Development Assessment Panel fileMID MURRAY COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL . Development...

Development Assessment

Panel

30 July 2007

MID MURRAY COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

Agenda

Meeting to be held in the Cadell Training Centre, Boden Road, Cadell

Monday 30 July 2007, 10.45am

1. PRESENT

Frank Wieser (Presiding Member), Ross Dawkins, James Miller, Graham Gaston, David Burgess and Inez Bormann

2. IN ATTENDANCE

Kelvin Goldstone, Environmental Services Manager Julie Lewis, Senior Development Officer - Planning Jennifer Brewis, Development Officer – Planning Josephine Henderson, Development Officer - Planning

3. COMMENCEMENT AND WELCOME AM 4. APOLOGIES

Brian Taylor

moved that the apology be received. Seconded

5. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

(439 – 25/6/2007) Minutes of the Mid Murray Council Development Assessment Panel meeting held on 25 June 2007.

RECOMMENDATION moved that the minutes of the Mid Murray Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 25 June 2007 be taken as read and confirmed. Seconded

Development Assessment Panel 1 30 July 2007

MID MURRAY COUNCIL

6. DEVELOPMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATION moved that the report be received. Seconded

7. LATE CORRESPONDENCE 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. NEXT MEETING

To be held in the Council Chambers, Main Street, Cambrai on Monday, 27 August 2007, commencing at 10.00am.

10. CLOSURE


MID MURRAY COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

Development Report

Meeting to be held in the Cadell Training Centre, Boden Road, Cadell

Monday 30 July 2007, 10.45am

Table of Contents

Item No. Subject Page No. Development Report 6.1 711/572/06 – R McWaters ................................................................................. 1 6.2 711/430/06 – QF Doors Pty Ltd ......................................................................... 2 6.3 711/221/07 – K & M Lindsay .............................................................................. 8 6.4 711/587/06 – Tim Evans Architecture ................................................................ 13 6.5 711/D019/07 – Tiger Plains Pastoral Co Pty Ltd................................................ 20 6.6 Development Assessment Panel – Report to Council........................................ 21 6.7 Environment, Resources & Development Court Appeals - ERD Court No. 221 of 2006 – C Caudo v Mid Murray Council ..................... 22 - ERD Court No. 44 of 2006 – Macrotrans Pty Ltd v Mid Murray Council........ 23 - ERD Court No. 196 of 2007 – Helen Ebel v Mid Murray Council .................. 24

Development Assessment Panel 30 July 2007

MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 711/572/06 – R MCWATERS

Reporting Officer: Jennifer Brewis Development No. 711/572/06 Applicant R McWaters Subject Land Lot 112, 7 Seventh Street, Morgan, Hundred of Eba Proposal Residential Flat Building SUMMARY The above application was tabled at the Development Assessment Panel meeting held on 25 June 2007. It was resolved that the matter be deferred to enable an inspection of the site prior to the next Panel meeting. The original report is attached for members’ consideration. For consideration.


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 711/430/06 – QF DOORS PTY LTD

Reporting Officer: Josephine Henderson Development No. 711/430/06 Applicant QF Doors Pty Ltd Subject Land Lot 51 of DP54543, 38/40 Randell Street, Mannum,

Hundred of Finniss Proposal Manager’s Accommodation, Office and Guest

Accommodation INTRODUCTION The above mentioned application has been lodged with Council where Development Plan Consent is initially sought for the construction of a building for the purposes of manager’s accommodation, office and guest accommodation at the above site. Copies of plans and details submitted with the application are attached. SUBJECT LAND The subject site is identified as Lot 51 of DP54543, 38/40 Randell Street, Mannum, Hundred of Finniss as contained in Certificate of Title Volume 5793 Folio 585. The proposed development is located in the Business Zone, Policy Area 6 (Floodplain Region) as defined in the Mid Murray Council Development Plan Map MiMu/125. The allotment has frontage on to the River Murray and butts up to an adjoining allotment (Lot 50), which faces on to Randell Street. The subject site has a Right of Way through Lot 50 and a drive way on the other side of this property. The site currently has approval for mooring houseboats and has a dock area constructed, the rest of the site is vacant with mature native trees scattered throughout. The subject site consists of approximately 962 square metres. Attachment 1 identifies the subject site and locality of the subject site. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Development Plan Consent is sought for the construction of a manager’s residence and office with guest accommodation. The site coverage footprint of the proposed development is approximately 259 square metres. The proposed two storey building consists of a ground floor garage, store, laundry, reception and waiting area most of which have removable panels and removable furniture (nothing is fixed), the remaining solid walls providing structural support for the upper level. The first floor consists of four bedrooms, office, living area, kitchen, two bathrooms and various balconies.



