TO: Development Assessment Panel FROM: Manager … · dwellings (ERD Court Compromise) Owner of...

City of Charles Sturt 59. DAP Agenda 15/01/14

TO: Development Assessment Panel

FROM: Manager Planning and Development

DATE: 15 January 2014

BEVERLEY WARD

ITEM 4.01 ERD COURT COMPROMISE - LOT 96,90 FREDERICK STREET, WELLAND

Applicant QA1TRO

Application No 252/1388/13

Proposal Two storey residential flat building Containing five dwellings (ERD Court Compromise)

Owner of land Panagiotis Karagiannis and Amalia Karagiannis

Zone Mixed Use Zone

Precinct 47 Mixed Use

Form of assessment Merit

Public notification category Category 2

Representations 2 representations received, 1 heard at DAP meeting

held 16 October 2013

Agency consultations Nil

Author Rebecca Freeman - Development Officer Planning

Attachments a. Development Plan Provisions

b. ERD Court Compromise amended plans and documents

Development Plan 5 July 2012

Recommendation Compromise supported with conditions


Report

Background

The Panel refused DA 252/1388/13 at its 16 October 2013 meeting on grounds relating to

overshadowing, impact of increased traffic movements and orderly and economic

development. The Panel is reminded that the grounds of refusal as minuted were as follows:

"That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Approval be REFUSED to Development Application Number 252/1388/13 for the following reasons:

• General Section - Orderly and Sustainable Development - Objective 1 • General Section - Design and Appearance - Principle 2 (a) and (b) • General Section - Transportation and Access - Principle 23 (a) and (d)

In that the development will be unduly overshadowed by the adjoining industrial

property; and that the proposal will unreasonably impact occupants and visitors to

neighbouring properties from increased traffic movements on the site; and that the

development will not create a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which to live."

The applicant has subsequently appealed the decision to the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court). The applicant has chosen to amend the plans seeking to

address the reasons for refusal as part of the ERD Court compromise process. These changes are detailed in the following report.

Proposal

The original application proposed to develop a two storey residential flat building

comprising five dwellings on the subject site. All dwellings were proposed to be orientated

to front the internal driveway to the south. Dwelling one was designed to have a Juliet balcony facing the street to provide passive surveillance.

Each dwelling proposed to contain two bedrooms, laundry (in garage), kitchen, 2 full bathrooms, 3 toilets and living facilities including upstairs retreat. Each dwelling also

provided a private courtyard ranging in size from 23-29m 2 .

The amended proposal has made the following changes to the application:

• Dwelling 1 and 5 will remain as per original proposal.

• Dwellings 2-4 will be two bedrooms, laundry (in garage), kitchen, 2 full bathrooms,

and living facilities including downstairs retreat and upstairs balcony.

• Inclusion of a 1.5m high slatted "mod-wood" or similar screen fence set back a

distance of approximately 1.0m from the front property boundary with landscaping in

• front to create a high quality landscape feature at the front of the property which

provides a visual screen to the visitor car spaces and improve views of the subject land from Frederick Street.


• Proposed patterned treatment of the common driveway to establish an interesting

and artistic feature using variations in the segments of paver colour and patterns

configurations and a central river pebble feature to create a higher quality internal environment for the occupants.

• Improvements to green landscaping along the new shared space/common driveway

to create a higher quality internal environment for the occupants.

• Integrating a 0.5m landscape planting zone along the entire extent of the adjacent

warehouse boundary wall to create a "green-living" wall feature along the boundary.

• Amending the proposed middle three dwellings to restructure the internal layouts and

provide for elevated and north facing habitable and primary open space areas. Incorporation of 3.7m x 3.3m balconies at the second level.

Additionally, shadow diagrams and a traffic report was provided to more accurately assess the impacts on the subject site and adjoining properties.

The application details relating to the amended proposal are summarised as follows:

Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 Development DP Plan Provisions

Met?

Site Area per 150.9m 2 average *Medium Yes

Dwelling (floor density area) (143m 2 )

Street Frontage 15.24m n/a n/a n/a n/a Not specified Yes Width

Building Height 6.89m 6.89m 6.89m 6.89m 6.89m Two Storey Yes (8.2m)

Setbacks Average

setbacks in street 5.6m

Front 7.4m n/a n/a n/a n/a Yes

Rear (lower) 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 0.9m Yes

Rear (upper) 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 2.51m 2m Yes

Side (lower) n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.935m No minimum Yes

Side (upper) n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.935m No minimum Yes


Dl - - D2 D3 04 D5 Development DP Plan Provisions

Met?

Private Open 23m 2 32m' 32m' 32m' 29m 2 24m2 Acceptable Space (mm. (mm. (mm. (mm. (mm. (mm. width is

width is width is width is width is width is 3m) 2.51m) 2.51m) 2.51m) 2.51m) 2.51m)

Car-parking

Tenant 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes

Visitors 2 1.25 Yes

*State Government's 30 year Plan outlines that medium density development is> 143m 3 per site area

Site/Locality

The site has an area of 752m 2 with frontage to Frederick Street of 15.24m. A single storey

dwelling is currently located on the site which is setback approximately 9 metres from the primary street.

The immediate character of the locality is mixed commercial, industry and low density single

storey housing stock remaining on the eastern side of Frederick Street.

The subject site is located approximately 65 metres south of Grange Road and is known as 90 Frederick Street, Welland. It is a regular shape allotment with a site area of 752m 2 and a frontage of 15.24m to Frederick Street. The allotment is SCm in depth. The adjoining

allotment to the north is used as a warehouse and office and was approved by Council in

2007. The adjoining property to the south is currently a single storey private dwelling. The

adjoining property to the west is used as a warehouse in association with food processing and was approved by Council in 1999.

There is no historic value assigned to any of the existing structures on the site.

There are no Regulated or Significant trees on the site.


Site and Locality Plan

r

1 1

H' I

T

r•,i U .

1 ,41

_ H .1

.

IW

Subject Site shown in blue and Locality in red


Summary of Representations and Applicants Response

Representations

The proposal underwent the Category 2 Public Notification process from which the following representations were received:

1.* Mrs Anita Bozic, 88 Frederick Street Welland

2. Mr Mr Bruno Basso, 92 Frederick Street Welland

The representor was given the opportunity to be heard in support of their representation at

the DAP meeting held on 16 October 2013.

Note that as the proposal is Category 2, representors do not have a right of appeal in

relation to the decision of the Planning Authority.

Copies of the representations and the applicant's response were provided in the 16 October

2013 agenda item.

The following table is a summary of these:

Representors issue Applicant's response

Concern about damage that may be caused This development application does not to the building by attaching items such as propose attaching any fixings, awnings, clotheslines or pergolas to the wall, clotheslines, pergolas or any structures to

resulting in water damage, rust and or the wall which is located on the adjoining structural damage property, which is north of the subject site.

A condition of approval could be enforced

by Council that no fixing or mounting of any object shall occur on the adjoining wall.

Alternatively this condition could be

written into the by-laws of the Community

Title Agreement.

Traffic and noise generated from the The noise and traffic generated from the

proposed development proposed development will result in minimal impacts given the high impact of

noise and traffic generating land uses that

are permitted within the Mixed Use Zone

Precinct 47.


Future commercial development of 92 The proposed development does not seek

Frederick Street should not be impacted by to limit or preclude adjoining sites nor sites

proposed development, in the immediate locality from

development of their development

potential. The mixed use Zone Precinct 47

envisages that this precinct be further

developed as a mixed use area of commercial and medium density residential

activities.

Officer's response

The applicant's response to the issues of damage to adjoining building wall, traffic/noise

impacts and effects to future commercial development within the locality are all

satisfactory and were addressed in the body of the 16 October 2013 DAP report.

