Rod O’Neill C/- Williams Burton Leopardi · e. Amended Plans by Williams Burton Leopardi f....

Development Assessment Commission23 June 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Rod O’Neill C/- Williams Burton Leopardi

Demolition of existing building and construction of an eight storeyresidential flat building with ground and basement car parking andremoval of one significant tree

248-253 East Terrace, Adelaide

020/A094/15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NOAGENDA REPORT 2 – 17ATTACHMENTS 18 – 188

1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 18 – 272: ZONING MAP & PHOTOGRAPHS OF LOCALITY 28 – 403: APPLICATION & PLANS

a. Development Application Formb. Electricity Act Declaration Formc. Certificates of Titled. Planning Report by Masterplan SAe. Amended Plans by Williams Burton Leopardif. Amended Shadow Diagrams by Williams Burton Leopardig. Arborist Report by Gordon Sykesh. Traffic and Parking Assessment by Frank Siowi. Sustainability Statement by Williams Burton Leopardij. Crime Prevention Statement by Williams Burton Leopardik. Schedule of Materials by Williams Burton Leopardi

41 – 4243 – 4445 – 4647 – 5253 – 7576 – 8182 – 8889 – 9394 – 9596 – 9797 – 98

4: AGENCY COMMENTS 98 – 1035: COUNCIL COMMENTS 104 – 1066: REPRESENTATIONS 107 – 1547: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS 155 – 1608: ORIGINAL PLANNING REPORT TO IMDAC 161 – 188


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

OVERVIEW

Application No 020/A094/15 (APPIAN ID 882)Unique ID/KNET ID 2015/19679/01 (Knet No.10431091)Applicant Rod O’Neill C/- Williams Burton LeopardiProponent Group Masterplan SA, Williams Burton Leopardi, Frank Siow and

Associates, Gordon SykesProposal Eight (8) storey residential flat building to provide 14

apartments with ground-level and basement car parking andremoval of one (1) significant tree

Subject Land 248-253 East Terrace, AdelaideZone/Policy Area City Living Zone, East Terrace Policy Area 29Relevant Authority Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee of the

Development Assessment CommissionLodgement Date 17 December 2015Council Corporation of the City of AdelaideDevelopment Plan Adelaide City Council (consolidated 24 September 2015)Type of Development MeritPublic Notification Category 2Representations 5 (5 wishing to be heard)Referral Agencies Corporation of the City of AdelaideReport Author Ben Scholes, Project OfficerRECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant seeks approval for demolition of a two storey building and construction ofan eight storey residential flat building with associated car parking at ground andbasement levels, removal of one significant tree and site landscaping. On 14 April 2016the Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee (IMDAC) of theDevelopment Assessment Commission deferred its decision on the applicant’s originalproposal to “enable reconfiguration of the development’s south east corner to refineboundary setback and further address the interface with adjoining uses”.

The applicant has amended details of the proposal and modified site organisation inresponse to IMDAC’s deferral motion and although the building’s design and appearancehas not fundamentally changed, its floor plate has been reconfigured to alter setbackdistances and achieve greater separation from the south boundary over upper levels.

The amended proposal has been assessed against the Adelaide City Council DevelopmentPlan with a particular focus on the conditions considered likely to arise through interfaceswith surrounding residential uses. Consequential impacts associate closely with theheight of the proposal building exceeding that of existing buildings in the locality,however the proposed eight storey scale is considered to align with the nature ofdevelopment encouraged by the East Terrace Policy Area’s catalyst site provisions.

Whilst further refinement of site organisation would likely bring the proposal in closeraccordance with Policy Area expectations for substantial front and side boundarysetbacks, the amended application is considered a satisfactory response to the reasoningfor IMDAC’s deferral motion.

The Government Architect has confirmed her continued support for the amendedapplication which is considered to sufficiently adhere to the provisions of East TerracePolicy Area 29 and the City Living Zone, such that the improvements undertaken justifyconditional Development Plan Consent.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

IMDAC considered Development Application 020/A094/15 on 14 April 2016 and resolvedto defer its decision “to enable reconfiguration of the south east corner of thedevelopment to refine boundary setback and further address the interface with adjoininguses.”

2. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS

The applicant has refined the internal layout of all apartments and reconfigured theproposed building footprint, modifying setback distances to all boundaries as follows:

Elevation Deferred Proposal Amended Proposal

North Between 1.01m to 2.73m tosurface of plane

Between 1.01m to 1.76m (surface ofwall plane)

East Between 10.1m to 21.15m tosurface of wall plane

Between 9.65m to 21.94 (surface ofwall plane)

SouthBetween 1.66m to 5.6m to surfaceof wall plane

Between 1.66m to 1.82m at groundlevel, and 3.01m to 5.8m (over levels1 to 7)

West Between 10.9m to 14.5m tosurface of wall plane

Between 9.7m to 12.93m to surface ofwall plane

The applicant has provided amended plans including an overlay of the original buildingfootprint over levels 1 to 7 relative to the modified application; the amended site plan isprovided below with the original footprint designated by a broken red line.

Amended Site Plan over Levels 1 to 7 (Sheet No. S04.2A)

The applicant has also confirmed the ground level setback from the south boundary of1.66 metres where Kanmantoo bluestone cladding projects 160mm forward of the carpark external wall, which remains a distance of 1.82 metres from the south boundary.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

The ground level wall height varies between 4.5 metres and 3.75 metres as shownbelow, above which the increased setback distance of 3.01 metres would apply.

South Elevation Detail (Sheet S11.2)

Other amendments undertaken in response to IMDAC’s deferral are as follows: Refinement of internal layouts of apartments over Levels 1 to 7 increasing internal

floor area in both apartment types, increasing external balcony area within southernapartments and decreasing external balcony area within northern apartments;

Addition of store rooms within southern apartments and storage cupboards withinnorthern apartments;

Additional space dedicated to bicycle storage within the ground level car park,increasing the total number of secure bicycle parking spaces from 13 to 29; and

Modification to the dimensions of the vehicle entry point at ground floor to enablewaste collection to occur entirely within the building.

Amended plans and further details are contained within Attachment 3.

3. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS

3.1 GOVERNMENT ARCHITECT

The Government Architect has reviewed the amended application and has confirmedthe revised scheme remains consistent with the original Pre-Lodgement Agreementdocumentation and previous advice, and that she remains supportive of theapplication as a high quality, contemporary infill proposal.

A copy of the Government Architect’s most recent comments and the previous Pre-Lodgement Agreement with the applicant are included within Attachment 4.

4. ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL

As further advice on technical matters was not considered necessary, the amendedproposal was not re-referred to the Adelaide City Council. Previous comments providedby Council administration are included as Attachment 5.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The amended application was notified as a Category 2 development pursuant to CityLiving Zone Principle of Development Control 17(b)(i) which applies to all development inthe Zone excluding fences, domestic structures and additions of a single storey scale anddevelopment classified as non-complying.

Public notification was undertaken by directly contacting adjoining owners and occupiersof adjacent land and five valid representations were received, with two additional


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

submissions received from owners / occupiers of property located on the southern sideof Gilles Street which are not defined as ‘adjacent land’ in accordance with Section 4,Part 1 of the Development Act 1993.

RepresentorID

Issue of concern

R1 Excessive building height Encroachment of privacy Inadequate landscaping Overlooking Overshadowing Inadequate setback from site boundaries Noise impacts from car park Inadequate visitor parking Potential wind tunnelling

R2 Excessive building height Overshadowing Overlooking

R3 Excessive bulk and scale Overshadowing Inadequate setback from site boundaries Odour impacts Potential tree damaging activity Inadequate visitor parking

R4 Excessive building height Inappropriate form and scale Overshadowing Traffic impacts

R5 Interruption of views from adjacent development Inadequate setback from site boundaries Excessive height Excessive on-site parking


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Representation Map

Each of the five valid representors wish to be heard by the Commission. The applicant’sresponses to the various planning concerns raised by the representors are summarisedbelow.

Concernraised

Applicant’s response

Excessivebuilding height

Maximum building height provisions do not apply to sitesexceeding 1,500 square metres.

Proposed building height has been endorsed by the GovernmentArchitect.

Massing and proportions are considered appropriate in relation toadjacent residential development and the character of the locality.

Overshadowing The increase in building setback from the southern boundary willreduce the extent of overshadowing of property to the south.

Shadow cast during the morning hours of the winter solstice isprimarily due to 2 metre high masonry wall to the southernboundary of the subject land, which was provided in response to arepresentor’s request.

The majority of communal open space at 256 East Terrace willreceive direct sunlight from 9Am to between 12Pm and 1PM.

Overlooking Side boundary windows and terraces will be fitted with screeningdevices to 1.7 metres to obstruct direct views of adjoiningproperty.

InsufficientBoundarySetbacks

Setback from southern boundary has been increased from 1.8metres to 3.1 metres (over levels 1 to 7) reducing overall massingof upper levels to the southern boundary to an acceptable degree.

The building will be setback a greater distance from East Terrace


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

than the adjoining buildings to the north and south, minimisingany imposition on the East Terrace streetscape.

Noise andOdour Impacts

Vehicle entrance has been amended to enable collection of wastewithin the internal car parking area instead of externally

Noise impact is therefore considered to be less likely compared toweekly Council waste collection along East Terrace.

Louvres installed along a large extent of southern elevation willnot concentrate noise or odour impacts at a central location.

Vehicle movements are expected to be lower than previous use asconsulting rooms.

Absence ofVisitor Parking

Significant availability of on-street parking in the locality alongEast Terrace, Gilles Street and Halifax Street will be more thansufficient for accommodating the reasonable parking requirementsof visitors

WindTunnelling

Potential impacts are not quantifiable in the absence of a windassessment report.

Council-wide provisions provide qualitative guidance on windimpacts only.

These should not detract from the merits of the application nornecessitate the commissioning of a wind assessment report.

Potential treedamagingactivity

Tree protection measures are incorporated in design and will beimplemented during construction.

A copy of each representation and the applicant’s response is contained in Attachment6 and Attachment 7 respectively.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The amended application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of theAdelaide (City) Council Development Plan, which are contained in Attachment 1.

6.1 Boundary Setbacks

Development in East Terrace Policy Area 29 should reinforce the prevailing characterof grand buildings set on attractive, landscaped grounds defined by formal fencingand underpinned by the rhythm of front and side boundary setbacks.

East Terrace Policy Area PDC 4 encourages development that maintains traditionalsiting patterns of large buildings set in generous landscaped grounds with substantialfront and side boundary setbacks. City Living Zone PDC 9 establishes that whereconsistent building setbacks from front, side and rear boundaries prevail in a locality,new development should be consistent with these setbacks.

The applicant has reconfigured the building’s floor plate to achieve a minimumsetback from the south property boundary over first to seventh floors of 3.01 metresto the tip of the south elevation’s feature ‘fins’ and 3.46 metres to surface of the wallplane, an increase in 1.19 metres in comparison to the original application.

The south boundary setback distance at ground floor level remains unchanged,varying between 1.66 metres and 1.82 metres along the building’s south elevation toa height of between 4.5 metres and 3.75 metres, above which the increased setbackdistance of 3.01 metres will apply as shown overleaf. Setbacks from remainingboundaries have also been slightly modified as a result of floor plate changes.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

East Elevation Detail (Sheet S08.2)

In recognition of the variety of setback conditions exhibited in the immediatesurrounds and broader locality including established and more contemporarybuildings with minimal or no side boundary setbacks, an attempt to maintainconsistency with prevailing setbacks in accordance with City Living Zone PDC 9 is notconsidered to be a practicable means of achieving desired character in this setting.

Amended setbacks from the subject land’s west, north and east boundaries areconsidered acceptable due to the considerable separation distances between the siteand adjacent residential uses to the west and north, combined with the Policy Area’sdesire for high quality landscaped grounds to frame East Terrace and provide adistinct edge to the City.

The south boundary setback at ground level is seen to be adequate as this portion ofthe development will not exceed the wall height of the adjacent building at 256 EastTerrace which directly abuts the shared property boundary, and accordingly the scaleof the new building at ground floor level is not considered unreasonable given theexisting building’s proximity.

Although the increase in the south boundary setback to 3.01 metres at upper floorlevels is marginal relative to the development’s overall scale, the amendment isnonetheless positive and aligns this element of the application closer with Policy AreaPDC 4’s expectation for substantial side boundary setbacks, which is considered tohave been satisfied over the remainder of the building’s south elevation.

The amended site organisation and refinement of the south boundary setbackdemonstrate the applicant’s intent to improve its response to site context andaddress the reasoning for IMDAC’s deferral motion. The anticipated consequences onthe resulting interface with adjacent residences are discussed in the followingsection.

6.2 Interface

The desire for catalyst site development within the Policy Area generally at greaterintensity than their surroundings is qualified by the need for careful management ofinterfaces with any residential development particularly regarding massing,proportions, overshadowing and traffic and noise related impacts.