An existing dock and mooring site for three houseboats was approved in 2004. Provision for carparking has been provided in front of the dock area for up to five vehicles and a disabled carpark is located in front of the proposed dwelling. A paved pathway is provided between the dwelling, the carparks and the dock area with a no greater than 1:14 graded slope (for disabled use). The driveway and carpark area will be constructed from compacted quarry rubble with a fall to centrally located sumps. These sumps will be connected into an existing Mid Murray Council drainage line that runs along the edge of the property. The applicant has consulted with, and had approved, this drainage scheme by Council’s Works Department. The remaining area around the proposed development will be grassed. The site consists of numerous established native tree species. The proposed development has been designed to take into consideration these trees, requiring only minimal trimming of some limbs that have been deemed hazardous by an arborist. The arborist report has also identified that the existing trees will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed development (including built structures and site work). The site will have a two way access (along the Right of Way) and an in only access on the northern side of Lot 50. Refer to attachments for proposed site works, access routes and arborist reports. NATURE OF LOCALITY The adjoining property, Lot 50, is the Mannum Old Wares, which fronts on to Randell Street. The subject site has a Right of Way through the southern side of Lot 50. Mannum Old Wares currently use part of this access point as an unloading area. It is feasible for traffic to drive around the truck whilst it is unloading. Mannum Old Wares does not have a scheduled unloading time, but is spasmodic and can vary in the amount of time required to unload. Mannum Old Wares is a substantial shed-like structure, therefore it is unlikely the proposed development will be visible from Randell Street. REFERRALS No referrals are required under Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 1993. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Schedule 9, Clause 16 (b) of the Development Regulations 1993, the proposed development was determined to be of a type that warrants Category 2 notification. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Development Act and Regulations 1993, letters were sent out to adjoining landowners on 29 May 2007. At the conclusion of the public notification process, Council received no representation.



RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE MID MURRAY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Council Wide Objectives: 1, 6, 13, 15 & 16 Principles of Development Control: 1, 2, 6, 16, 17, 18, 21 & 36 Business Zone Objectives: 1, 4 & 6 Principles of Development Control: 1, 2 & 4 Business Zone, Policy Area 6 (Floodplain) Principles of Development Control: 1, 8, 9, 10 & 11 ASSESSMENT The proposed development is considered to be an acceptable form of development within the Business Zone, Policy Area 6 (Floodplain), of Council’s Development Plan, and is a Merit Category 2 form of development. Extensive consultation between the architect, owner, adjoining owner and Development Officer was undertaken over a six month period to shape this proposal into an acceptable form that all are willing to accept. The proposed development provides and maintains access from Randell Street to the River Murray and provides a contemporary vista from the River Murray. The proposal is of a high design standard and will complement the character of the surrounding area. The contemporary solid-void play on form will contrast effectively against the more historic pub backdrop and large old and new sheds that adjoin the subject site. In relation to site access, the driveway (for Lot 51) will be in only and typically be used by the owner and employees. The Right of Way (through Lot 50) will be a two way access and will typically be used by guests utilising the houseboats. It is predicted that guest traffic flow will be up to about 5 cars per week at rostered times, i.e. 2-3pm and 10-11am. It is unlikely to detrimentally impact on loading/unloading activities of the adjoining owner (Mannum Old Wares). Due to the limited number of traffic likely to access the subject site, the proposed development should not create a hazard to traffic along Randell Street any greater than what is currently experienced. The proposed development, including carparking area, will not impact on the river frontage. The building has been located as far back as physically possible to maximise the openness of this area. Though carparking has been located close to the dock area, this surface has been designed to have water run-off drain towards the two sumps located along the driveway. The proposed building has been sympathetically incorporated into the existing landscape and will not adversely impact on the existing native trees scattered throughout the area. Additional landscaping will be limited to paths, parking areas, driveway and lawn areas. No exotic species are being introduced.



