14-16 Woods Hills Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown · 2016. 9. 2. · Greg Driver Land Division...

Development Assessment Commission8 September 2016

1

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

Greg Driver

Land Division by Boundary Realignment – 4 into 4

14-16 Woods Hills Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown

473/D037/15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NOAGENDA REPORT 2-15APPENDIX 1 – DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY 16-24ATTACHMENTS

1: SITE PHOTOS 25-552: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 56-573: CERTIFICATES OF TITLE 58-694: APPLICATION & PLANS

a. Plan of Division – Olden & van Senden Pty Ltdb. Supporting Information – Planning & Development

Consultantsc. Rhubarb Leaf Spot Report – Creation Innovation

Agriculture Forestryd. Soil Report – Fresh Test Australia

70-9570-7273-81

82-91

92-955: AGENCY COMMENTS 966: COUNCIL COMMENTS 97-1087: APPLICANT’S RESPONSE 109-110


2

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

OVERVIEW

Application No 473/D037/15EDALA ID/KNET ID 51916 / 2015/16258/01Applicant Greg DriverProposal Land division by boundary realignment – 4 into 4Subject Land 14-16 Woods Hill Road and 17 Bickles Road, SummertownZone/Policy Area Watershed (Primary Production) Zone, Watershed Protection

(Marble Hill) Policy Area 8, Map AdHi/15 & 51Relevant Authority DAC – boundary realignment in the Mount Lofty Ranges

watershed with greater than 10% variation in boundariesLodgement Date 24 August 2015Council Adelaide HillsDevelopment Plan 9 January 2014Type of Development MeritPublic Notification Category 1Representations N/AReferral Agencies SA WaterReport Author Nitsan Taylor, Senior Planning OfficerRECOMMENDATION Grant Development Plan Consent and Land Division Consent

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks to realign the boundaries between four (4) existing allotments inthe Mount Lofty Ranges watershed protection area. The purpose of the land division is tocreate one (1) allotment for primary production purposes and two (2) vacant allotmentsfor rural living purposes. The fourth allotment – a closed road that provides access to thesubject land via a right of way – will remain unchanged.

The subject land currently comprises two (2) habitable dwellings on separate titles. Theproposed boundary realignment will result in both dwellings being located on the sameallotment. The application states that the older of the two dwellings will bedecommissioned and made uninhabitable to ensure there will only be one dwelling on theland.

The key planning concerns with this application relate to loss of primary production land,risk of pollution of the watershed, potential interface conflicts between primaryproduction uses and rural living, and intensification of residential uses in a rural area.

The Adelaide Hills Council DAP has advised that it does not support the application as it iscontrary to the relevant provisions of the zone and policy area, which seek to protectprimary production land, limit residential development to existing allotments, and deterurban development beyond township boundaries.

Public notification was not required as no additional allotments are being created.

An inspection of the subject site and surrounding area has been undertaken, withphotographs provided in the ATTACHMENTS.

On balance, it is considered that the application has sufficient merit to warrant support.It is recommended that the Commission grant Development Plan Consent and LandDivision Consent.


3

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. AMENDED PLAN

The original plan of division did not include the closed road (Pieces 88 & 89). Anamended plan was subsequently lodged to include the closed road to ensure the landdivision involves contiguous allotments pursuant to Schedule 5 of the DevelopmentRegulations 2008.

The application was originally classified as non-complying following the Fiora ERDCjudgment (Fiora v Development Assessment Commission ERD No 24 of 2016) howeveradditional information led to the application being re-classified ‘consent on merit’.