East Terrace Policy Area PDC 12 encourages sites greater than 1,500 square metresto be developed to manage interfaces with residential development with regard to


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

“intensity of use, overshadowing, massing, building proportions and traffic tominimise impacts on residential amenity.”

It follows that some level of amenity impact arising from catalyst site development isanticipated, by virtue of the specific exclusions from the need for development of thisnature to adhere to various performance criteria intended to limit interface impactsresulting from more conventional development to reasonable levels.

The degree to which such impacts are considered to have been minimised (orotherwise) through the application of interface treatments or design techniquesneeds to be balanced against the Zone and Policy Area’s desire for medium to highscale residential infill development demonstrating quality contemporary design andpublic realm amenity, in support of an increase in the City’s residential population.

6.2.1 Intensity of Use

The proposal seeks to introduce a total of 14 three-bedroom residentialapartments which is considered a modest number in the context of adjacentresidential flat buildings, albeit a quantity that suits the applicant’s preferencefor a high end market offering in a premium location.

A considerably greater number of dwellings could conceivably beaccommodated on the subject land and within the proposed building envelopefurther satisfying the City Living Zone’s desire for increased resident populationand higher dwelling densities, however doing so could increase the intensity ofuse to unacceptable levels given the sensitivity of surrounding uses.

Overall the intensity of use anticipated through development of 14 newdwellings is not considered to constitute a cause for unreasonable orundesirable levels of activity in the form of vehicle movements, visitation, anti-social behaviour or waste generation. In this regard the interface impactarising from the expected intensity of use is considered to satisfy the intent ofboth the City Living Zone and of East Terrace Policy Area 29.

6.2.2 Massing and Proportion

An eight storey structure developed on the subject land would be a dominantfeature within the locality’s prevailing character of two, three and four storeydevelopment. Despite this, Policy Area PDC 10 expressly encourages mediumand high scale residential development on sites greater than 1,500 squaremetres which is reinforced by PDC 7 and PDC 8 which enable catalyst sitedevelopment to exceed both the Policy Area’s prescribed plot ratio of 1.8 andbuilding height limit of four storeys.

Recessed volumes and modulation over each of the building’s elevations, voidspaces created through the positioning of balconies and transparency affordedby extensive glazing at the building’s main face are expected to contribute tominimising the structure’s overall mass when viewed in three dimensions, withbalcony planting further softening the building’s appearance at upper levels.

The applicant’s approach to addressing East Terrace is also supported by CityLiving Zone PDC 8 which establishes that where development proposes abuilding higher than prevailing building heights that contribute to the desiredcharacter of a locality, the taller building elements should be setback fromstreet frontages to avoid detrimental impact on the prevailing character.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

The most immediate interface between the proposal and existing developmentat 256 East Terrace has been improved through increased separation distanceover levels 1 to 7, which is considered satisfactory in this regard as theexisting residential flat building orients primarily to the east and away from thegreatest concentration of the proposal’s mass and scale.

Under these circumstances the anticipated impact of the proposal’s mass andproportion on the locality’s prevailing character of smaller-scale development isconsidered an acceptable consequence of a contemporary residential infillopportunity, which has sufficient regard for site context and exhibits a highquality standard of design that has the continued support of the GovernmentArchitect.

6.2.3 Overshadowing

Revised shadow diagrams indicate the applicant’s changes to floor layouts andsite organisation do not result in a significant difference in the extent ofovershadowing of property immediately south of the subject land whencompared to the original application, particularly during the winter solstice.

During this period, two residences to the south east of the subject land at 432and 440 Gilles Street will be shaded during several morning hours beforereceiving sunlight for much of the afternoon, whereas property directly southof the subject land at 256 East Terrace and the adjacent site of construction(allotment 544) will be either in partial or full shade from around 11AM whichwould generally continue throughout the afternoon, save some sunlightpenetration for allotment 544 beginning at around 2PM.

The applicant asserts that the majority of communal open space at 256 EastTerrace will receive direct sunlight during morning hours of the winter solsticesatisfying Council Wide PDC 27 in terms of communal open space, however itis unclear whether the required two hour period of direct sunlight would bemaintained for the building’s northern facade and north-facing habitable roomwindows as required by PDC 27.

Although the extent of overshadowing would be reduced during theautumn/spring equinox and the summer solstice, the amenity impactspredicted to be caused by the development in this regard are clear albeitvariable, dependent on the location of property relative to the proposed builtform.

Whilst PDC 27 is generally not applicable to this proposal as it relates to LowScale Residential development, it is indicative of a policy direction in which agreater expectation for low scale development to minimise overshadowingshould be applied compared to medium and high scale development, given themore qualitative nature of Council Wide provisions related to Micro-climate andSunlight that such development should have regard to.

Also of relevance is East Terrace Policy Area PDC 8 which anticipatesdevelopment of up to four storeys or 14 metres in height on sites less than1,500 square metres suggesting that some degree of overshadowing impact isanticipated for conventional, medium scale development in this setting.

East Terrace Policy Area PDC 14 establishes that catalyst site provisions willtake precedence over Zone, Policy Area or Council Wide provisions in cases ofapparent conflict, however it should be noted that catalyst site provisions stillrequire overshadowing impacts on residential amenity to be minimised.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Despite the acknowledged extent of overshadowing impacts, the applicant’samended shadow diagrams indicate the majority of affected properties arenonetheless likely to receive two continuous hours of direct sunlight at somepoint during the day at the winter solstice, thereby achieving the intent ofpolicy applicable to Low Scale Residential development.

Accordingly and in recognition of catalyst site provisions contemplating somelevel of residual impact at interfaces with existing development, theovershadowing conditions proposed are not considered to unacceptablycompromise levels of residential amenity of adjoining properties throughdiminished access to direct sunlight.

6.2.4 Overlooking

Potential for diminished privacy through overlooking or direct views intoexisting residential development has been acknowledged as a concern raisedby representors for which effective interface treatments are considerednecessary.

Of relevance to strategies addressing overlooking is Council Wide PDC 67which encourages development incorporating habitable room windows,balconies, terraces or decks to be setback from boundaries with adjacent sitesat least three metres to provide an adequate level of amenity and privacy, andnot to restrict the reasonable development of adjacent sites.