The proposed building design is of visual interest through its form and styling. The wall height of the elevated area is no more than 3 metres, and the ground floor wall height does not exceed 3 metres. The ground floor does not consist of any living area; however, compromises have been reached by allowing a readily removable reception and waiting area. All non-structural walls consist of readily removable panels. The first floor level will be used for living purposes, office and accommodation only. The proposed building will be connected to the Mannum sewer system. Signage does not form part of this application. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed development satisfactorily meets the requirements of Council’s Development Plan, in particular the Business Zone, Policy Area 6 (Floodplain). The development will be of visual interest as a well-designed contemporary structure, positively contrasting the more simplistic shed structures (old and new) adjoining the subject site. The proposed building will be constructed in such a way as to mitigate potential flooding issues, and will add to the commercial diversity and competitiveness of Randell Street. It is therefore considered that Development Application 711/430/06 is not seriously at variance with the Objectives and Principles of Development Control as listed within the Development Plan of Mid Murray Council and therefore warrants the granting of Development Plan Consent. RECOMMENDATION moved that pursuant to Section 33(1)(a) of the Development Act, 1993 Development Plan Consent be granted to Development Application 711/430/06 subejct to the following conditions and notations:- Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details and plans

submitted with the application, other than where required to be varied by the following conditions.

2. All exterior surfaces of the building/structure are to be of non-reflective

materials, and colours which blend in with the natural features of the environment. Any painting associated with achieving this requirement shall be completed within three months of construction of the structure/building. A colour scheme shall be provided to and approved by Council prior to establishment of the structure/building.

3. The underneath area of the elevated dwelling shall be enclosed using roller

doors, removable panels, or other material which can be easily removed during times of flood.

4. The premises must be connected to a reticulated sewerage main or common

effluent drainage scheme once completed.



5. The ground floor (with the exception of the area(s) shown to be enclosed on the approved plan) and balconies/verandahs are to remain open. No walls, curtains, blinds or other material being permanent, semi-permanent or removable are to be attached at any time to this building.

6. The dwelling shall only be used for human habitation once connection to the

proposed Mannum sewer system is achieved. 7. All tree trimming will be undertaken to the extent documented on the approved

plans and arborist report only. 8. The proposed building is to be used for manager’s accommodation and office to

service the houseboat hire business and provide overnight houseboat guest accommodation only.

Notations 1. The storage of bulk fuels, oils and hazardous chemicals, shall not occur below

the 1956 flood level. 2. This approval does not imply compliance with the Electricity Act 1996 (as

amended), or the Regulations thereunder. It is the responsibility of the owner and the person undertaking development to ensure compliance with the same. You are advised to contact appropriate authorities including ETSA, Telstra and SA Water in relation to the location of supply lines and other requirements prior to commencing work.

3. Development Approval Required

This approval refers only to Development Plan Consent. Building Rules Consent and Development Approval must be obtained prior to commencement of work.

4. The Council also advises that the proposed development will be located within

the “River Murray Floodplain” which is subject to periodic flooding, which may cause extensive or total loss. Neither the Council or any of its Servants, Agents or Officers accept any responsibility for any such loss which may occur. Any conditions are imposed so as to maintain the natural character of the River Valley and to attain the Objectives of the River Murray Zone.

5. Applicants are advised that the Sewerage Act requires plans for building work in

the sewered area to be lodged with the SA Water Corporation, PO Box 796, Murray Bridge, 5253, 14 days prior to commencing work.

6. All existing trees on the site are to be retained wherever practicable. 7. The applicant is responsible for the correct siting of the proposed building and

shall ensure that the building is sited on the allotment in accordance with the approved site plan.



8. The granting of this consent does not absolve the applicant from obtaining all other consents which they may be required to do, pursuant to the provisions of any other statutes.

9. The applicant is reminded of its general environmental duty, to take all

reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the activities on the site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment including the River Murray. Due to the high sensitivity of the site particular attention should be paid to all aspects of waste management particularly during the construction phase. The following suggestions are relevant:- • the generation of dust, litter and debris should be controlled; • all hard waste produced during construction should be placed in

covered bins or enclosure for off site disposal; • all residues and waste, including that from concreting, brick cutting,

plastering, painting, cleaning etc. is to be contained for off site disposal, and not allowed to enter the River by soakage, rain or wind.

10. The applicant is advised that any proposal to clear, remove limbs or trim native

vegetation, unless subject to an exemption under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, requires the approval of the Native Vegetation Council. Any queries regarding the clearance of native vegetation should be directed to the Native Vegetation Council Secretariat on 8124 4700.