The plans submitted and applicants response show that there are no structures attached

to the neighbouring property. A condition relating to attachment of structures to

neighbours property would not be valid under the Development Act as there are no powers addressing this aspect in the legislation. This however is covered separately and

would be a civil action in relation to encroachment and property damage if it was to occur.


Internal Consultation

Department/Staff Response

Mark Schuppan Entry, exit and turning manoeuvres within

Development & Permits Officer the property meet Australian Standards.

Engineering Strategy and Assets

The proposed driveway must be im clear

of the stobie pole and the existing driveway

crossover would have to be returned to upright kerb and gutter. This would also be

addressed during the permit for the new

crossover.

Anna Llewellyn These dwellings are suitable for accessing

Environmental Management Officer Council's standard 3 bin system - assume

(Waste & Recycling) that storage of bins will occur in the garage

of each property.

Each dwelling will be responsible for

presenting bins for collection on Frederick Street.

It appears as if the existing crossover point

would become redundant with the new development, and a new crossover point

would need to be established with the old

crossover being reinstated. There should be room for 10 bins to be presented each

week (this is based on a desktop

assessment of space available on the

verge).


Development Assessment

The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be

considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The

Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.

Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered

relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in further detail below.

Land Use

The proposal to construct a two storey residential flat building containing five dwellings is

appropriate within the Mixed Use Zone Precinct 47. The zone envisages medium density

housing which should enable a range of housing styles with varying footprints. The

application is consistent with the Desired Character statement of the Mixed Use Zone

Precinct 47 which envisages medium density housing along with commercial uses. One of the representors raised concerns regarding the proposed development integrating with

existing and envisaged commercial land uses. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development will meet the Minister's Specification - Construction Requirements for the Control of External Sound SA 78B. This specification contains requirements intended to protect the occupants of Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9c dwellings from the impact of existing and future noise from major roads, rail lines and mixed land uses. Any future commercial

development of adjoining or surrounding sites will be assessed against Council's

Development Plan and will be required to comply with the general Environmental Protection noise conditions. The land use envisaged around the sites will continue to be mixed use

including commercial and residential developments. The zoning specifically encourages this

mixture of land uses together and thus the land use proposed should be supported.

Private Open Space

Dwellings with a site area less than 300m 2 require 24m 2 dedicated to private open space. The private open space should be located behind the building line, not include bin storage areas and have 16m 2 with a minimum dimension of 3 metres. The proposed development is providing a minimum of 23m 2 for dwelling one, 32m 2 for dwellings two to four and 29m 2 for dwelling 5. The amended plans have provided an additional nine square metres of private

open space within dwellings two to four and as such appropriately comply with Council's Development Plan.

The open space is provided in one large usable area on the ground floor and a large upper

level balcony for dwellings 2-4. All areas of private open space have a northerly aspect.


Overshadowing

The amended proposal has reconfigured the internal layout of dwellings 2-4 and has how

proposed the habitable rooms on the second level on the northern side with the addition of

a 3.3m x 3.7m balcony. Direct northern light is now accessed into the building from the

higher located habitable room windows. These amendments mean that these dwellings are

no longer the subject of the impacts from overshadowing from the adjacent existing

warehouse building wall at the boundary. The Development Plan requires northern windows

and private open space to be provided with 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and

3pm on the 21st June this has now been achieved with the compromise proposal.

Traffic Management and Parking

The compromise proposal was accompanied by a traffic report prepared by Murray F Young dated 16 December 2013. The report envisaged that the proposal would generate 38 trips

per day and four peak hour trips. The report stated that generally residential flat dwellings generate lower traffic volumes than traditional dwellings and the volumes associated with the proposal will be less than above. It was concluded that:

"the very low traffic volumes generated by the proposal will have negligible impact on traffic conditions and safety on and adjacent to the subject site. Furthermore, the current zoning of the site would allow for the development of a higher level of traffic generation than associated with the subject proposal."

-Ben Wilson, Murray F Young Pty Ltd

As outlined in the quantitative table, the proposal provides sufficient on-site parking and meets the relevant Development Plan requirements.

Legal Advice Provided by Applicant:

The compromise proposal was accompanied by legal advice prepared by Jamie Botten of

Botten Levinson Development & Environment Lawyers. This advice is summarised as follows:

• A determination that a development proposal is seriously at variance with the

Development Plan is exceptional and limited to proposals where that determination is beyond reasonable debate.

• When making the planning judgment in the context of considering whether a

development proposal is seriously at variance, it must be remembered that the

Development Plan is to be utilised as "...flexible, advisory planning policy document,

not as a mandatory legal statute and as a practical guide for practical application..."

• In considering the question of whether the proposed development might be

seriously at variance, bearing in mind the recognition by the Courts that there can only be serious variance where there is a clear and unambiguous departure of

consequence from the Development Plan, it is revealing to note that the

recommendation from the Council's planning officer assessing the proposal to the

DAP was for approval of the development proposal. The report containing that

recommendation is a comprehensive assessment of all relevant issues.


Thus:

• The proposal is an envisaged use;

• It is in accordance with the essential thrust of the Development Plan; and

• Any departure from the Development Plan's advisory provisions could not be

characterised as exceptional.

In the circumstances, the proposal is not seriously at variance.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 5 July 2012.

The proposed development as amended is consistent with the desired character statement

for this locality, in terms of the type, allotment size of dwellings, traffic impacts,

overshadowing and the appearance of the dwellings.

The development is considered to provide adequate setbacks, private open space and on site car parking. Overlooking has been addressed whilst still allowing for maximum passive surveillance over the adjoining street.

For these reasons the proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant

Development Plan Provisions and hence warrants the granting of Development Planning Consent.

Recommendation

A. Reason for Decision

The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer -

Planning dated 15 January 2014 and agrees with the assessment outlined in that

report.

B. That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is not

seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Sturt (City)

Development Plan consolidated 5 July 2012.

C. Reserved Matters

The following detailed information shall be submitted for further assessment and

approval by the Manager Planning and Development as delegate of the DAP as

reserved matters under Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993:


a) A stormwater and site management plan and computations are to be submitted

with the Development Application in compliance with the City of Charles Sturt's

requirements (see Development Information Requirement Guides No 56,

Stormwater Drainage Plan and No 52 Site Plan, copies of which is available from

Council's web site www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au or can be obtained from

Council's office). Note that the Guide No 56, Stormwater Drainage Plan

includes requirements for on-site stormwater detention based on the post

development peak rate of run-off from the 'design' storm not exceeding that

from the pre-development site from a 5 year ARI storm. The 'design' storm requirement is as follows:

Development Design Storm, Post Development Applicable to this

Development?

Of area less than 50 sq. m No detention required No

Residential of more than 50 5 year ARI design storm No sq. m and up to two dwellings

Residential with more than 100 year ARI design storm Yes two dwellings, commercial,

industrial and all other development

Reason: To ensure that the development proceeds in an orderly manner.

D. Reserved Conditions

Pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993 the Council reserves its decision on the form and substance of any further conditions of development plan

consent that it considers appropriate to impose in respect of the reserve matters and

delegates this to the Manager Planning and Development.

E. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Application Number 252/0821/12 be GRANTED Development Plan Consent subject to the following conditions:

1. Develop in accordance with the approved plans

That the proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and approved plans stamped by Council except where varied by the conditions herein and shall be

completed prior to occupation of the proposed development.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner


2. Dimensions of Car Parks to Australian Standards

The proposed car parking layout and access areas are to conform with the Australian Standards 2890.1 for Off-Street Parking Facilities

Reason: To ensure the safe and orderly movement of vehicles.

3. 1.5 metre high sill height

That any upper storey windows that do not have a Street frontage shall have a

minimum 1.5 metre high sill height above the finished floor level or have translucent

glass/film to a minimum height of 1.5 metres. The translucent glass/film windows

shall be fixed or be provided with awning sashes that do not exceed an open distance of 200mm.