The applicant has retained design techniques intended to channel views fromupper level balconies away from sensitive areas in neighbouring residences,through the use of a combination of balustrade details incorporating planterboxes and angled vertical battens reaching 1700mm in height designed todiscourage or prevent direct overlooking into adjacent habitable room windowsor private open space, yet still enable quality outlook over East Terrace andother long-distance views.

Vertically elongated windows at the south elevation’s eastern end are alsospecified with obscured glazing to 1700mm with all other windows facing sideboundaries to be placed at a height of 1700mm or otherwise be obscured toprevent overlooking impacts.

In combination with the increase in setback from the south boundary overupper levels in accordance with Council Wide PDC 67, the design strategiesimplemented to manage overlooking are considered appropriate and shouldassist in minimising potential amenity impacts arising from boundary interfacesin this regard.

6.2.5 Noise Impacts

Relevant policy anticipates development designed to carefully manage noise-related impacts with residential uses, and encourages development includingelements with potential to emit significant noise to incorporate attenuationmeasures to prevent unreasonable interference to amenity and desiredcharacter.

The ground floor vehicle entrance at the building’s south east corner has beenmodified to enable access and egress by a private waste contractor’s vehicle topermit collection of refuse to occur completely within the building, some 20


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

metres from the entrance and removed from north facing habitable roomwindows at 256 East Terrace as shown below.

Amended Waste Collection Plan (Sheet S19.2)

Although the contractor’s vehicle will be required to reverse further to thewaste collection point, this amendment is considered positive as levels of noisegenerated by waste collection activities within the building will likely bediminished in comparison to the previous unenclosed option.

The applicant previously submitted a traffic assessment which indicated theproposal would be a very low traffic generator, with less than 10 vehiclemovements per hour during peak periods which is considered to constitute alower generation rate than the previous consulting room use of the site andaccordingly, levels of noise likely to be generated by the use of occupant’svehicles is expected to be low.

Rooftop equipment associated with the development’s air-conditioning systemand a separate fire-fighting system will be located and acoustically attenuatedsuch that adjoining users are unlikely to be unreasonably affected by theoperation of these systems. In summary the potential for noise impacts arisingfrom the reasonable operation of the development are considered to have beeneffectively mitigated.

6.2.6 Vehicle Parking and Traffic Impacts

Access arrangements and parking provision should be designed to ensuresafety and convenience whilst minimising traffic hazards and vehicle queuingon public roads, with regard given to provision of adequate parking asspecified by Development Plan Tables Adel/7 and Adel/6.

The applicant’s traffic consultant previously indicated that the configuration ofproposed single lane access to the building is unlikely to cause significantdelays for traffic entering from and exiting to East Terrace.

Additional vehicle movements are expected to be primarily for local and visitortraffic, each of which would be a relatively low traffic generator. 36 car parkingspaces are to be provided within the basement and ground level parking areas,exceeding the rate encouraged by Table Adel/7.

Although no provision of visitor vehicle parking is specified by Table Adel/7 formedium and high scale residential or serviced apartment development,building occupants would have the discretion to allow any excess parkingspaces to be used by visitors as needed.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

The applicant has also modified the ground floor layout to increase the areadedicated to bicycle storage, increasing the total number of secure bicycleparking spaces from 13 to 29 thus satisfying the parking requirementestablished in Development Plan Table Adel/6. Accordingly, potential impactson residential amenity arising from traffic and vehicle parking arrangementsare considered acceptable.

6.3 Design and Appearance

The Government Architect has reviewed the amended scheme and has confirmed hersupport for the proposed alterations to building setbacks as these are considered tobe positive refinements of the applicant’s original intent to mitigate privacy andimpact on neighbours.

Furthermore, the revised proposal is considered to be consistent with the previousPre-Lodgement Agreement documentation and associated advice, and theGovernment Architect remains supportive of what she considers to be a high qualitycontemporary infill proposal.

Amendments to the proposed site organisation are considered to respond positivelyto the IMDAC’s deferral motion, and the overall concept continues to achieve theexemplary standard of design anticipated for catalyst site development within theCity Living Zone and East Terrace Policy Area in order to successfully frame EastTerrace and provide a distinct edge to the City.

6.4 Apartment Amenity

Modifications to the building’s floor plate including balcony areas have resulted inapartments within the north tower decreasing in overall size by 1 square metre andapartments in the south tower increasing in area by 15 square metres. Additionalstorage capacity has also been provided, with storage rooms to be included withinsouthern apartments and storage cupboards included within northern apartments.

Although additional modification to reduce overall apartment areas would bepossible, the amendments presented for consideration are understood to suit theapplicant’s preference for a high-end residential offering whilst responding to theIMDAC’s deferral motion.

Apartment types will continue to satisfy the relevant Development Plan provisionsand offer a level of amenity suitable to the intended high-end market offering.

6.5 Wind Impacts

A representor has raised concerns in relation to the potential for the development tointroduce a wind tunnelling effect or otherwise influence dynamic loading of adjacentroof structures.

Development Plan provisions related to wind tunnelling encourage developmentdesigned to minimise impacts on adjacent land and the pedestrian environmentcaused through effects of wind patterns. Council Wide PDC 125 encourages buildingsover 21 metres in height which are to be built at or on the street frontage to adoptdesign techniques intended to minimise the wind tunnel effect.

Although the applicant has not undertaken a formal wind modelling analysis, theprovision of the building’s vehicle-entry base element combined with substantialverandahs and façade modulation across all elevations are considered adequate


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

mitigation against the potential for occurrence of a detrimental wind tunnel effect inaccordance with design techniques specified in Council Wide PDC 125.1(a) and (b).

7. CONCLUSION

The applicant has amended details of the proposal and modified site organisation inresponse to IMDAC’s deferral motion of 14 April 2016, to “enable reconfiguration of thesouth east corner of the development to refine boundary setback and further address theinterface with adjoining uses”.

Although the fundamental design and appearance of the building has not substantiallychanged, the building floor plate has been reconfigured to alter setback distancesprincipally to achieve greater separation from the south boundary over upper levels ofthe building in the order of 1.19 metres when compared to the original application.

The amended proposal has been assessed against relevant provisions of the AdelaideCity Council Development Plan with a particular focus on the conditions considered likelyto arise through the interfaces with surrounding residential uses.

Consequential impacts, particularly overshadowing, are considered to associate closelywith the height of the proposed building exceeding the prevailing character of two to fourstoreys, but which is consistent with the medium to high scale of developmentencouraged by the East Terrace Policy Area’s catalyst site provisions.