Seconded


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 711/221/07 – K & M LINDSAY

Reporting Officer: Jennifer Brewis Development No. 711/221/07 Applicant K & M Lindsay Subject Land Lot 366 of FP208742, 79 River Lane, Mannum,

Hundred of Finniss Proposal Garage and Two Rainwater Tanks INTRODUCTION The above mentioned development application has been lodged with Council where Development Plan Consent is sought for the construction of a shed and two rainwater tanks upon a site located between River Lane and Priess Street. Copies of plans and details submitted with the application are attached. SUBJECT LAND The subject land is identified as Lot 366 of FP208742, 79 River Lane, Mannum, Hundred of Finniss as contained Certificate of Title Volume 5517 Folio 203. The proposal is in the Residential Zone as defined in the Mid Murray Council Development Plan Map MiMu/62. The subject site has two street frontages (Priess Street and River Lane). At present the site is split into two levels. A large amount of excavation has occurred on the River Lane side of the site. There is a large dirt wall which is not retained in the centre of the property. The existing dwelling on the site is accessed via Priess Street.

Attachment 1 identifies the subject site and locality of the subject site.



CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY River Lane is a small residential street. A cliff is located on its western side and dwellings facing the river are on the eastern side.

The river front dwellings have their garages facing River Lane, while the dwellings located on the cliff all look out towards the river. The cliff allotments are either stepped using retaining walls or are left in the natural steep sloping land form. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Development Plan Consent is sought for the construction of a shed and two rainwater tanks. The shed will be located upon an already excavated site and will be accessed via River Lane. The shed will be 9 metres wide and 10 metres long with a total floor area of 90 square metres. The wall height of the shed will be 4.89 metres and with the total height coming to 6.1 metres. The proposed shed is this large to accommodate a camping van. The proposed rainwater tanks will be located behind the proposed shed. REFERRALS Pursuant to the Development Act and Regulations 1993, no referrals were required. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations, the proposed development was to be of a type that warranted Category 2 notification. Therefore in accordance with the provisions of the Development Act & Regulations 1993, letters were sent to the adjoining landowners. At the conclusion of the public notification process, Council had received one written representation in support of the proposal, a copy is attached.



RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE MID MURRAY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Council Wide Objectives: 1,2,3,13,15 & 30. Principles of Development Control: 2,7,33,34,39,40,41,42,44,130 & 139 Residential Zone Objectives: 1,4, & 6 Principles of Development Control: 1 & 2 ASSESSMENT The construction of a shed is associated with an existing residential building and is considered appropriate by the Mid Murray Council Development Plan. Even when this is the case, the siting, design and scale all need to be looked at carefully so that sheds do not detrimentally affect a localities amenity. The proposed shed is to be located upon an already excavated area in front of an unretained dirt wall. Though the building will not be higher than the excavated cliff, the shed will be located closer to the road so will block the cliff top dwellings from view. By being in close proximity to River Lane the perceived bulk of the structure will be greater and is more likely to impact negatively on the localities amenity. By its location it will block this dirt wall being viewed from River Lane. As to if this is of benefit to the localities aesthetics is questionable, especially when the sheds proximity to the road is considered. The size of the proposed shed is of some concern however due to the excavation the shed will be located back in the cliff and the majority of the shed will be hidden when the shed is viewed from further up and down River Lane. The buildings height however will mean the top portion of the shed will still be visible from up and down River Lane.



The existing excavation into the cliff has left little significantly sized vegetation upon the site. This means any building on this level will be extremely visible from the street. The existing street scape of River Lane at this point includes the rear of river front dwellings which includes garage doors and few windows. The proposed shed will not affect the existing River views observed by the cliff top dwellings. No other sites in River Lane have similar levels of excavation. This means that if this building is approved unless accompanied by significant excavation no similar developments are possible on the western side of River Lane. Access from River Lane is already in existence and no further excavation is required to gain access to the development. CONCLUSION In summary though the shed is of significant size, the existing excavation of the site will reduce the sheds visibility from River Lane beyond the adjoining allotments. Due to the existing site already having an existing large earth wall, the sheds amenity impact is minimised as it will hide the rock wall from view. It is therefore considered that Development Application 711/221/07 is not seriously at variance with the Objectives and Principles of Development Control as listed within the Mid Murray Council Development Plan and therefore warrants the granting of Development Plan Consent. RECOMMENDATION moved that pursuant to Section 33(1)(a) of the Development Act, 1993 Development Plan Consent be granted to Development Application 711/221/07 subject to the following conditions and notations:- Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details and

plans submitted with the application, other than where required to be varied by the following conditions.