The realignment of boundaries was initially proposed to occur in two stages. The staginghas since been removed.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Application details are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

The application proposes to realign the boundaries between four existing allotments asshown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – Plan of Division


4

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

The following tables offer a comparison of the existing and proposed allotments:

ExistingAllotment

Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 87 AllotmentcomprisingPieces 88 & 89

Area 4.282 4.624ha 4.024 1.59haImprovements Dwelling, granny

flat, outbuildingsand water tankconnected to thebores on Lot 5

Dwelling, farmbuildings and 2x bores

Nil Nil (closed road)

Use Horticultureand associatedresidential

Horticultureand associatedresidential

Horticulture Access to Lot 87(ROW)

ProposedAllotment

AllotmentcomprisingPieces 34 & 35

Lot 32 Lot 33 AllotmentcomprisingPieces 36 & 37

Area 8.90ha 2522m2 2426m2 1.59haImprovements Dwelling, granny

flat,decommissioneddwelling andassociatedoutbuildings andfarm buildings

Vacant Vacant Vacant, closedroad

Use Horticulture andassociatedresidential

Rural living Rural living Access to Pieces34 & 35 (ROW)

The subject land (other than the closed road) has been in the ownership of theapplicant’s family since 1852 and has been planted with various food crops since thattime, most recently rhubarb. The land comprises two dwellings, one on Allotment 5 builtin 1856 by the applicant’s great-great-grandparents, and the other (plus granny flat)located on Allotment 4 built by his parents in 1955. The boundary between Lots 4 and 5passes through the garage attached to the dwelling on Lot 4. The applicant currentlylives in the 1856 dwelling, his mother lives in the 1955 dwelling, and the applicant’s sonlives in the granny flat.

The current configuration and improvements are such that only one allotment hasdevelopment potential (Lot 87). Given that the proposal will create two allotments withdevelopment potential (Lots 32 and 33), the applicant intends to decommission thedwelling located on Lot 5 and potentially use it as an office and lunchroom (subject toplanning consent). Decommissioning the dwelling will enable the applicant to retain thebuilding, which is of significance to the applicant due to its family history, while ensuringdevelopment of the resultant allotments poses no greater risk of pollution of thewatershed than development of the existing allotments.

The applicant has advised that existing allotments 4, 5 and 87 are not viable asstandalone allotments and therefore if they were to be sold separately, they would mostlikely be used for rural living purposes, thereby removing land from primary production.The application therefore proposes to combine the most fertile of the primary productionland on one title in order to ensure its long-term viability for primary production. Theproposed rural living allotments will be located in an area of the site that is considered tobe less fertile than the balance of the land and therefore will not result in a significantloss of useful primary production land. Of the 12.93 hectares of land currently available


5

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

for primary production, the proposed boundary realignment will remove 4948 squaremetres for rural living purposes.

The proposed rural living allotments will have access to a sealed bitumen road (BicklesRoad) and will be located adjacent four other rural living allotments.

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

The subject site comprises four allotments, formally identified as follows:

Lot No Street Suburb Hundred Title Reference

4 in FP 12130 14 Woods Hill Road Summertown Onkaparinga 5211/813

5 in DP 22394 16 Woods Hill Road Summertown Onkaparinga 5076/287

87 in FP 129741 17 Bickles Road Summertown Onkaparinga 5700/770

Allotment comprising

Pieces 88 & 89

Bickles Road Summertown Onkaparinga 6148/869

The subject site is located approximately 220 metres to the north-west of thetownship of Summertown.

4

5

Rural living

Townshipboundary

874

88* & 89*

Figure 2 – Subject Site


6

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

The land has a frontage to Woods Hill Road to the north and west and two separatefrontages to Bickles Road to the south, with Lot 4 and 87 being separated by otherland.

Although Lot 87 has a significant frontage to Bickles Road, access has historically (forthe past 30 years, at least) been gained via a right of way and unformed track overpiece 88, providing vehicle access between Lot 87 and Lot 5.

The subject land is undulating in nature and largely devoid of mature vegetationexcept along the northern most boundary, which comprises established trees.

The land is currently used to farm rhubarb and comprises two dwellings andassociated farm buildings and outbuildings.

3.2 Locality

The surrounding land comprises a range of allotment sizes and land uses (refer toFigures 2 and 3). A review of land in the vicinity of the subject site indicates thatallotments generally vary in size from 1200 square metres to 10 hectares.