Further refinement in site organisation would likely bring the application in closeralignment with Policy Area expectations for substantial front side boundary setbacks,however in the absence of consistent setbacks patterns in the immediate surrounds andbroader locality, the amended site organisation is considered a satisfactory response tothe reasoning for IMDAC’s deferral motion.

The amended proposal is considered to adequately satisfy objectives and principles ofEast Terrace Policy Area 29 and the City Living Zone, and is supported particularly forthe following key reasons:

The proposal is for comprehensive redevelopment of a large, landmark site toprovide high quality residential amenity that limits impacts on adjoining residentialuses to satisfactory levels;

The application reinforces the Zone and Policy Area’s desire for grand buildings set onattractive, landscaped grounds in a Park Land setting with characteristics thatcontribute to the appeal of the public realm;

The development achieves an exemplary standard of design and successfully framesEast Terrace to provide a distinct edge to the City; and

Interface impacts on existing residential development have been assessed as beingreasonable in the context of the subject land’s prime City living address andDevelopment Plan provisions applicable to development on sites exceeding 1,500square metres.

The Government Architect has confirmed her continued support for the amendedproposal and advises it is consistent with the Pre-Lodgement Agreement reached withthe applicant in December 2015.

The amended application is considered to have responded positively to the IMDAC’sdeferral motion and the improvements undertaken provide justification for conditionalDevelopment Plan Consent.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

8. 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 City Living Zone and East Terrace PolicyArea 29.

3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by Rod O’Neill for aseven storey residential flat building and removal of one significant tree at 248-253 East Terrace, Adelaide subject to the following conditions of consent.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

1. 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 020/A094/15.

Drawing Title Drawing No. DateSite Plan S01.2 26 April 2016Basement S02.2 26 April 2016Ground 1 S03.2 26 April 2016Typical Floor Plan (1st – 7th) S04.2 26 April 2016Typical Floor Plan (1st – 7th) overlay S04.2A 26 April 2016Roof Plan S05.2 26 April 2016Long Section S06.2 26 April 2016Short Section S07.2 26 April 2016East Elevation S08.2 26 April 2016West Elevation S09.2 26 April 2016North Elevation S10.2 26 April 2016South Elevation S11.2 26 April 2016Carpark S12.2 26 April 2016People Movement S13.2 26 April 2016Boundary Offsets S14.2 26 April 2016Fire Safety S15.2 26 April 2016Hydraulic & Inground Services S16.2 26 April 2016Mechanical Schematic Layout S17.2 26 April 2016Stormwater Collection S18.2 26 April 2016Waste Disposal S19.2 26 April 2016Structural Framing S20.2 26 April 2016Typical Floor Plan (north apartment) S21 23 April 2016Typical Floor Plan (south apartment) S22 23 April 2016

Reports / Correspondence

Planning Report Reference 14790REP01 dated 29 October 2015 undertaken byMasterplan SA;

Design Intent Documentation dated 30 November 2015 and Sun ShadowDiagrams dated 26 April 2016 undertaken by Williams Burton Leopardi;

Schedule of Materials and Finishes undertaken by Williams Burton Leopardi; Crime Prevention Statement undertaken by Williams Burton Leopardi;


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Sustainability Statement undertaken by Williams Burton Leopardi; Traffic and Parking Assessment dated 21 October 2015 undertaken by Frank Siow

& Associates; Tree Report Reference Au-0271A undertaken by Gordon Sykes, Horticultural &

Arboricultural Consultant dated 3 September 2014; Emails with attachments from Williams Burton Leopardi dated 16 February 2016,

16 March 2016, 18 March 2016 and 23 March 2016. Email with attachments from Masterplan SA dated 26 April 2016; and Email with attachment from Masterplan SA dated 30 May 2016.

2. The applicant shall submit a final detailed schedule of external materials and finishesfor review to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development AssessmentCommission, in consultation with the Government Architect, prior to substructureworks.

3. All vehicle car parks, driveways and vehicle entry and manoeuvring areas shall bedesigned and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards andbe constructed, drained and paved with bitumen, concrete or paving bricks inaccordance with sound engineering practice and appropriately line marked to thereasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to theoccupation or use of the development

4. Semi-mature trees (greater than 1 metre in height) shall be planted on a 3 for 1basis to compensate for the removal of the significant tree. The replacement treeplanting shall occur prior to the operation of the development.

5. The landscaping shown on the plans forming part of the application shall beestablished prior to the operation of the development and shall be maintained andnurtured at all times with any diseased or dying plants being replaced.

6. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, shall bedesigned and constructed to conform with Australian Standards and must belocated, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or lossof amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

7. All stormwater design and construction shall be in accordance with AustralianStandards and recognised engineering best practices to ensure that stormwater doesnot adversely affect any adjoining property or public road.

8. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared andimplemented in accordance with current industry standards to minimiseenvironmental harm and disturbance during construction.

The management plan must incorporate, without being limited to, the followingmatters:1) air quality, including odour and dust;2) surface water including erosion and sediment control;3) soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of soil

contamination;4) groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination;5) noise;6) occupational health and safety; and7) confirmation that the site is fit for purpose in relation to potential soil and

ground water contamination.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

A copy of the CEMP shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commissionprior to the commencement of site works.

9. All Council, utility or state-agency maintained infrastructure (i.e. roads, kerbs,drains, crossovers, footpaths, street lighting etc) that is demolished, altered,removed or damaged during the construction of the development shall be reinstatedto Council, utility or state agency specifications. All costs associated with theseworks shall be met by the proponent.

ADVISORY NOTES

a. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date ofthis Notification, unless this period has been extended by the DevelopmentAssessment Commission. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12months of the date of this Notification.

The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by thisNotification must be completed within 3 years of the date of the Notification unlessthis period is extended by the Commission.

b. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposedon this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval. Such an appeal mustbe lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development Court within two monthsfrom the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow.

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).

……………….…………

Ben ScholesPROJECT OFFICERINVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT DIVISIONDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

ATTACHMENT 1 – DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

City Living Zone

Introduction

The objective and principles of development control that follow apply in the City Living Zone shown inMaps Adel/20, 23 to 26 and 29 to 33. They are additional to those expressed for the whole of theCouncil area and in cases of apparent conflict, take precedence over the more general provisions. Inthe assessment of development, the greatest weight is to be applied to satisfying the desiredcharacter for the Zone.

DESIRED CHARACTER

The Zone is spread across the southern half of Adelaide, flanked to the north by the City’s centralbusiness area. Mixed use apartment and commercial corridors frame much of the southern andwestern margins of the Zone which is also bisected by the Hutt Street main street strip, and corridorsof core business areas centred on the Squares and the City’s main north-south axis roads, Morphett,King William and Pulteney Streets.