2. The structure/building shall not be used for human habitation. 3. All exterior surfaces of the building/structure are to be non-reflective

materials, (factory applied colour coated steel or equivalent). Notations 1. This approval does not imply compliance with Electricity Act 1996 (as

amended), or the Regulations thereunder. It is the responsibility of the owner and the person undertaking development to ensure compliance with the same.

You are advised to contact appropriate authorities including ETSA, Telstra and SA Water in relation to the location of supply lines and other requirements prior to commencing work.

2. Consent Valid 36 Months

If substantial work on the development is not commenced within twelve months of the date of this consent, or substantially completed within thirty-six months of the date of this consent, a fresh consent must be obtained.

3. The applicant is responsible for the correct siting of the proposed building

and shall ensure that the building is sited on the allotment in accordance with the approved site plan.

4. The application is advised that Council will instigate appropriate action

should the structure be used for anything other than domestic storage. 5. The applicant is reminded of its general environmental duty, as required by

Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment in any way which causes or may cause environmental harm.

Seconded


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 711/587/06 – TIM EVANS ARCHITECTURE

Reporting Officer: Jennifer Brewis Development No. 711/587/06 Applicant Tim Evans Architecture Subject Land Lot 171 of DP69861, Providence Drive, Bowhill,

Hundred of Younghusband Proposal Dwelling INTRODUCTION The above mentioned development application has been lodged with Council where Development Consent is sought for the construction of an elevated dwelling at the Bowhill shack settlement. Copies of plans and details submitted with the application are attached. SUBJECT LAND The subject land is identified as Lot 171 of DP69861, Providence Drive, Bowhill, Hundred of Younghusband as contained in Certificate of Title Volume 5964 Folio 68. The proposal is in the Shack Settlement Policy Area as defined in the Mid Murray Council Development Plan Map MiMu/121. The site is currently vacant. A gum tree is located on the river side boundary of the block. Several branches of this tree protrude into the site. A public reserve is located between the subject site and the river. The total allotment size amounts to 630 square metres. The two adjoining sites have existing two storey dwellings upon them.

Attachment 1 identifies the subject site and locality of the subject site. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Development Plan Consent is sought for an elevated dwelling. The proposed dwelling has all living areas elevated above ground level with storage and laundry areas downstairs.



The elevated section of the shack will have a floor area of 436.35 square metres. This includes six bedrooms each with an ensuite, a spa, sauna and three decks. The proposal includes three above ground rainwater tanks and one large underground water tank to be located on the river side of the ground floor of the shack. The underground rainwater tank will have a height of 2.4 metres. The ground floor laundry will be 10 square metres. The remaining area enclosed downstairs will be done so by roller doors and tilt up panel doors. NATURE OF THE LOCALITY The proposal is to be located in the Bowhill shack settlement, which has experienced substantial development over the last few years. At present the site coverage of each block is high. Overall each Bowhill shack has a dwelling and a shed/carport complex. Little open space is left on each allotment. The dwellings are located on the river side of the blocks with the shed/carport complex on the road side of the allotments. On the other side of Providence Drive is the lagoon and private land. REFERRALS In accordance with Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 1993, the application was referred to the Minister for the River Murray. A copy of the response received is attached. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Principle of Development Control 25 of the Shack Settlement Policy Area of the River Murray Zone, the development was determined to be of a type that warranted Category 3 notification. Therefore in accordance with provisions of the Development Act and Regulations 1993, letters were sent to the adjoining land owners, and a notice was placed in The Murray Valley Standard on 24 May 2007. At the conclusion of the public notification process, Council had received one written representation which raised concerns about the existing tree, impeded views and access for emergency vehicle access. A second representation was received after the statutory date and had no specific comments made other than the fact that it was ‘non-conforming’ of which no further details were provided. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE MID MURRAY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Council Wide Objectives: 6, 7, 14, 15 & 30 Principles of Development Control: 2, 6, 7, 33, 36, 103, 104, 113, 130, 136 & 116



River Murray Zone Objectives: 1, 4, 19 & 20 Principles of Development Control: 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17 & 18 ASSESSMENT Character of the Locality Dwellings are considered to be appropriate forms of development in the Shack Settlement Policy Area.