Reason: To minimise the impact on adjoining residents.

Note: With respect to this condition other forms of Screening can be used as

long as it can be demonstrated to Council that such screening will

prevent overlooking. However, should you wish to use an alternative

screening method you are required to lodge an application to vary the above condition.

4. Stormwater be directed away from neighbouring properties

All stormwater runoff shall be directed away from neighbouring properties.

Reason: To ensure stormwater is disposed of in a controlled manner.

5. Stormwater Condition

All stormwater from buildings and paved areas shall be disposed of in such a manner

that it does not result in the entry of water into a building or affect the stability of a building.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner.

6. Signage indicating Visitor Parking

A sign with the message visitor car parking', having an advertising area not exceeding

0.2 square metres, shall be erected at the car park entry and shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

Reason: To ensure that visitors to the site are made aware of available off-street

car parking areas thereby reducing vehicular congestion on adjoining public roads.


7. Landscaping per Plans

The proposed landscaping shall be established on the site in accordance with the

approved plan prior to the occupation of the site and it shall be maintained and

nurturedat all times, with any diseased or dying plants replaced.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the locality and to ensure that

the proposal is established in accordance with the approved plans.

8. Irrigation of Landscaped Areas

That all approved landscaping be watered by an automatic watering system that shall

be installed prior to the occupation of the proposed development and which shall be maintained at all times.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the amenity of the locality

Notes

1. 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 the activities on the site, including during construction, do not pollute the

environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. This includes

being mindful of and minimising off site noise, dust and vibration impacts associated with development.

Construction noise can cause nuisance to nearby residents and therefore activities which include the operation of machinery need to be restricted to between 7.00am

and 7.00pm Monday to Saturday and if necessary on Sunday between 9.00am and

7.00pm to minimise potential for noise complaints.

Construction must be undertaken in accordance with Division 1 of Part 6 of the Environment Protection (noise) Policy 2007 at all times.

Heavy vehicles accessing the site should avoid residential streets wherever possible

2. Development Approval must be received for this development within 12 months of the date of this Development Plan Consent.

You will require a fresh Development Plan Consent and Development Approval before

commencing or continuing the development if you are unable to satisfy these requirements.

3. Before proceeding with this proposal, you are required to seek Building Rules Consent pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act, 1993.


4. You are advised that construction of any footpath, kerb, gutter or crossover on

Council land will require a permit from Council's Engineering and Construction

Department. It is illegal to undertake work on Council land without permission.

To ensure your development can now proceed without unnecessary delays please ensure the matters outlined below are properly managed.

The following information outlines your obligations in relation to appropriately managing

noise, dust and works effecting adjoining land (both private and public).

Driveway Crossovers • If you are relocating an existing driveway crossover you must remove and reinstate the

old crossover to match the existing kerb profile, footpath and verge. You will require a

permit to work on Council land to construct your new driveway crossover which must

be constructed to Council specification. Please contact Council on 8408 1111 or refer

to our website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=7&c=4118 for

relevant specifications.

Council Verges Please take every precaution necessary to avoid damage to the landscaping and

infrastructure present on Council verges, as you will be required to make good

damage to Council property.

Common boundary

• When removing fences that are on the common boundary with your neighbour you

must give your neighbour 28 days notice in writing that you intend to remove the dividing fence. Where the neighbour has a pool, particular care must be taken to

ensure the pool is not left exposed, if temporary fencing is installed the temporary

fence must comply with AS 1926.1 - Swimming pool safety. We recommend that you

consider the Fences and the Law booklet available on line and follow the processes

outlined in the booklet.

• Where it is intended to erect external walls on the boundary the face of the external

wall must be on the boundary. Further, barge boards, capping tiles or other fixtures

on the boundary wall must not encroach upon the land of the adjoining owner.

Existing fence lines may not be the true legal boundary. To avoid violation of

neighbour's rights, the onus of proof of the boundary line rests with the owner of the

land where the work is undertaken. This will necessitate a survey being carried out by

a licensed surveyor to identify the true location of the boundary and proposed footing

on the ground. You will need the neighbour's written approval to enter their land to

carry out any construction.

Neighbours

• Construction within an established neighbourhood can be a stressful time for existing

residents. You are urged to take all necessary precautions to ensure adjoining

properties are not damaged or residents unreasonably impacted. In the interests of

good neighbourliness you may wish to consider providing your contact details to all

adjoining property owners inviting them to contact you should there be any concerns

during the construction process.


Dust

• Airborne dust and sand emissions potentially generated on site must be managed and

this can be achieved by wetting down the soil and site during the demolition and

construction process. If you have any concerns or questions in relation to dust you can contact the EPA on 8204 2004.

Asbestos

• If there is asbestos material in or on the building or fencing to be demolished there

are specific requirements for the method of removal and disposal of asbestos. The

removal of asbestos over 10 square metres in area must be carried out by a licensed

asbestos removal contractor in accordance with Safe Work SA requirements. For

further information in relation to this please contact Safe Work SA on 1300 365 255.

Use of Public Space

• Should any part of the development process require use of public land (ie, the

footpath, nature strip, road or other reserve), additional permits will be required.

• Examples of such activities include storage of materials, delivery of materials from

public land, placing of temporary fences on public land, blocking of the road, footpath or nature strip for any period of time.

• Where works from public space impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic, you will be requested to lodge a Traffic Management Plan that adheres to the requirements of the relevant Australian Standards.

• Additional fees and charges may apply, please contact the Council's Compliance Team on 8408 1380 to discuss your projects needs.

Environment Protection Note

The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 requires any person who is undertaking an activity, or is an occupier of land to take all reasonable and practicable

measures to avoid the discharge or deposit of waste from that activity or land into any

waters or onto land in a place from which it is likely to enter any waters (including the stormwater system).

The policy also creates offences that can result in on-the-spot fines or legal proceedings. The

following information is provided to assist you to comply with this legislation:

1. Building and construction should follow sediment control principles outlined in the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention - Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (EPA 1999). Specifically, the applicant should ensure:

• During construction no sediment should leave the building and construction

site. Appropriate exclusion devices must be installed at entry points to stormwater systems and waterways.

• A stabilised entry/exit point should be constructed to minimise the tracking of

sand, soil and clay off site. However, should tracking occur, regular clean-ups are advised.


2. Litter from Construction sites is an environmental concern. All efforts should be made

to keep all litter on site. The applicant should ensure that bins with securely fitted lids,

capable of receiving all waste from building and construction activities, are placed on site.

3. All building and construction wastewaters are listed pollutants under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and as such must be contained on site.

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of the Policy and ensure that all

contractors engaged by you are aware of the obligations arising under it.

For further information please contact the Environment Protection Authority on telephone (08) 8204 2004.


A TTACHMENT A

[Attachment A Consists of 5 pages]

Development Plan Provisions - Consolidated 16 May 2013

ZONE SECTION Desired Character Statement - Mixed Use Zone

This precinct is characterised by a commercial character with a large number of business, motor The proposal complies with these

trade and showroom premises and a number of industrial activities. Single houses remain provisions as the development is proposing

interspersed throughout the area. The precinct is a focus for commercial, vehicle and business a medium density residential flat building

activities, which is of a high quality design.

Much of the precinct fronts arterial roads, such as Grange, Port and Torrens Roads. Consequently,

it is important to establish a well designed character and form that enhances the attractiveness of these roads. Some parts of the area are of a high quality and well landscaped nature whilst other

areas are of a disparate character, requiring more attention to built form, design, siting and

landscaping to improve the areas amenity. Interface issues, such as noise, arise due to the proximity of housing.