The Zone comprises Adelaide’s main residential living districts which have developed with a range ofstand-alone and paired cottages, terrace or row housing, and low to medium scale contemporaryapartment buildings, and with remnant workshops, service trades, offices and mixed uses, particularlywest of Hutt Street.

The City Living Zone will provide high amenity residential living environments along with related non-residential uses compatible with residential amenity, as articulated in the Policy Areas. Carefullyexecuted high quality residential infill is envisaged and opportunities are presented for comprehensiveredevelopment on larger, particularly non-residential sites, and also on catalyst sites fronting SouthTerrace and East Terrace. The desired increase in the City’s resident population relies, in part, onrealising infill housing opportunities with high regard to their context and achieving overall, higherdwelling densities in this Zone.

OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: A Zone comprising a range of dwelling types and tenures, including affordable housing.

Objective 2: Increased dwelling densities in appropriate locations.

Objective 3: Non-residential activities that support city living and amenity with minimal impact on theenvironmental quality or amenity of living conditions.

Objective 4: Development having regard to the potential impacts of building height and activities fromland in the adjoining zones.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Form of Development

PDC 1 Development should make a positive contribution to the desired character as expressed by itsrespective Policy Area.

PDC 2 The following types of development, or combinations thereof, are envisaged:

Affordable housingCommunity CentreDomestic outbuilding in association with a dwellingDomestic structureDwellingDwelling additionResidential Flat Building


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

PDC 3 Non-residential land uses should be limited to land lawfully used for non-residential purposesand should comprise land uses more in conformity with the intended residential amenity, exceptwhere envisaged in the relevant Policy Area. Non-residential land uses should be of a scale and roleto not prejudice the envisaged development of non-residential zones.

PDC 4 Development listed as non-complying is generally inappropriate.

PDC 5 The number of dwellings should be increased by:

(a) the redevelopment of poor quality and underutilised buildings or sites which are in discordwith the desired character of the Policy Area, provided maintenance of residential amenityand the values of heritage places;

(b) the adaptation and conversion of non-residential buildings to residential uses; or(c) development in upper levels of existing buildings, or by increasing the height of buildings or

roof volumes, or on sites behind existing buildings.

6 Buildings or additions, including those of innovative and contemporary design, should reinforce thePolicy Area and demonstrate a compatible visual relationship with adjacent heritage places or theAdelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone in terms of its:

(a) bulk, height and scale (i.e. the length and size of unbroken walling and the roof volume andform);

(b) width of frontage and the front and side boundary building set-back patterns;(c) overall building proportions and massing (by maintaining the desired horizontal [and/or

vertical] emphasis, exhibiting vertical openings and a high solid to void ratio);(d) modelling and articulation of facades; and(e) incorporation of key architectural elements and detailing where a particular construction era

and building style prevails as expressed in the desired character (without excessive use ormimicry of decorative elements and ornamentation) i.e. with the inclusion of elements such asporches, verandahs, balconies and fences where appropriate.

PDC 7 Development should not exceed the height prescribed for each Policy Area. The height of newbuildings, including the floor to ceiling clearances of each level, should take reference from theprevailing building heights within the locality, with particular reference to adjacent heritage places.

PDC 8 Where development proposes a building higher than the prevailing building heights thatcontribute to the desired character of a locality, the taller building elements should be setback fromstreet frontages to avoid a detrimental impact on the prevailing character.

PDC 9 Where consistent building set-backs from front, side and rear allotment boundaries prevail in alocality, new development should be consistent with these setbacks.

PDC 10 The finished ground floor level of buildings should be at grade and/or level with the footpathto provide direct pedestrian access and street-level activation.

Car Parking

PDC 11 Access to parking and service areas should be located so as to minimise the interruption tobuilt form on street frontages and to minimise conflict with pedestrians. Access, where possible,should be from minor streets, or side or rear lanes provided road width is suitable and the trafficgeneration does not unreasonably impact residential amenity.

Advertising

PDC 12 Internal illumination of advertisements should only occur in the major streets and limited toprojecting advertising displays located beneath verandahs or awnings extending over the footpath.Otherwise only external illumination of advertisements will be appropriate. Illumination ofadvertisements should not detrimentally affect residential amenity.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

PDC 13 Advertisements more than 3 metres above natural ground level or an abutting footpath orstreet should not occur.

PDC 14 Advertisements which project from a wall of a building should not occur in minor streets.

Complying Development

PDC 15 Complying developments are prescribed in Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations2008.In addition, the following kinds of development are designated as complying:

(a) Temporary depot for Council for a period of no more than 3 months provided appropriateprovision is made for:(i) dust control;(ii) screening, including landscaping;(iii) containment of litter and water; and(iv) securing the site.

Non-complying Development

PDC 16 The following kinds of development are non-complying:

(a) A change of use to any of the following:

Adult entertainment premisesAdult products and services premisesAmusement machine centreAuditoriumCar park except where ancillary to an approved or existing useCinemaConference centreHospitalIndustryHotelLicensed PremisesLicensed entertainment premisesService trade premises not within a buildingTheatreWarehouse

(b) A change of use to any of the following except:

(i) within the site of a lawfully existing non-residential use(ii) within the site of a heritage place originally constructed for non-residential use(iii) in East Terrace Policy Area 29 or South Terrace Policy Area 30 on sites greater than

1500 square metres in area, which may include one or more allotment(iv) in East Terrace Policy Area 29 fronting Wakefield Street(v) in South Terrace Policy Area 30(vi) in South East Policy Area 31 on a key development area on Figure SE/1(vii) in South Central Policy Area 32(viii) in South West Policy Area 33 fronting Sturt Street

Consulting RoomOfficeRestaurantShop

(c) Total demolition of a Local Heritage Place (City Significance) or of the frontage and side wallreturns visible from the street of a Local Heritage Place (Townscape).


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

(d) Total demolition of a Local Heritage Place, or that portion of a Local Heritage Placecomprising its Elements to Heritage Value.

(e) Total demolition of a State Heritage Place (as identified in Table Adel/1).

(f) Advertisements involving any of the following:

(i) Animation(ii) Third party advertising(iii) Advertisements at roof level where the sky or another building forms the background

when viewed from ground level.