Land to the north comprises allotments of between 1 hectare and 10 hectares thatare used for a mix of market gardens, vineyards and grazing land with associatedresidences, as well as some rural living allotments. Land to the east comprises ruralallotments used for primary production with ancillary dwellings. Land to the westpredominately comprises rural living allotments of between 8000 square metres and4 hectares.

Land to the immediate south (separating Lots 4 and 87) comprises approximately 4hectares and is currently planted with vines. A strip of four rural living allotments ofbetween 1240 and 3300 square metres is located between the vines and BicklesRoad. It is understood that these allotments were created many years ago, withvaluation data indicating that the associated dwellings were constructed betweenapproximately 1930 and 1986. Land on the other side of Bickles Road compriseslarger allotments use for farming with associated dwellings.

Figure 3

PP + H

PPPP + H

RuL

RuLRuL

RuL

RuL

RuL

PP + HPP + H

PP + HPP + H

PP

CTCT

RuL

PP + H

PP

RuLRuL

Figure 3 – Locality


7

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

4. COUNCIL COMMENTS

Council’s comments are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

Adelaide Hills Council’s DAP considered the application at its meeting on 5 July 2016. TheDAP resolved to advise the Commission that it does not support the application for thereasons summarised below:

The proposal does not accord with Objectives 3, 4 and 5 of the Water Protection(Marble Hill) Policy Area as it has the potential to intensify residentialdevelopment in an area intended for primary production and intensify urbandevelopment beyond the township boundary.

The proposal does not accord with PDC 7(b) of the Water Protection (Marble Hill)Policy Area as it has the potential to prejudice primary production by creatingallotments suitable for residential purposes only.

The proposal does not accord with Objective 3, PDC 16, 17 19(b) and 44 of theWatershed (Primary Production) Zone as the proposed allotments are intended forresidential use only and will diminish the overall productivity of primaryproduction land.

Council’s comments are for regard only.

5. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS

The applicant has provided a response to Council’s comments, summarised as follows:

If the existing titles are sold separately, primary production will not beeconomically viable and the parcels will become large rural living lots, resulting inloss of primary production land.

The proposal intends to create one large primary production parcel that will bemore viable and economically feasible and ensure the continuation of primaryproduction.

The subject land is serviced by a bore in the north-west corner of Lot 87, withwater distributed across the site via an irrigation system. If the existingallotments are sold individually it will require the new owners to negotiate the on-going management of the irrigation system.

The two rural living allotments do not intrude into the productive primaryproduction land and are consistent with the existing allotment pattern.

The two rural living allotments will be located on relatively level, cleared land andwill have access to power and a bitumen road.

Future dwellings on the allotments will not be readily visible to passing traffic asBickles Road is a dead end road.

The applicant’s response is contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

6. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS

Referral responses are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

6.1 SA Water

SA Water has advised that it has no requirements to be met as water andsewer are not available to the site.

6.2 Planning Services of DPTI

Planning Services has advised of the following Land Division Requirements:

R


8

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

A final plan complying with the requirements for plans asset out in the Manualof Survey Practice Volume 1 (Plan Presentation and Guidelines) issued by theRegistrar General to be lodged with the Development Assessment Commissionfor Land Division Certificate purposes.

7. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was assigned Category 1 pursuant to Schedule 9. Accordingly no publicnotification was required.

8. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject site is located within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and theWatershed Protection (Marble Hill) Policy Area as described within the Adelaide HillsCouncil Development Plan Consolidated 9 January 2014 and shown in Maps AdHi/15 and51.

Relevant planning policies are contained in Appendix One and summarised below.

8.1 Policy Area

The key objectives of the policy area are to retain agricultural activities with lowpollution potential, restrict residential development to existing allotments only, andprevent the intensification of urban development beyond township boundaries.Residential development should be in the form of detached dwellings that are sited tominimise impact on the rural character of the landscape. The policy area is silent onthe subject of land division.

