the context of the planning policies applicable at the time that application is made. If the character of a particular locality has been so altered by a succession of planning decisions as to bring into question the relevance of existing policies......that may well prove to be a material consideration in the assessment of an application.” Considering the above, the proposed development needs to have greater regard to the desired character and the design considerations of Principles 5, particularly relating to the minimising the mass of the building. Whilst some articulation to the building is provided by way of the first floor balcony, I note that this intrudes somewhat closer to the street than other development in the locality, where setbacks are traditionally in the order of 8 metres and streetscape is relatively open. Although the structure is on open one, with little mass or bulk it nonetheless intrudes into the established streetscape, as much as a consequence of its height (2.7 metres), the high supporting poles and the balustrade. These elements combined with the open character of the street would combine to make the deck a dominant feature of the locality and at odds with the setback provisions set out in principle 15(c). 5.2 COUNCIL WIDE

Principle 77 Development of a kind described in Table Ro/1 should provide car parking spaces on the site, or on a site nearby approved by the relevant authority, at a rate not less than that described in Table Ro/1, excluding development within the core of the Historic (Conservation) Zone located on Victoria Street, that utilises public and on-street car parking. Table Ro/1 requires one undercover and one visitor space per dwelling. Considering the design of the proposal the development would need two undercover and two visitor parking spaces. The applicant has advised that the double garage will be assigned for shared use by the occupants to provide one undercover parking space for each dwelling. Technically this is correct; however, the encroachment of the garage onto the neighbor’s property may influence the ability of the garage to accommodate the two spaces proposed. Only one visitor car park is available and this is located between the dwelling and street alignment. Principles

54 All dwellings should have private open space, which should generally be established at the rear and sides of a dwelling and not include that area required as the primary street setback.

55 All forms of residential development, excluding aged care accommodation should:

(a) not cover more than 50 percent of the site of the development with dwelling, carports, outbuildings and garages; and

(b) have private open space with: (i) a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres for ground level or roof top space;

(ii) a minimum dimension of 2.0 metres for upper level balconies or terraces; (iii) a minimum area of 20% of the site;

ACCESS PLANNING

(iv) directly accessible from a habitable room; and (v) a maximum grade of one in ten.

Open space is provided to the upper floor dwelling by way of the first floor deck comprising an area of some 39m2, and to the ground floor dwelling in the ear yard of which comprises approximately 200m2

.

It is noted that the front court and the 144m2

area between the dwelling and road boundary has been allocated as private open space on the plans. However, this is not considered appropriate private open space in accordance with Principle 54.

Principle 55(b) requires the dwelling to have a minimum private open space area of 20% of the site. Considering the size of the allotment is 696m2 each dwelling should be provided with approximately 139m2

of open space. In respect to the upper floor dwelling, the proposed development fails to provide appropriate, private outdoor space.

56 Direct overlooking from ground level or upper level habitable room windows and external balconies, terraces and decks* to habitable room windows and useable private open spaces of other dwellings should be minimised, except in areas where dwellings in the locality have a primary orientation to Guichen Bay or the coast, by: (a) building layout; (b) location and design of windows and balconies; (c) screening devices; (d) andscaping; or (e) adequate separation. Inadequate protection is provided from overlooking from the upper level dwelling over the rear outdoor open space of the ground floor dwelling. With direct views available from the kitchen, family room and bedroom 2 of the upper storey dwelling tnto the back yard of the ground floor dwelling.

6.0 CONCLUSION Having regard to the above assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of the Robe (DC) Development Plan, on balance I consider that the proposal represents an inappropriate form of development, for the following reasons;

• The proposed development is inconsistent with the desired character of the zone; • The proposal fails to provide sufficient private outdoor open space for each dwelling; • The proposal will unreasonably detract from the character and amenity of the local area

by-way of the bulk, mass and setback of the building; • There is inadequate on site car parking; 7.0 RECOMMENDATION Following consideration and having regard to all relevant matters that Development Plan Consent for an extension to an existing dwelling resulting in a residential flat building at 5 Williams Avenue Robe, development application numbered 822/032/09 be Refused, as the proposed development does not comply with the provisions of the Development Plan. Reasons for refusal: The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Development Council, namely,

ACCESS PLANNING

Residential Zone: Objective 2 Principles 2, 3, 5(b) and 15(c). Council wide: Objectives 18, 19 and 23 Principles 13, 14, 18, 19, 34, 35, 54, 55, 56, 77 and 174. Should you wish to discuss any aspects of this report please do not hesitate to contact me on 8364 1956. Alternatively, I can be contacted via email at dhutchison@accessplanning.com.au. Yours Sincerely,

David Hutchison ACCESS PLANNING (SA) Pty Ltd