This precinct will be further developed as a mixed use area of commercial and medium density

residential activities. Two storey housing is desirable and should be designed for arterial road

conditions. Mixed use housing developments is encouraged. Higher impact uses such as crash

repairers and manufacturing should be restricted. High traffic generating uses are inappropriate.

The enhancement of the area through high quality buildings with extensive landscaping and upgrading of existing lower quality buildings is supported. Conversion of existing houses to

commercial use will be required to maintain landscaped front gardens. Car parking at the side or

rear of the premises and buffered by screen planting from adjacent housing is generally

appropriate. It is desirable to integrate rear parking areas between adjoining sites. Consolidation

of former housing allotments is desirable and the rationalisation of signage is encouraged.

Proximity of the area to adjoining residential areas necessitates careful design to minimise impact

on residential amenity and careful consideration of appropriate uses. It will be necessary to buffer

adjacent housing by screen plantings or masonry walls on rear boundaries. Site amalgamations

are very desirable and it will be inappropriate to allow any vehicles to back onto arterial roads.

Land fronting Fourth Avenue Cheltenham, excluding existing lawfully operating commercial land

uses, will comprise residential development with a frontage to Fourth Avenue, with small scale,

low impact commercial land uses located to the rear of dwellings. Residential buildings designed

to reinforce the established residential character of Fourth Avenue are supported.

Mixed Use Zone

01 A functional and diverse zone accommodating a mix of commercial, community, light industrial, Complies

medium density residential, office, and small-scale shop land uses. PDC4 The bulk and scale of development should be compatible with adjoining land uses. Complies

PDC 8 Buildings and structures should not exceed 60 per cent site coverage with flexibility in the Complies

distribution of site coverage where multiple sites are involved. - --

Precinct 47 Mixed Use

PDC 17 17 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for Complies

the precinct. - -

GENERAL SECTION

Interface Between Land Uses PDC4 Residential development adjacent to non-residential zones and land uses should be located, Complies

designed and/or sited to protect residents from potential adverse impacts from non-residential activities.

PDC 5 Sensitive uses likely to conflict with the continuation of lawfully existing developments and land Complies

uses desired for the zone should be designed to minimise negative impacts.

Design and Appearance

01 Development of a high architectural standard and appearance that responds to and reinforces Complies

positive aspects of the local environment and built form. PDC 2 Where a building is sited on or close to a side or rear boundary, the boundary wall should Complies

minimise:

(a) the visual impact of the building as viewed from adjoining properties (b) overshadowing of adjoining properties and allow adequate sunlight access to neighbouring buildings.

PDC 11 Buildings with upper level windows, balconies, terraces and decks should minimise direct Complies

overlooking of habitable rooms and private open spaces of dwellings through one or more of the

following measures:

a) off-setting the location of balconies and windows of habitable rooms with those of other

buildings so that views are oblique rather than direct

b) building setbacks from boundaries (including building boundary to boundary where

appropriate) that interrupt views or that provide a spatial separation between balconies or windows of habitable rooms

c) screening devices (including fencing, obscure glazing, screens, external ventilation blinds, window hoods and shutters) that are integrated into the building design and have

minimal negative effect on residents' or neighbours' amenity d) other than within the UrbanCore Zone, sill heights of not less than 1.5 metres or

permanent screens having a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level. PDC 13 Buildings (other than ancillary buildings, group dwellings or buildings on allotments with a battle Complies

axe configuration) should be designed so that their main façade faces the primary street frontage of the land on which they are situated.

PDC 22 Except in areas where a new character is desired, the setback of buildings from public roads Complies should:

a) be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other buildings in the locality

b) contribute positively to the function, appearance and/ or desired character of the locality

Energy Efficiency

PDC2 Buildings should be sited and designed so that the open spaces associated with the main activity Complies

areas face north for exposure to winter sun. Orderly and Sustainable Development

017inwhichtolive. Orderly and economical development that creates a safe, convenient and pleasant environment Complies

Residential Development

02 A diverse range of dwelling types and sizes available to cater for changing demographics, Complies

particularly smaller household sizes and supported accommodation. 03 Medium and high density residential development in areas close to activity centres, public and Complies

community transport and public open spaces. PDC 3 Dwellings and accommodation at ground floor level should contribute to the character of the Complies

locality and create active, safe streets by incorporating one or more of the following: a) front landscaping or terraces that contribute to the spatial and visual structure of the

street while maintaining adequate privacy for occupants b) individual entries for ground floor accommodation c) opportunities to overlook adjacent public space.

PDC4 Residential development should be designed to ensure living rooms have an external outlook. Complies

PDC 12 Private open space (available for exclusive use by residents of each dwelling) should be provided Complies

for each dwelling and should be sited and designed: a) to be accessed directly from the internal living areas of the dwelling b) to be generally at ground level (other than for residential flat buildings) and to the side or

rear of a dwelling and screened for privacy c) to take advantage of, but not adversely affect, natural features of the site d) to minimise overlooking from adjacent buildings e) to achieve separation from bedroom windows on adjoining sites f) to have a northerly aspect to provide for comfortable year round use g) not to be significantly shaded during winter by the associated dwelling or adjacent

development

h) to be partly shaded in summer

i) to minimise noise or air quality impacts that may arise from traffic, industry or other

business activities within the locality

j) to have sufficient area and shape to be functional, taking into consideration the location

of the dwelling, and the dimension and gradient of the site. PDC 13 Except where otherwise specified, dwellings at ground level should provide private open space in Complies

accordance with the following table:

Site area per Minimum area excluding Minimum dimension Minimum area provided at dwelling any area at ground level (metres) the rear or side of the (square at the front of the dwelling dwelling. directly accessible meters) (square metres) from a habitable room

(square metres)

>500 80, of which 10 may comprise 4 24 balconies, roof patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

300-500 60, otwiticti 10 may comprise 4 16 balconies, root patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

<300 24, of which 8 may comprise 3 16 balconies, roof patios and the like, provided they have a minimum dimension of 2 metres.

PDC 25 Site facilities for group dwellings, multiple dwellings and residential flat buildings should include: Complies

a) mail box facilities sited close to the major pedestrian entrance to the site b) bicycle parking for residents and visitors (for developments containing more than 6

dwellings)

c) household waste and recyclable material storage areas away from dwellings.

Transportation and Access

PDC 23 Development should be provided with safe and convenient access which: Complies

a) avoids unreasonable interference with the flow of traffic on adjoining roads b) provides appropriate separation distances from existing roads or level crossings c) accommodates the type and volume of traffic likely to be generated by the development

or land use and minimises induced traffic through over-provision d) is sited and designed to minimise any adverse impacts on the occupants of and visitors to

neighbouring properties.

PDC 46 On-site visitor parking spaces should be sited and designed to: Complies

a) not dominate internal site layout b) be clearly defined as visitor spaces not specifically associated with any particular dwelling

c) be accessible to visitors at all times.


ATTACHMENT B

[Attachment B consists of 31 pages]

rn CON SU LT I NC e.tMnkfg tomonow, todoy.

RE: J201341158_Welland

18 December 2013

Ms Julie Vanco Manager Planning & Development City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road WOODVILLE SA 5011

Attention: Rebecca Freeman

S0e'cki431 eoo'r'er1 I Wmiftch-ft ccrJantS

-rt AMC Gcwfl 5hey

LccO hteJe Pore ftsftc two Pkra

M4r P$e

?db Oewen D'eIopcnr Vbn Arrndtner

dev&op Pect wQnoenent

Ste orn £ Concept

tonñen1

S4o Aofton

fptt tiorcc

Dear Sir/Madam,

IN THE MATTER OF QATTRO PTY LTD V CITY OF CHARLES STURT ERD COURT ACTION 13-278 TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING CONTAINING FIVE DWELLINGS AT 90 FREDERICK STREET WELLAND APPLICATION NO 252/1388/13

Introduction

Ruan Consulting acts for and on behalf of the applicant in respect of the above matter.