Shack Settlement Policy Area Principle of Development Control 10 “Replacement of an existing dwelling or, construction of a dwelling on an allotment where no dwelling currently exists requires: (a) siting not occur closer to the waterfront than any part of the existing dwelling

on either side and in any event the set-back distance from the waterfront is not less than 30 metres.”

Currently the two adjoining sites have exiting two storey dwellings upon them. The dwelling on Lot 117 is situated closer to the river than the dwelling on Lot 116. The proposed dwelling has a deck on the northern river side. This is situated next to the existing dwelling on Lot 116 which is set further from the river. The front wall of the proposed building on the north half is to be in line with the existing dwelling on Lot 116. The proposed dwelling has no deck on the southern river facing side of the shack. The front wall will be in line with this existing front wall on Lot 117. Overall, though the placement of this dwelling will be located closer to the river than Lot 116, it will have minimal impact on the existing views as the proposed deck is what will be protruding forward of the existing dwelling. Due to a deck not having walls it will be possible for people to view the river through the structure. It should however be noted due to the space required for the waste system, there is not sufficient room for the dwelling to be moved further from the river. As the building is so large the overall building footprint on the site coverage is just over 69%. However, the existing character of the locality already has large site coverage trends. The proposed development will prevent buildings (sheds) from being constructed on the site. A Land Management Agreement is attached to the title. The proposed development meets the requirements of this Land Management Agreement.

Shack Settlement Policy Area Principle of Development Control 6 “Not more than one dwelling should be erected on a dwelling site.”

It was considered when looking at the buildings design that the potential use of this building will not be for a single detached dwelling but for tourist accommodation of some form (Bed & Breakfast). However, upon questioning the intended use of the building the applicant confirmed that the proposal will be “one self contained residence”.



Flood Protection The proposed dwelling will have a ground floor clearance of 2.2 metres. The area which is to be enclosed on the ground floor totals 57 square metres which keeps in line with Principle of Development Control 13. Vegetation Concern has been raised about the existing tree on the Public Reserve in front of the shack which is proposed to be trimmed. The applicant has stated that this tree is not native to the area and was planted by a previous owner. Water Storage The proposal includes three above ground rainwater tanks and one large underground water tank. As this large rainwater tank is to be located in the ground a large amount of excavation will be required for its construction.

Council Wide Principle of Development Control 116 “Development should be undertaken so as to minimise excavation and filling of land.”

However, an underground rainwater tank in flood prone areas reduces the risk of flood damage and the potential of rainwater tanks becoming navigational hazards after a flood event. CONCLUSION It is my assessment that the proposed development though large in floor area is suitably designed to meet the policies of the Shack Settlement Policy Area. The shack has all the living areas elevated and minimal enclosed at ground level. The proposed location does mean the building will be in front of the existing shack on Lot 116, however the design will minimise any loss of views which might occur. It is therefore considered that Development Application 711/587/06 is not seriously at variance with the Objectives and Principle of Development Control as listed within the Mid Murray Council Development Plan and therefore warrants the granting of Development Plan Consent. RECOMMENDATION moved that pursuant to Section 33(1)(a) of the Development Act, 1993 Development Plan Consent be granted to Development Application 711/587/06 subject to the concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission and the following conditions and notations:-



Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with details and plans

submitted with application, other than where required to be varied by the following conditions.

2. The dwelling must be connected to the Bowhill sewer scheme before it can

be used for human habitation. 3. All exterior surfaces of the building/structure are to be of non-reflective

materials, (factory applied colour coated steel or equivalent), and colours which blend in with the natural features of the environment.

4. The underneath garage/storage area of the elevated dwelling shall be

enclosed using roller doors, removable panels, or other material which can be easily removed during times of flood as per the provided detail.

5. The ground floor (with the exception of the area(s) shown to be enclosed on

the approved plan) and balconies/verandahs are to remain open. No walls, curtains, blinds or other material being permanent, semi-permanent or removable are to be attached at any time to this building.

6. The ground floor garage/storage area shall not be internally lined or have

any floor coverings. 7. The ground floor garage/ storage area shall not be used for human

habitation. 8. The development has been approved as a single detached dwelling. As

such the building must not be converted to two or more dwellings unless approval has been sought and granted by Council.

9. Site and Floor Levels for Bowhill

The finished site works level shall be the lower level of either the existing gravel track level or the existing level of the surface measured two metres towards the property from the edge of the sealed edge of the road. The fill shall not extend into adjoining properties and shall be retained on the boundary or battered to natural surfaces within the allotment. The finished floor level of the building to be a minimum of 100mm higher than the above site works level.