8.2 Zone

The intent of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone is to maintain and enhancethe natural resources of the south Mount Lofty Ranges; protect the long termsustainability of rural production; and preserve and restore remnant nativevegetation

Land division should: only occur where a suitable site for a detached dwelling is available that

complies with the criteria detailed in Table AdHi/5 (PDC 18). Not occur where the proposed use may result in the pollution of water

resources or cause the loss of productive primary production land (PDC 19)

Land division may occur where no additional allotments are created and the purposeof the plan of division is the minor readjustment of boundaries to correct an anomalyin the placement of boundaries and to improve the management of the land for thepurpose of primary production (PDC 20).

Land division may occur provided development of the new allotments will not result ina loss of primary production land or pose a greater risk of pollution of surface orundergrounds waters than development of the existing allotments (PDC 21).Resultant allotments should be consistent in size with existing allotments in thelocality (PDC 22).

8.3 Council Wide

The Council Wide provisions of the Development Plan provide guidance on


9

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

Land division, rural development, the appearance of land and buildings, and watershedprotection.

In general terms, the Development Plan seeks:

The division of land only where the resultant allotments are suitable for theirintended use and where subsequent development will not result in the exploitationor pollution of a water resource

The retention of rural areas primarily for forestry, primary production andconservation purposes

The maintenance of the natural character and beauty of rural areas To protect the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed against pollution and contamination

Figure 4 – Zoning Map


10

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

Figure 5 – Policy Area Map


11

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

9. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Adelaide HillsCouncil Development Plan, contained in APPENDIX 1.

The key planning issues for this application are discussed below.

9.1 Loss of Primary Production Land

The creation of rural living allotments in a primary production zone is not generallysupported due to the associated loss of primary production land. In this instance theloss of primary production land will equate to less than 5000 square metres. This isconsidered to be relatively minor given the balance allotment of 12.43 hectares willcontinue to be used for primary production.

Principle of Development Control 19 of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zonestates that land division should not cause the loss of productive primary productionland, which suggests that not all land zoned primary production is suitable forprimary production. The applicant has advised that the area of land intended for ruralliving is t considered to be the least productive; therefore the proposed land divisionis considered to be generally consistent with PDC 19.

In this instance it is considered that the proposed land division will not result in asignificant loss of primary production land.

9.2 Interface Conflict

The potential for interface issues to arise between rural living allotments and primaryproduction is a concern, particularly in areas where residential development islimited. In this instance however it is of note that the proposed rural living allotmentswill be located alongside four existing rural living allotments, and that such allotmentsare surrounded by an operational vineyard. This arrangement is not unusual in theSummertown area, with aerial imagery showing multiple examples of rural livingallotments located in close proximity to a range of primary production uses, such asgrazing, market gardens and vineyards.

In light of the mix of uses evident in the area, it is considered that the proposed ruralliving allotments are generally consistent with the existing character of the locality.Further, it is considered that the proposed allotments are large enough to incorporatelandscape buffers to reduce the potential for interface conflicts to arise between thenew owners of the allotments and surrounding primary production land.

9.3 Residential Development

A key objective of the Water Protection (Marble Hill) Policy Area (Obj 3) is to restrictresidential development to existing allotments only. It is considered that the intent ofthis policy is to protect the watershed from pollution by limiting developmentopportunities to those that already exist; and to ensure the rural landscape characterof the area is maintained.

Currently the subject land has one opportunity for additional residential developmenton Allotment 87. It is proposed to decommission the existing dwelling on Allotment 5to provide an opportunity to retain the residential development potential on thesubject land. The proposed boundary realignment seeks to relocate the developmentopportunities to land that is less productive and that forms a logical extension of anexisting residential area. The number of allotments and development opportunities in


12

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

the watershed will not increase as a result of the boundary realignment, thereforethere will be minimal increased risk of pollution of the watershed.

With regard to protecting the rural landscape character of the area, it is consideredthat future development of the proposed allotments will have minimal visual impactby virtue of their location on a ‘no through road’ adjacent other residential properties.