Public Notification

PDC 17 For the purposes of public notification in accordance with the procedures and rightsestablished by the Development Act 1993, development is assigned to the specified categories asfollows:

(a) Category 1, public notification not required:

(i) The following forms of development:

Carport, domestic outbuilding, garage, pergola, shade sail (or the like) or verandah, inassociation with a dwellingDomestic structureDwelling addition (single storey)Dwelling (single storey)Fence

(ii) Advertisements (except those classified as non-complying)(iii) a kind of development which, in the opinion of the relevant authority, is of a minor nature

only and will not unreasonably impact on the owners or occupiers of land in the locality ofthe site of the development.

(b) Category 2, public notification required, third parties may, at the discretion of the relevantplanning authority, appear before the relevant planning authority on the matter. Third partiesdo not have appeal rights:

(i) all development, other than development classified as non-complying or which fallswithin Part (a) of this provision.

Note: For Category 3 development, public notification is required. Third parties may make written representations, appearbefore the relevant planning authority on the matter, and may appeal against a development consent. This includes anydevelopment not classified as either Category 1 or Category 2.

East Terrace Policy Area 29

Introduction

The desired character, objectives and principles of development control that follow apply to the PolicyArea as shown on Maps Adel/51, 57 and 63. They are additional to those expressed for the Zone andin cases of apparent conflict, take precedence over the Zone provisions. In the assessment ofdevelopment, the greatest weight is to be applied to satisfying the desired character for the PolicyArea.

DESIRED CHARACTER

The Policy Area will be developed in a manner which reinforces the existing character of grandbuildings set on attractive, landscaped grounds in a Park Lands edge setting. Development willcontinue to provide a high level of amenity and with a mix of residential dwelling types and styles,


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

including the continued development of residential flat buildings which are complementary in design tothe many State and Local Heritage Places. Wakefield Street will continue to provide a mix of uses,either wholly residential or non-residential land uses on lower levels with residential at upper levels.Development will continue to provide for substantial, high quality landscaped open spaces in order toframe East Terrace and provide a distinct edge to the City. Private properties will be defined by formalfencing which allows for views to, and an appreciation of, the distinctive garden setting and spaciouscharacter at-ground underpinned by the rhythm of front and side boundary setbacks.

Buildings will be massed vertically or comprise narrow frontage elements with generous front and sidesetbacks with building façades that are well articulated with finer details that contribute positively tothe public realm and residential character.

Vehicle movement will be primarily for local and visitor traffic, although East Terrace will continue toact as a strong pedestrian and cyclist link between the City and the Park Lands.

Catalyst sites provide opportunities for integrated developments on large sites that respond to thedevelopment’s context and provide opportunities to increase the residential population of the City.Such sites will generally be developed for housing, but may include a small amount of non-residentialdevelopment such as cafés, restaurants or small-scale shops that create a greater level of activityfronting the Park Lands. Non-residential developments that provide additional community servicesand facilities may also occur.

Developments on catalyst sites will exemplify quality contemporary design that is generally of greaterintensity than their surroundings. However, development will be designed to carefully manage theinterface with any residential development, particularly with regard to massing; proportions;overshadowing; and traffic and noise-related impacts.

OBJECTIVE

Objective 1: Development that strengthens, achieves and is consistent with the desired character forthe Policy Area.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Land Use

PDC 1 The Policy Area will primarily comprise detached and semi-detached dwellings and residentialflat buildings.

PDC 2 Non-residential development should only be developed fronting Wakefield Street or on acatalyst site, where non-residential development is appropriate at the ground and or first floor andresidential development above.

Form and Character

PDC 3 Development should be consistent with the Desired Character for the Policy Area.

Design and Appearance

PDC 4 Development should maintain the traditional siting patterns of large buildings set in generouslandscaped grounds with substantial front and side boundary set-backs.

PDC 5 A minimum of 30 percent landscaped open space should be provided on the site of anydevelopment.

PDC 6 Landscaped open space should be arranged and planted in a manner which will:(a) provide for the retention of existing significant vegetation:(b) reasonably maintain and enhance the established predominant amenity and landscape

character of the locality; and(c) respect the amenity of abutting residential allotments to the rear.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

PDC 7 Except on sites greater than 1500 square metres in area (which may include one or moreallotment), plot ratio should not exceed 1.8.

PDC 8 Development should not exceed 4 storeys or 14 metres building height except where one ofthe following applies:

(a) on sites greater than 1500 square metres in area (which may include one or more allotment);or

(b) within the areas indicates on policy area Maps Adel/51, 57 and 63 where development shouldnot exceed 2 storeys.

PDC 9 Except within the areas indicated on Policy Area Maps Adel/51, 57 and 63, developmentshould have a minimum building height of 3 storeys to provide optimal height and floor space yieldsthat activate and frame the Park Lands.

Catalyst Sites

PDC 10 Development on catalyst sites (sites greater than 1500 square metres, which may includeone or more allotment) should include medium to high scale residential development.

PDC 11 Small-scale shops, cafés or restaurants on catalyst sites should generally be integrated withresidential development and located at ground or first floor level to increase street level activity facingthe Park Lands.

PDC 12 Catalyst sites should be developed to manage the interface with residential development withregard to intensity of use, overshadowing, massing, building proportions and traffic to minimiseimpacts on residential amenity.

PDC 13 The scale of development on a catalyst site should respond to its context, particularly thenature of the adjacent land uses and the interface treatments required to address impacts onsensitive uses.

PDC 14 Where there is an apparent conflict between the catalyst site principles and Zone, Policy Areaor Council Wide objectives and principles (including the quantitative provisions) the catalyst siteprinciples will take precedence.

Council Wide

Medium to High Scale Residential Development

Sunlight, Daylight and Ventilation

PDC 50: Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should be designed tomaximise opportunities to facilitate natural ventilation and capitalise on natural daylight and minimisethe need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

Design Technique (this is ONE WAY of meeting the above Principle)50.1 Design solutions may include:

(a) corner dwelling/apartment

(b) double aspect dwelling/apartment.

(c) split level dwelling/apartment.

(d) shallow, single aspect dwelling/apartment limited in depth to 8 metres from a window

PDC 51: Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should be designedand located to maximise solar access to dwellings and communal open space on the northern facade.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

PDC 53: All new medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should havedirect ventilation and natural light.

PDC 55: Light wells should not be used as the primary source of daylight for living rooms to ensure asufficient level of outlook and daylight.

PDC 57: Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should locate livingareas, private open space and communal open space, where such communal open space providesthe primary area of private open space, where they will receive sunlight and, where possible, shouldmaintain at least two hours of direct sunlight solar time on 22 June to:

(a) at least one habitable room window (excluding bathroom, toilet, laundry or storage roomwindows);

(b) to at least 20 percent of the private open space; and

(c) communal open space, where such communal open space provides the primary privateopen space for any adjacent residential development.