10. The spa and sauna must be connected to a holding tank. A waste control

application must be lodged and approved by Council prior the buildings construction.



Conditions as required by the Minister for the River Murray 11. During the construction the property shall be managed in a manner as to

prevent erosion and pollution of the subject site and the environment, including keeping the area in a tidy state and ensuring any waste materials being placed into bins to ensure no pollutant enter the River Murray.

12. Stormwater run-off from the dwelling being directed to a storage tank or

tanks. The capacity of tank storage on site is to be equal to or be greater than 20 litres per square metre of total roof area of all buildings on the site. Any overflow from the tank or tanks being managed to prevent erosion or pollution of the site and the River Murray and diverted away from wastewater disposal areas, such as septic tanks and aerobic systems.

13. The dwelling being unobtrusive and harmonising with the surroundings

through the use of paint or finished being of natural colours. Notations 1. The storage of bulk fuels, oils and hazardous chemicals, shall not occur

below the 1956 flood level. 2. This approval does not imply compliance with the Electricity Act 1996 (as

amended), or the Regulations thereunder. It is the responsibility of the owner and the person undertaking development to ensure compliance with same.

You are advised to contact appropriate authorities including ETSA, Telstra and SA Water in relation to the location of supply lines and other requirements prior to commencing work.

3. Development Approval Required

This approval refers only to Development Plan Consent. Building Rules Consent and Development Approval must be obtained prior to commencement of work.

4. Consent Valid 36 Months

If substantial work on the development is not commenced within twelve months of the date of this consent, or substantially completed within thirty- six months of the date of this consent, a fresh consent must be obtained.

5. The Council also advises that the proposed development will be located

within the “River Murray Floodplain” which is subject to periodic flooding, which may cause extensive or total loss. Neither the Council or any of its Servants, Agents or Officers accept any responsibility for any such loss which may occur. Any conditions are imposed so as to maintain the natural character of the River Valley and to attain the Objectives for the River Murray Zone.



6. All existing trees on the site are to be retained wherever practicable. 7. The applicant is responsible for the correct siting of the proposed building

and shall ensure that the building is sited on the allotment in accordance with the approved site plan.

8. The granting of this consent does not absolve the applicant from obtaining

all other consents which they may be required to do, pursuant to the provisions of any other statutes.

9. The applicant is reminded of its general environmental duty, as required by

Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment in any way which causes or may cause environmental harm.

10. The applicant is advised that approval must be gained from the Department

of Environment and Heritage for any clearance, limb removal or trimming of vegetation that is situated upon land owned by the Minister for Environment and Heritage. You should direct your enquiries to The department for Environment and Heritage on 8598 2119.

Notations as issued by the Minister for the River Murray 11. The applicant is advised of their general duty of care to take all reasonable

measures to prevent any harm to the River Murray through his or her actions or activities.

12. The River Murray and many of it tributaries and overflow areas have

abundant evidence of Aboriginal occupation. Under section 20 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (The Act), an owner or occupier of private land, or an employee or agent of such an owner or occupier, must report the discovery on the land of any Aboriginal sites, objects and remains to the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act, as soon as practical, giving the particulars of the nature and the location of the Aboriginal sited, objects or remains. It is an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site or damage any Aboriginal object (registered or not) without the authority of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (the Minister). If the planned activity is likely to damage, disturb or interfere with a site or object, authorisation of the activity must be first obtained from the Minister under Section 23 of the Act. Penalties may apply for failure to comply with the Act.

13. The applicant is advised that any proposal to clear, remove limbs or trim

native vegetation on the land, unless the proposed clearance is subject to an exemption under the Regulations of the Native Vegetation Act 1991, requires the approval of the Native Vegetation Council. Any queries regarding the clearance of native vegetation should be directed to the Native Vegetation Council Secretariat on 8124 4744.