Gqqph SpO *n

3O Poornt &afton

ci iereffi ent P4e 80114M .l*

R* McnØ 6 MyI

b4r0mn16 roc e3vieM

Prceet fodb!v Aon Vo%ie 4ffpOei Oe

Popty Maiet Anobi

I refer to our discussions at the Environment, Resources and Development ("ERD") Court Conference dated 2 December 2013. This letter outlines the "compromise proposal" and my planning assessment of those changes.

I attach further information that addresses and responds to the previous grounds for refusal as follows:

• Attachment A - Revised Plans (Revision C) Sheets 1 to 11 90 Frederick Street Welland by Qattro Pty Ltd

• Attachment B - Shadow Diagrams of 21 June between 9 am and 3 pm Proposed Development Upper Level at

90 Frederick Street Welland

• Attachment C - Letter from Botten Levinson dated 16 December 2013

• Attachment D - Letter from Murray F Young dated 16 December 2013

I understand that the "compromise proposal" is to be put to the Council Development Assessment Panel

('Panel") at its scheduled meeting 15 January 2014 for further consideration. As an ERD Court Directions Hearing is scheduled for 23 January 2014, I would appreciate your early advice in respect of the Panels deliberations.

The Compromise Proposal - Design Changes

I have proposed a series of "design changes" that are minor in nature to the plans previously considered by the Panel, but, in my opinion, these changes offer significant improvement to the proposed development outcome

and redress the primary concerns raised by the Panel (as reflected in the grounds of refusal). The applicant has agreed to make these changes as shown in the attached revised plans and these are further described below:

PP $tiPy Ld

, #6107I20 7139 AINI 13ø Fi83I 5242

ruan CON SULTI NC

re-th'nking fomonow. today.

1. "Street presentation improvements"

1.1. Changes to the urban design treatment of the front Frederick Street elevation with the inclusion of a

1.5 m high slatted "mod-wood" or similar screen fence set back a distance of approximately 1.0 m

from the front property boundary. This provides for a visual screen to the visitor car spaces and is to be planted in front with a new hedge feature and other planting that will grow to the height of the screen.

1.2. My opinion is that this creates a much higher quality landscape feature at the front of the property that includes a visual backdrop for planting features, substantially improving the views of the subject land

from Frederick Street compared to both that which exists today and that which was previously

proposed.

2. "Internal shared environment improvements"

2.1. Changes to the urban design treatment of the common driveway from that of the previous single pattern and single colour paver to one that now establishes an interesting and artistic feature using variations in the segments of paver colour (earth and natural tones) and patterns configurations and a

central river pebble feature.

2.2. The design provides for interest and visual breaks, along the length of the driveway. A feature area is created in the pavement design layout around where the space widens around the proposed visitor car

parking spaces.

2.3. The objective of the design treatment is to create a shared space that is of a higher aesthetic quality

than provided in most similar developments and one that is able to be used for the enjoyment of the occupants when not being trafficked due to the low speed and low volume traffic environment.

2.4. In addition to the hard landscape feature, improvements include additional and better quality green (soft) landscaping primarily through the plant species selected and proposed to be used in the planting

beds along the new shared space/common driveway. Species include wherever practicable, tall but skinny tree species suitable for narrow Ianeways (e.g. Capital Pear trees of similar and these are to be

set within the paved area using tree/root protection ground grates). The new plantings will provide an "avenue effect from the leafy canopy spreads that then creates for positive user experiences in the shared space area that is much better than was previously proposed.

2.5. My opinion is that this hard and soft landscape feature will create a much higher quality internal

environment for the occupants that presents the common driveway as a "shared people" space that is

functional and a pleasant space for users to enjoy.

3. "Warehouse boundary wall visual impact improvements"

3.1. Changes to the north boundary of the property that designates a minimum 0.5m wide landscape

planting zone along the entire extent of the adjacent warehouse boundary wall (and incorporated into proposed private open space areas of dwellings) extending in width where possible at the rear of the

three middle dwellings.

3.2. This zone is to be planted with tall fast growing hedge plants using both appropriately spaced "Capital Pear" trees or similar species (spacing between planting are to create a tall hedge appearance) and other commonly used hedge species such as a "Privett" Hedge or similar plants to strengthen the

144t87207I39 POSt

lAS RAMn Cow ro r 4618 83115242 Pa Box 3099 ASN Ii M M. MO NOPW000 SA 547

$ Nr'3 * 1vU

2

ruan CONSULTI N'G

rc.Thtnking tomorvow. today.

living wall feature. The hedge species are able to grow and will exceed the height of the adjacent 5.2m

high boundary wall (the plants selected can grow up to 11 m in height and have a narrow canopy shape

so as to suit the application for this development).

3.3. The design treatment proposed is one that creates a "green-living" wall feature along the boundary of

the adjacent warehouse boundary wall.

3.4. My opinion is that this solution will convert the perceived issue of the subject lands boundary being directly abutting the adjacent 5.2m high warehouse boundary wall (previously approved and now built)

into a most desirable visual feature for the proposed development and for future occupants of the

dwellings.

4. Warehouse boundary wall "overshadowing" and solar access improvements

4.1. Changes to the proposed middle three (3) dwellings to restructure the internal layouts and making adjustments to the location of the primary private open space areas so as to provide for elevated and north facing habitable and primary open space areas. Primary open space areas are provided for by way of large 3.7 m x 3.3 m (12.21 m2). The second level habitable rooms and primary open space

decks are able to act as an integrated living area of the dwellings with high levels of privacy and outlook onto the green living wall feature. These middle dwellings still retain ground level rear soft landscaping area and general service court area that supplement the primary open space (20.33m2).

The ground level private open spaces include green planting areas.

4.2. It should be noted that there is no potential overshadowing issues for the front and the last dwellings

as previously proposed and these layouts have not been altered and therefore these are not modified.

4.3. These three middle dwellings will now offer the following and significant benefits for its future

occupants over the previous proposed layout and siting:

(i) The habitable rooms facing onto a primary open space areas are now located at the second level

and on the north face of the building of the dwellings.

(ii) Northern light is now accessed into the building from the higher located habitable room windows.

(iii)These dwellings are no longer the subject of the impacts from overshadowing from the adjacent

existing warehouse building wall at the boundary.

(iv)These three dwellings now provide for an over provision of private open space areas due to the

substantial the primary open space deck and the smaller ground level private planted open space and now when combined these areas total 32.5m2 compared to that which is the minimum required

by the Development Plan of 24m2

Planning Assessment of Changes

I provide the following summary of my planning opinion in respect of how the proposed changes redress the

previous grounds of refusal to assist the Panel with its deliberations.

tvti 24$)

18?1OI$39 f481 eaU $242

3

ruan CO N SU LTI NC

:e*ThfrPktng tomorrow, today.

Previous Determination that Proposal is Seriously At Variance

We attach a legal opinion prepared by Botten Levinson in respect to past ERD Court judgments that addresses

past judgements made by the ERD Court in respect of similar cases relating to determinations of "seriously at

variance".

My opinion is that the initial proposal is not at serious variance with the Development Plan. My opinion is that the

compromise proposal is consistent with the Development Plan and merits approval.

Previous Grounds of Refusal #1: The development will not create orderly and economic development that creates a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which to live

In respect to the part of this previous grounds for refusal (i.e. that relates to "orderly" and "economic"

development), my opinion is the compromise proposal is:

1. An "orderly" form of development because:

• The proposed development is an "infill" style development within an already established urban area

• The proposed development is consistent with the envisaged uses and forms of development as articulated

in the Zones and Policy Areas Desired Character

• It is not a kind of development that is prejudicial to the achievement of the Zones objectives.