The policy area also seeks to prevent the intensification of urban development beyondthe township boundaries (Obj 4). The proposed development will result in tworesidential allotments located beyond the township, however due to their location it isconsidered that the proposed allotments are unlikely to detract from the character ofthe Summertown township.

9.4 Watershed Protection

The proposed rural living allotments are of a suitable size and slope to accommodatea dwelling and wastewater disposal system in accordance with the requirements listedin Table AdHi/5. Council’s report confirms that the allotments are capable ofsupporting on-site wastewater disposal systems, thereby not posing a significant riskof pollution of the watershed.

The proposed land division will result in the two existing dwellings on the land beinglocated on one allotment. The applicant has advised that the older of the twodwellings (currently located on Lot 5, constructed in 1856) will be decommissioned inthe event that the land division is approved.

The dwelling to be decommissioned is of great significance to the applicant andtherefore he would like to retain it. Due to its proximity to the main farming area andexisting farm buildings, the applicant intends to use the building as an office andlunchroom. If the Commission resolves to grant Development Approval, it isrecommended that a condition of approval is attached requiring the applicant tosubmit a decommissioning plan that outlines what work will be undertaken to ensureit cannot be used as a dwelling; and to undertake the decommissioning prior toSection 51 clearance. The applicant will need to lodge an application with Council forthe change in use from dwelling to office should they wish to pursue this option.

9.5 Improved Management of the Land

Principle of Development Control 20 for the Watershed (Primary Production) Zonestates that boundary realignments should be minor in nature and serve to correct ananomaly and improve the management of land for primary production purposes.

The proposed boundary realignment is not considered to be minor nor does it seek tocorrect an anomaly, however the application states that locating the most productiveprimary production land on one title will improve the management of the land andensure its ongoing primary production use. The applicant is of the view that thecurrent individual titles are not large enough to support primary production in theirown right and if sold separately will be used for rural living, thereby resulting in a lossof primary production land.

There are several examples in the locality of similar sized allotments being used forprimary production purposes. It is therefore considered that the individual allotmentscould still be used for primary production or they could continue to be managed asone entity as has occurred in the past. However given the size of the allotments anddemand for semi-rural land in close proximity to the CBD, there is the risk that if theallotments are sold individually as currently configured, they will not be used formeaningful primary production. It is therefore considered that locating the majority of


13

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

the primary production land on one title will give the greatest assurance that the landwill continue to be used for primary production.

On this basis the proposed boundary realignment is generally acceptable as it willfacilitate the on-going use of the land for primary production purposes.

9.6 Site Contamination

In light of the subject land’s long history of horticultural use, the applicant hasprovided a site history for Allotment 87 to assist the Commission in determining thesuitability of the site for rural living.

The applicant has advised that the land was cleared of scrub vegetation by his fathermany years ago. Since that time, the land has been used for growing vegetable cropsand most recently, rhubarb. In 2010, the applicant engaged Creation InnovationAgriculture and Forestry (CIAAF) to investigate the cause of Rhubarb leaf spot, adisease affecting the applicant’s crop. The CIAAF investigations included an analysisof herbicide residue in the soil. The level was found to be low i.e. below the Level ofReporting. Subsequent testing in 2015 indicated that the residue level remains low.

On this basis it is considered that no further testing is required at land division stage,with the low levels of residue indicating that the land is generally suitable for ruralliving purposes. The relevant authority may seek additional soil testing and analysisat land use stage.

10. CONCLUSION

The application is finely balanced. The creation of rural living allotments in a primaryproduction zone is not generally supported due to concerns regarding the loss of primaryproduction land and the potential for rural living to prejudice the use of the surroundingland for primary production. Rural living allotments can place undue demands on publicservices and infrastructure; and the future development of rural living allotments canaffect the open and rural character of an area if not sited and designed appropriately.