Visual Privacy

PDC 66: Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should be designedand sited to minimise the potential overlooking of habitable rooms such as bedrooms and living areasof adjacent development.

PDC 67: A habitable room window, balcony, roof garden, terrace or deck should be set-back fromboundaries with adjacent sites at least three metres to provide an adequate level of amenity andprivacy and to not restrict the reasonable development of adjacent sites.

On-site Parking and Fencing

PDC 75: To ensure an adequate provision of on-site parking, car parking should be provided formedium to high scale residential (other than student accommodation) or serviced apartmentdevelopment in accordance with Table Adel/7.

Environmental

Micro-climate and Sunlight

PDC 120: Development should be designed and sited to ensure an adequate level of daylight,minimise overshadowing of buildings, and public and private outdoor spaces, particularly during thelunch time hours.

PDC 121: Development should not significantly reduce daylight to private open space, communalopen space, where such communal open space provides the primary private open space, andhabitable rooms in adjacent City Living Zone, Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone and NorthAdelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone.

Built Form and Townscape

Height, Bulk and Scale

169 The height, scale and massing of buildings should reinforce:

(a) the desired character, built form, public environment and scale of the streetscape ascontemplated within the Zone and Policy Area, and have regard to:

(i) maintaining consistent parapet lines, floor levels, height and massing with existingbuildings consistent with the areas desired character;


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

(ii) reflecting the prevailing pattern of visual sub-division of neighbouring building frontageswhere frontages display a character pattern of vertical and horizontal sub-divisions; and

(iii) avoiding massive unbroken facades.

(b) a comfortable proportion of human scale at street level by:

(i) building ground level to the street frontage where zero set-backs prevail;

(ii) (ii) breaking up the building facade into distinct elements;

(iii) incorporating art work and wall and window detailing; and

(iv) including attractive planting, seating and pedestrian shelter.

PDC 172: Development in a non-residential Zone that abuts land in a City Living Zone, the AdelaideHistoric (Conservation) Zone or the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone, should provide atransition between high intensity development and the lower intensity development in the adjacentZone by focussing taller elements away from the common Zone boundary.

PDC 173: Development in a non-residential Zone that is adjacent to land in the City Living Zone,Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone or North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone shouldminimise overshadowing on sensitive uses by ensuring:

(a) north-facing windows to habitable rooms of existing dwellings in the City Living Zone,Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone or North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zonereceive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight over a portion of their surface between 9.00amand 3.00pm on 21 June;

(c) ground level open space of existing residential buildings in the City Living Zone, AdelaideHistoric (Conservation) Zone or North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone receivedirect sunlight for a minimum of 2 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June to atleast the smaller of the following:

(i) half of the existing ground level open space;

(ii) 35 square metres of the existing ground level open space (with at least oneof the area’s dimensions measuring 2.5 metres).

Composition and Proportion

PDC 179: Development should respect the composition and proportion of architectural elements ofbuilding facades that form an important pattern which contributes to the streetscape’s distinctivecharacter in a manner consistent with the desired character of a locality by:

(a) establishing visual links with neighbouring buildings by reflecting and reinforcing theprevailing pattern of visual sub-division in building facades where a pattern of verticaland/or horizontal sub-divisions is evident and desirable, for example, there may be stronghorizontal lines of verandahs, masonry courses, podia or openings, or there may bevertical proportions in the divisions of facades or windows; and

(b) clearly defining ground, middle and roof top levels.

Sky and Roof Lines

PDC 193: Roof top plant and ancillary equipment that projects above the ceiling of the top storeyshould:

(a) be designed to minimise the visual impact; and


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

(b) be screened from view, including the potential view looking down or across from existingor possible higher buildings, or be included in a decorative roof form that is integrated intothe design of the building.

Transport and Access

Bicycle Access

PDC 233: An adequate supply of on-site secure bicycle parking should be provided to meet thedemand generated by the development within the site area of the development. Bicycle parkingshould be provided in accordance with the requirements set out in Table Adel/6.

Car Parking

PDC 252: Within the City Living Zone, Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone, North Adelaide Historic(Conservation) Zone, Main Street, Mixed Use and Institutional Zones:

(a) adequate car parking should be provided within the site area of the development to meet thedemand generated by the development;

(b) car parking should be provided in accordance with Table Adel/7; and

(c) car parking rates lower than the minimum in Table Adel/7 may be appropriate where there isreadily accessible and frequent public transport in the locality or it can be demonstrated that alower provision is warranted, such as for the following reasons:

(i) the nature of development;

(ii) existing heritage places on or adjacent to the development site which dictates thedevelopment of the site in a manner which hampers the provision of on-site parking;

(iii) the opportunity to exploit shared car parking areas between uses based upon compatiblehours of peak operation;

(iv) use of a car share scheme; or

(v) suitable arrangements for any parking shortfall to be met elsewhere or by other means.


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

ATTACHMENT 2 – DEVELOPMENT PLAN ZONE MAP ANDPHOTOGRAPHS OF LOCALITY


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

PHOTOGRAPHY OF LOCALITY

Subject Land at 248-253 East Terrace (view from east)

Subject Land at 248-253 East Terrace (view to interior from east)


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Subject Land at 248-253 East Terrace (view from south east)

East Terrace Streetscape – looking northwest


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

East Terrace Streetscape – looking southwest

Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace Street (view from east)


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Residential Flat Building at 387 Halifax Street (view from south east)

Interface between Subject Land and Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Interface between Subject Land and Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace

Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace – Side Boundary Setback from Gilles Street


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace – Private Access from Gilles Street

Construction Site adjacent to Residential Flat Building at 256 East Terrace


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Local Heritage Place at 440 Gilles Street with subject land beyond

Local Heritage Place at 432 Gilles Street


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Interface between Subject Land and Residential Flat Building at 387 Halifax Street

Residential Flat Building at 233 Halifax Street


AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1




AGENDA ITEM 3.1.1

Residential Flat Building at 387 Halifax Street – Parking Area with Subject Land Beyond

Contemporary Residential Development at 226-220 East Terrace

Rod O’Neill C/- Williams Burton Leopardi · e. Amended Plans by Williams Burton Leopardi f....

Documents

Transcript of Rod O’Neill C/- Williams Burton Leopardi · e. Amended Plans by Williams Burton Leopardi f....