2. An "economical" form of develoDment because:

• The land had in the past been "fully serviced" for residential use and it is capable of being "fully serviced"

for the proposed 5 dwelling development

• There are no reasons to suggest that there are any unknown issues with connecting the subject land to

necessary utilities, storm water infrastructure or the public road, and there is no contamination or other

constraints in respect to the condition of the land

In respect to the second part of this previous grounds for refusal (i.e. being to create "safe, convenient and

pleasant environments"), my opinion is the compromise proposal achieves this because:

1. The Mixed Use zone is a zone designation that recognises the functional and diverse mix of land uses that

already exists in this locality (i.e. a mix of commercial, light industrial, and medium density residential).

2. The Desired Character for the Zone and Policy Area 47 recognises specifically that the "non-residential" land

uses that do exist in this locality are "low imract" activities and therefore do not cause any appreciable

impact on the enjoyment and use of adiacent residential uses in this zone and policy area.

3. More specifically, while business activity is described in the Desired Character statement as being the

dominant use in Policy Area 47 it is also indicated that these uses are currently intersrersed with single

houses. Furthermore the Desired Character clearly indicates the Development Plan seeks to encourage

medium density residential.

4. My opinion is that the Development Plan speaks to this type of development being the preferred alternative to

that of developments for new single houses, and further that the proposal is one which is being envisaged to

occur in the zone.

PVOn t4688flS242 POIo399 h*1'l at M3 M, 021 NORWXO SA 5047

MN 24 37

ruan CONSULTING

:c-thnkfng tomo#row. todayS

5. The section of Frederick Street, between Grey Avenue and Grange Road, being the immediate locality of the

subject land exemplifies this character of the zone and Policy Area, with the one significant exception being the extent to which residential and commercial activity is interspersed at this locality is where there is a clearly

a more dominant 'residential character".

6. The Development Plan provides guidance on interface issues (as indicated in the desired character statement that applies where a "non-residential use is proposed), it should be setback 2.Om from the boundary and be

planted. In the case of the adjacent warehouse boundary wall, the wall is an existing deficiency created from past approved development. Notably, the proposal itself does not propose any boundary walls and does not

include any non-residential use of the land.

7. Nevertheless, to overcome the Panels issue of the existing warehouse boundary wall being present, the

"compromise proposal" has included a minimum 0.5m wide hedge planted "green living wall" that will

provide for a significant and attractive feature for the future occupants. This solution overcomes to a large extent the past failings of the warehouse having a boundary wall to the subject land in a practical manner.

8. The proposed walls of the proposed dwellings are all setback in excess of 2.0 m from the adjacent warehouse boundary wall and therefore appropriate separation distance is being achieved, constructively overcoming any existing deficiency created by inadequate boundary wall setbacks on adjacent land.

9. Policy Area 47 seeks for medium density residential designs to "enhance" the street character by high quality

forms and/or landscape design responses (not otherwise readily able to be achieved by commercial land use proposals).

10.The modifications made to the Frederick Street frontage (as can be seen in the elevation details of the compromise plan) provides a significant enhancement through the front landscape feature now including a

slatted mod-wood style backdrop and the hedge planting, together with the new common driveway/shared space design details as previously described.

Previous Grounds of Refusal #2: The development will unduly overshadow by the adjoining Industrial property.

I note the Development Plan provisions referred to in this previous grounds for refusal is one that seeks to protect

existing adjacent land from impacts of proposed development (proposing walls on or close to a boundary) from

causing undesirable overshadowing effects (rather than vice versa being the context of the perceived issue for this proposal).

Nevertheless. I have sought to address the Panels concern constructively by proposing changes that better

recognise the presence of the warehouse boundary wall and the potential for overshadowing impacts to be made on the new dwellings. Modifications made are to the internal location of habitable rooms and the elevation of the

primary private open space areas for three of the five dwellings (as described earlier under "Warehouse boundary

wall "perceived overshadowing" and solar access improvements").

1. I attach shadow diagrams to help inform the Panel on the benefit of this proposed change. These diagrams illustrate the shadows received at the ground level open spaces and upper level open spaces within the proposed development.

RPUC*ePtyLIi l 6 7120 1139 poxt

46119 83II 242 Pa BOK 3099 *1$I11 7) NOIWOOO A ZO6

A3 hvtle ro P*wv tOr,v JMI

5

ruan CONSULT I NC

iø.thrtfring tomoiow. today.

2. These diagrams confirm that each dwelling is able to receive direct sunlight in accordance with the

relevant applied PDC in the Development Plan (that strictly speaking applies to impacts on existing private

open space areas of adjacent land i.e. not impacts caused from existing developments) for a minimum of

hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June to at least half (50%) of the primary private open space.

3. These three (3) middle dwellings now have significant private open space by way of elevated balconies that offer a northerly aspect that provide for comfortable year round use, not significantly shaded during

winter.

4. These balconies are of sufficient area and shape to be functional and useable spaces and, my opinion, is

that these are ideal given the location of dwellings abutting a warehouse, and the internal layout now makes this area the primary space for these dwellings.

5. My opinion is that the potential for this impact to be considered "unduly" is now in effect removed by design.

Previous Grounds of Refusal #3: The development will unreasonably impact occupants and visitors to neighbouring properties from increased traffic movements on the site.

I attach an experts traffic opinion prepared by Murray F Young in respect to the impacts of the increased traffic movements created by the development on the neighbouring street conditions and confirms that there are no

unreasonable impacts to occupants and neighbours.

The Zone and the Policy Areas calls for increased densities and medium density residential development as an envisaged form of development. In establishing this Development Plan policy, it is reasonable to assume Council has already considered and decided that the street network is and was capable of receiving some level of

increased traffic movements.

In respect to this grounds for previous refusal, I provide the following general planning commentary in support of the compromise proposal:

1. The subject land is located in proximity to the Frederick Street intersection with Grange Road.

2. Frederick Street provides a direct link between Grange Road and the Welland Plaza rear car park entry.

3. The current annual daily traffic volumes on Grange Road are that of a major arterial road and has significant capacity and the current annual daily traffic volumes on Frederick Street are estimated to be in the order of 2000 (weekday) trips per day (Councils draft Welland Street Draft Traffic Management Plan).

4. A standard single house would typically generate traffic movements of 8 vehicle trips per day and this can compare to the development will generate traffic movements conservatively estimated at 38 (i.e. a net

increase of 30 vehicle trips per day or 0.015% change in the traffic volumes of Frederick Street).

5. The subject lands access point is located at a point where there is an existing crossover and the property

already has a legal property right to be able to access Frederick Street from this point The access point itself does not change the status of this, and the access crossover is simply being widened to an 8.Om cross over.

RP t4o!w'eej Ply Ltd t 4 6I 110 7139 post (46I1l S242 P0 Sos 3099

NORW000 SA 5067

ft h.nl b pl,wo I $vt 4 3,I 31)t

6

ruan CO N SUIT! NC

to .1h!nklng tomonow. today.

6. The only change is that there is an increase in traffic volumes that would enter and leave the site, that increase is the difference between a single dwelling and five dwellings, noting that the traffic volume per

dwelling are lower in a medium density development than they are for a standard single detached dwelling.

7. The impact the proposal would have on either Grange Road or Frederick Street annual daily traffic volumes

is therefore minimal and it is difficult to conclude that this is an "unreasonable interference" with the existing road users traffic flows.

8. In the case of Frederick Street, Councils draft Welland Street Traffic Management Plan identifies that

additional traffic and street parking will aid to reduce traffic speeds and that additional works should be conducted by Council to establish new slow points along sections of the Road. The proposal will not interfere with the works or operations of the street in the future.

9. The proposed 6.Om wide cross over which has the capacity to manage inflow and outflow traffic form and

to the site in an effective and efficient manner.