In this instance, it is considered that the proposed rural living allotments will not result ina significant loss of primary production land and are unlikely to give rise to interfaceconflicts due to their size and proximity to other rural living allotments. Each rural livingallotment is capable of supporting an appropriate on-site wastewater disposal system andtherefore future development of the allotments is unlikely to lead to pollution of waterresources.

The proposed allotments will be connected to electricity and have access to a sealed roadand therefore will not place undue demands on public infrastructure. The location of theallotments on a ‘no through road’ and adjacent existing residential properties willminimise the visual impact any future dwellings may have on the rural character of thearea. The size of the proposed allotments is consistent with existing allotments in thelocality.

It is acknowledged that the proposed boundary realignment does not represent the minorreadjustment of boundaries to correct an anomaly or to improve the management of theland. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposed boundary realignment hasmerit as it will facilitate the continued use of the land for primary production by locatingthe most productive land on one title; and the rural living allotments will not result in asignificant loss of primary production land. In addition, the resultant allotments and theirintended uses are considered to be consistent with the existing allotments sizes and usesin the locality.


14

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

On balance, the application is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant support.

Pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993, and having undertaken anassessment of the application against the relevant Development Plan, the application isNOT seriously at variance with the provisions of that plan.

11. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with thepolicies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that theproposal meets the key objectives of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone asit:

a. Will not create any additional allotments in the Mount Lofty RangesWatershed

b. Is unlikely to result in an increased risk of pollution of water resourcesc. Is unlikely to result in the significant loss of primary production landd. Is unlikely to jeopardise the continued use of surrounding land for primary

production purposese. Will create allotments that are consistent in size to existing allotments in

the localityf. Will facilitate the on-going use of the land for primary production purposes

3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent and Land Division Consent toDevelopment Application 473/D037/15 by Greg Driver for land division byboundary realignment (4 into 4) at 14-16 Woods Hill Road and 17 Bickles Road,Summertown, subject to the following conditions of consent:

PLANNING CONDITIONS

1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or byconditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strictaccordance with the details and following plans submitted in DevelopmentApplication No 473/D037/15.

Olden & van Senden Pty LtdPlan of Division, Sheets 1 to 3, Reference 4127da V5, dated 16/6/16

Planning & Development ConsultantsLetter to the Development Assessment Commission, file: 15022 ref: 180815, dated18/8/15Letter to the Development Assessment Commission, file: 15022 ref: 110316, dated11/3/16

2. The applicant shall submit a Decommissioning Plan that outlines the work to beundertaken to the dwelling on Allotment 5 in DP 22394 to ensure it cannot beinhabited, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development AssessmentCommission.

3. The decommissioning of the dwelling on Allotment 5 in DP 22394 shall be undertakenin accordance with the Decommissioning Plan and shall occur place prior to Section51 clearance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development AssessmentCommission.


15

AGENDA ITEM 2.2.1

LAND DIVISION REQUIREMENTS

4. A final plan complying with the requirements for plans asset out in the Manual ofSurvey Practice Volume 1 (Plan Presentation and Guidelines) issued by the RegistrarGeneral to be lodged with the Development Assessment Commission for LandDivision Certificate purposes.

ADVISORY NOTES

a. The development must be substantially commenced or application for certificatemade within 12 months of the date of this Notification, unless this period has beenextended by the Development Assessment Commission.

b. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12 months of the date of thisNotification.

c. The applicant is also advised that the final land division certificate must be obtainedfrom the Development Assessment Commission to complete the development within3 years of the date of the Notification unless this period is extended by theCommission.

d. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposedon this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval.

e. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and DevelopmentCourt within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time asthe Court may allow.

f. The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is locatedin the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 82040289).

Nitsan TaylorSENIOR PLANNING OFFICERDEVELOPMENT DIVISIONDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE

14-16 Woods Hills Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown · 2016. 9. 2. · Greg Driver Land Division...

Documents

Transcript of 14-16 Woods Hills Road and 17 Bickles Road, Summertown · 2016. 9. 2. · Greg Driver Land Division...