Seconded


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.5 LAND DIVISION APPLICATION 711/D019/07 – TIGER PLAINS PASTORAL CO PTY

LTD

Reporting Officer: Julie Lewis Development No. 711/D019/07 Applicant Steed and Pohl Surveyors Owner Tiger Plains Pastoral Co Pty Ltd Subject Land Sections 17-20, 37-45, 220-239, 269 & 270, Hundred

of Beatty and Sections 250-253, Hundred of Eba Proposal Boundary Realignment (39 Allotments) SUMMARY Copies of plans and details submitted with the above application are attached for information only to enable Panel members to identify the land and locality prior to undertaking a preliminary inspection. The land is east of the Mount Mary settlement and is within the Rural Zone – Pastoral Policy Area as shown on Development Plan Map MiMu/64. In this instance the land division involving the realignment of allotment boundaries (no additional allotments) is neither complying nor non-complying and will be assessed on its merits. No public notification of the application is required assuming the Council (the relevant authority) is of the opinion the land is to be used for a purpose which is consistent with the objective of the zone or area under the Development Plan, and it is satisfied the division will not change the nature and function of an existing road. In the letter dated 18 April 2007, the applicant advises there is no intention by the current owner to change the existing use of land (light grazing with the allotments used collectively as one farming enterprise). It could be argued that the continued use of the land for light grazing will not change the nature and function of the existing road. This point will be investigated in more detail. Council staff will request an aerial photo from the applicant with proposed boundaries overlayed to assist in the assessment. After the site inspection, the Panel may wish to identify other information that would assist members in their assessment and staff will make that request accordingly. Although this is an application that could technically be decided under delegation, it is anticipated a report and a recommendation will be prepared for the August Panel meeting. The applicant has indicated a wish to be heard at the time of the assessment. For discussion.


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – DEVELOPMENT REPORT 6.6 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL – REPORT TO COUNCIL

Reporting Officer: Kelvin Goldstone In accordance with previous resolutions of the Development Assessment Panel the attached draft report to Council has been prepared. Any alterations/additions can be raised at the meeting following which the report will be finalised and presented to Council. For consideration.


MID MURRAY COUNCIL – INFORMATION REPORT 6.7 ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT APPEALS

Reporting Officer: Julie Lewis ERD Court No. 221 of 2006 – C Caudo v Mid Murray Council OVERVIEW The matter related to an appeal against Council’s refusal to grant Provisional Development Plan Consent to a dwelling extension following a direction from the Minister for the River Murray. The Council had made no assessment on the application prior to receipt of the Minister’s direction. The application was for a very large ground level extension to a dwelling in the River Murray Zone – Primary Production Policy Area. The land was however within the 1956 flood plain which was the primary concern of the Minister. After several Conferences held at the Court to discuss potential variations and issues associated with the application, the appellant put forward a compromise involving a second storey on the existing dwelling rather than additional living floor area at ground level. Council and the Minister for the River Murray advised the amended proposal was acceptable in principle. The appellant has withdrawn the appeal and will lodge a new application for assessment. For information only.



Reporting Officer: Julie Lewis ERD Court No. 44 of 2006 – Macrotrans Pty Ltd v Mid Murray Council OVERVIEW The matter related to an appeal against Council’s Section 84 Notice concerning illegal development associated with a jetty comprising replacement and widening of the decking and an increase in length of approximately 3.0 metres. The appellant agreed to lodge an application for the works and the Council delayed any action related to the Notice until an outcome of a decision on the Development Application. The application was lodged and referred to the Development Assessment Commission for a decision. The application was approved subject to conditions, including conditions imposed by the Minister for the River Murray. The Council has also issued Building Rules Consent and the application now has full Development Approval. The appellant was advised by the Senior Compliance Officer in May 2007 that all the work was undertaken to Council’s satisfaction and no further action would be taken. The Environment, Resources and Development Court advised Council on 4 June 2007 that the Appeal against the Section 84 Notice was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. For information only.



Reporting Officer: Julie Lewis ERD Court No. 196 of 2007 – Helen Ebel v Mid Murray Council OVERVIEW The matter related to an appeal against Council’s refusal to grant Provisional Development Plan Consent to a non-complying dwelling extension in the Shack Settlement Policy Area involving the entire enclosure of the ground floor level. Council staff attended a directions hearing at the Court and confirmed that the application was non-complying and there is no right of appeal against the refusal (as has originally been confirmed in writing to the applicant). The Council agreed to postpone the Conference until the appellant could seek a legal opinion. The Court notified Council on the 9 July 2007 that the Appeal was withdrawn by the appellant. It is anticipated the appellant will now lodge an application for a separate garage on the land. For information only. Kelvin Goldstone MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES


Development Assessment Panel fileMID MURRAY COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL . Development...

Documents

Transcript of Development Assessment Panel fileMID MURRAY COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL . Development...