10. My opinion is that, as the scale of the proposed development is small, it is most unlikely the street/road

functions and performance within the locality could be impacted in any detrimental or unreasonable manner by the development.

Conclusions

I support the compromise proposal. I highlight to the Panel, the compromise proposal is one wherein the applicant has made considerable additional adjustments to seek to satisfy the concerns of the Panel.

The compromise proposal is one that offers planning merit. The modifications made to the proposal significantly redress the Panels concerns over the previous proposal . I therefore conclude the compromise proposal warrants

planning consent and therefore the agreement from the Panel to allow ERD Court proceedings to be settled.

We look forward to your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you require any additional clarifications in respect of the compromise proposal, please contact the undersigned on mobile: 0417877739 or by email: [email protected] (quote reference: J201 3411 58_Welland).

Yours faithfully

RUANICONSULTI NG

RUAN PERERA

Director

1400**et t. *618 7170 7139 pest t+1 81I 242 POUøxW9

NQIWOOO 5AO47

7

Attachment A Revised Plans (Revision D) Sheets 1 to 11 90 Frederick Street Welland by Qattro Pty Ltd

0 E,:i MAIflI

Level 1 607 Anzac H, p 08 8350 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F 06 8350 0266 \N.qatlrocorn.au [email protected]

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTS OPOATTRO ANT REPRODUCTION OP THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

AD DR ES S

90 FREDERICK ST WELLAND

TITLE,

SITE PLAN DRAWING NUMBER:

01 of 11 JOB NUMBER DRAWING SCALE REVISION

11309 AS SPECIFIED C

CLIENT INITIALS;

2510

TAP*FG vIJ __L_L.J TAP*FG V

3680 900

TAP

RES 1 0

am

I BOLLARD VISITOR LIGHT ELI CD

6000 E- ---- --_ ELI LI

VISITOR —

I IAi z ° yr

0

LETTERBOX MERS

I u.4r r I

BOLLARD

-e -e p -.3-.-----9•-------O-------$------.O--' .0 LIGHT

HOTWATER UNIT INSTANTANEOUS GAS 0

'- WITH 5 STAR RATING TO BE WALL TAP+FG I MOUNTED AS PER MANUFACTURER'S - ---

RECOMMENDATION AND TO COMPLY

-- - WITH AS4552

ALL STORMWATER TO BE CONNECTED

- SEAREA: 85m' POS: 23m'

RES 5 •

-,. RES 2 SITEWORKS, DRAINAGE AND LEVELS TO BE

BOLLARD r— _ SITE AREA: 85m2 AS PER ENGINEERS DESIGN AND DETAIL ) LIGHT

5800 C \_ RWT

P05: 32m 2 •E•

RES 4

--- c TAP RES 3 BUILDER TO CHECK AND CONFIRM ALL SITE AREA: 85m 2 DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT

2510 P05: 32m' OF CONSTRUCTION

-'! RES4 SITE AREA: 85m 2

TAP+FG -- DQ F\J

. .) 2 TAP-I-PGl

RES5 - SITE AREA: 107m2 - AMENDMENTS

-. POS 29m2 - REV DATE DESCRIPTION WI-il

TAP

F

RES3 - HWT

O LIGHT \_ BOLLARD

:- - C 01/07/13 CLIENT AMENDMENTS DT

RES2 I. B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REVIEW DT

__________

j

TAP

A 24/06/13 DRAWINGS FOR COMMENT DT

SITE NOTES

THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER DRAWINGS, DOCUMENTATION, SCHEDULES AND SPECIFICATIONS

BUILDER TO CHECK AND CONFIRM ALL SITE AND SET OUT DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

WRITTEN DIMENSION TO BE TAKEN IN PREFERENCE TO SCALE

ALL CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS

FOUNDATIONS, EXCAVATIONS, REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT, ETC. TO BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY ENGINEER OR BUILDING SURVEYOR PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE PLACEMENT

GROUND LEVELS AND FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS INDICATED ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND ARE TO BE CONFIRMED ON SITE

NO VARIATION MAY BE MADE TO THIS DRAWING WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPRIETOR OR DESIGNERS

REFER TO ENGINEERS DESIGN, 'UMENTATION, CALCULATION AND

TION flR STRUCTI IP Al

uAAU /-NLJ UVI

STORMWATER TO BE DISCHARGED TO STREET WATERTABLE OR RAINWATER TANK IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR DIRECTION

SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF FROM NOT LESS THAN 50sqm OF ROOF CATCHMENT AREA TO BE STORED IN 1 000L RAIN WATER TANK AND, PLUMBED TO EITHER A TOILET, WATER HEATER OR LAUNDRY COLD WATER AND, INLET/OVERFLOW ON RAIN WATER TANK MUST BE FITTED WITH INSPECT PROOF AND NON DEGRADABLE SCREENS

ANY DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTS AND/OR ON SITE TO BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE ANY WORK IS COMMENCED

C

Cn SITE PLAN

SCALE 1 200

RES I SITE AREA: 85m 2 POS: 23m 2

RES 2 SITE AREA: 85m 2 POS: 32m 2



RES 5 SITE AREA: 107m 2 POS: 29m'

2510

2510

RES1

FREDERICK STREET

ALL CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS

FOUNDATIONS, EXCAVATIONS, REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT, ETC, TO BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY ENGINEER OR BUILDING SURVEYOR PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE PLACEMENT



Tfl ENGINEERS DESIGN, DUuIv i 4TAT? LATION AND

'ION FOR Si HUufURAL. ELEC1HICAL, HYDRAULIC AND CIVIL DETAILS (IF APPLICABLE)

STORMWATER TO BE DISCHARGED TO STREET WATERTABLE OR RAINWATER TANK IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR DIRECTION

SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF FROM NOT LESS THAN 50sqm OF ROOF CATCHMENT AREA TO BE STORED IN 1 000L RAIN WATER TANK AND, PLUMBED TO EITHER A TOILET, WATER HEATER OR LAUNDRY COLD WATER AND, INLET/OVERFLOW ON RAIN WATER TANK MUST BE FITTED WITH INSPECT PROOF AND NON DEGRADABLE SCREENS


HOT WATER UNIT INSTANTANEOUS GAS WITH 5 STAR RATING TO BE WALL MOUNTED AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION AND TO COMPLY WITH AS4552

ALL STORMWATER TO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING STORMWATER RUN

SITEWORKS, DRAINAGE AND LEVELS TO BE AS PER ENGINEERS DESIGN AND DETAIL

BUILDER TO CHECK AND CONFIRM ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

AMENDMENTS REV I DATE I DESCRIPTION

G

F

E

D

C 01/07/13 CLIENTAMENDMENTS DT

B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REVIEW DI


E,ed MAflift I*JftDUS

Level 1. 607 Avzac HW/ F: 08 8350 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F: 0883500266

'WqaIIro.cornae admin@qatlrocom au

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STYICTLY PYOHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS

90 FREDERICK ST WELLAN D

TITLE:

SITE PLAN DRAWING NUMBER:

02 of 11 JOB NUMBER: DRAWING SCALE REVISION


CLIENT INITIALS:

SITE NOTES


BUILDER TO CHECK AND CONFIRM ALL SITE AND SET OUT DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION


T

'r R E S :5

4580

SITE PLAN — UPPER SCALE 1:200

IJl I I IL1 6000 sIT0R

ZLJI IIVISITOR ui El

CAPITAL PEAR

GO H

CAPITAL PEAR H

CAPITAL PEAR OR SIMILAR

8OLLAR( GHT

CAPITAL PEAR

CAPITAL PEAR OR SIMILAR -

jEQ LLAR I

o GOVT

CAPITAL PEAR OR SIMILAR \,

TYPICAL LANDSCAPING SCHEDULE *PNTING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

SHRUBS! SUCCULENTS

NO I CAREX TESTACEA

NO 2: PURPLE FOXTAIL

NO3:ENGLISH BOX

NO4:KANGAROO PAW

t N06:DIETES

N07:NANDINA

NO8:VIBURNUM

SMALL TREES

N09: PRUNUS NIGRA

NO1O:MAGNOLIA

Ar NO 11: ORNAMENTAL PEAR

MULCH SELECTION

NO 12:14mm CREEK PEBBLES

NO 13: 20mm BLUE METAL

NO 14: PARKLANDS MULCH

NO 15 KYKUYU TURF

NO 16 : ARTIFICIAL TURF

TYPICAL PAVING REFER TO SELECTIONS SHEET FOR DETAIL

TYPICAL FENCING —o— 1800(h) COLOURBOND GOOD NEIGHBOUR

REFER TO SELECTIONS SHEET FOR DETAIL

LEGEND

TAP i-FG: TAP ON A STAKE WITH FLOOD GULLY UNDERNEATH (IN GARDEN BED)

BV: BALL VALVE FOR AUTO IRRIGATION (FRONT & REAR)

RWT: RAINWATER TANK (SEE ENGINEERS OWGs FOR SIZE & DETAIL(

NC: AIR CONDITIONER (SEE DETAIL FROM AC CONTRACTOR)

HWS HOT WATER SYSTEM SEE SPECIFICATION SHEET FOR DETAIL)

MB: METER BOX

LB LEUERBOX

BOLLARD LIGHT

FREDERICK STREET

CAPITAL PEAR OR SIHLAR

(I) z LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1 200

m NOTE

A/C UNITS TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF (ABOVE THE BATHROOM(

* NOTE AUTO IRRIGATION TO COMMON LANDSCAPED AREAS ONLY MANUAL TO INDERVIDUAL RESIDENTS



G

F

B

D

C 01/07/13 CLIENT AMENDMENTS DT

B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REVIEW DT



CAPITAL P EAR OR SIMILAR

Level 1 807 Anzac Hwy F: 08 8350 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F: 0883500286 www .cattro.com . au [email protected]

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVES THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANT REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART

THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS


TITLE

LANDSCAPE PLAN DRAWING NUMBER:

03 of 11 JOB NUMBER: DRAWING SCALE: REVISION


CLIENT INITIALS:

GENERAL NOTES


BUILDER TO CHECK AND CONFIRM ALL PLAN AND SITE SET OUT DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION



ALL STEEL LINTELS ARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANISED, SIZES AS PER ENGINEERS DETAILS AND DESIGN

PROVIDE WALL TIES TO ALL BRICKWORK AT MAXIMUM 600mm CENTRES IN EACH ''ECTION AND WITHIN 300mm OF AH , ILATED JOINTS. SPACING OF WALL TIES IL) TOP AND SIDES OF OPENING TO BE HALVED

PROVIDE INSULATION BATTS TO CEILING AND TO WALLS AS PER ENERGY REPORT.


REFER TO ENGINEERS DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION, CALCULATION AND SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, HYDRAULIC AND CIVIL DETAILS (IF APPLICABLE)

ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE NEW, FREE OF BLEMISHES OR DAMAGE. ANY DEFECTIVE OR FAULTY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE

ALL WORK SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN A NEAT TRADESMAN LIKE MANNER AND TO BE CARRIED OUT BY FULLY QUALIFIED AND LICENSE TRADESPERSONS


NC ACCESS PANEL LOCATION TO LOCATED BY A/C CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED ON SITE

* NOTE A/C UNITS TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF IABOVE THE BATHROOM)

1APPG ROBE /,

KITCHEN ED ED

MEALS LIVING S BED 1 38x36m 36x3.7m 0

-- (,,crobeI

0

820 CAT)

OPEN BAlUSTRADE

(TAP

i

820 M/B H

RETREAT HWS '- BED2

GARAGE 27x45m 36x31rn

59x31m 1,11 s,obe) PT

0

ASD 21 22-3

AF 05,24 AF 21 06

LOWER FLOOR PLAN

UPPER FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1:100

SCALE 1:100

m

LOWER LIVING: 36.9m' UPPER LIVING: 58.5m' GARAGE: 203m 2 PORCH: 0.7m 2

TOTAL: 116.4m 2

AMENDMENTS REVI DATE I DESCRIPTION

G

F

E

0




tj MASTRI I*ITLOERS

Level 1. 607 Anzac HIN3' P. 08 8355 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F: 08 8350 0266 WIMNqaIlro corn as adrnIn5)qallrocorn aS

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLT PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONTEST

ADDRESS


TITLE:

FLOOR PLAN - RES 1 DRAWING NUMBER

05 of 11 JOB NUMBER DRAWING SCALE: REVISION

11309 ASSPECIFIED C

CLIENT INITIALS:

600(w) x 2600(L) PERFORATED NIORB CANOPY SCYON 'AXON'

REBATED 100mm TO STUD

SCYON 1JNEA' BOARD REBATED 100mm TO STUD

WRAP AROUND CORNER

AMENDMENTS REV DATE DESCRIPTION WH(

G

F

E

D


B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REV(EW DT

A 24/06/13 DRAWINGS FOR COMMENT DI

Level 1 607 Anzac HWI F: 00 8350 5600 Gleneig, SA, 0045 F 0083500266 w..qaIIro.com.au admin@qaIIro corn.au

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS


TITLE

ELEVATIONS - RES 1 DRAWING NUMBER:

06of 11 JOB NUMBER DRAWING SCALE REVISION


CLIENT INITIALS:

H_ L

JULIET BALCONY 55 FRAME FIXED ALUMINUM

SO MARINE CABLE BALUSTRADE WINDOW TO GARAGE

STREET ELEVATION SCALE 1:100

HEBEL PANEL TEXTURE COAT FINISH

SIDE ELEVATION SCALE 1:100

SYSTEM 25TP1313A

75mm FOAM RENDERED FINISH SCYON AXON SCYON LINEA' BOARD

200mm(w) SURROUND REBATED 100mm TO STUD - REBATED 100mm TO STUD WRAP AROUND CORN ER

WHITE TRANSLUCENT GLAZING TO BEDROOM VA1000WS

KITCHEN SPLASHBACK WINOW J RENDERED HARDITEX HEBEL PANEL - ROLL DOOR FLUSHED TO BENCHTOP PIER / CANOPY TEXTURE COAT FINISH AS PER SELECTIONS

(NO BOTTOM REVEAL)

FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1: 100

KLIPLOK (or equivilant) ROOF 2 PITCH

WHITE TRANSLUCENT BEHIND PARAPET -

GLAZING TO STUDY WINDOW 600mmPITCHIMGPOINT

-

OBSCURED GLAZING TOBATHROOM WINDOW

HEBEL PANEL

I I I I TEXTURE COAT FINISH

-t - -

a

/

• -

SOLID CORE DOOR ALUMINUM SLIDING

TO GARAGE STACKER DOOR

REAR ELEVATION SCALE 1:100

GENERAL NOTES





ALL STEEL LINTELS ARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANISED. SIZES AS PER ENGINEERS DETAILS AND DESIGN

PROVIDE WALL TIES TO ALL BRICKWORK AT MAXIMUM 600mm CENTRES IN EACH DIRECTION AND WITHIN 300mm OF ARTICULATED JOINTS. SPACING OF WALL TIES TO TOP AND SIDES OF OPENING TO BE HALVED

PROVIDE INSULATION BATTS TO CEILING AND TO WALLS AS PER ENERGY REPORT,

NO VARIATION MAY BE MADE TO THIS "Nr, WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE

PR

Rb utUN, DOCUMENTATION, CALCULATION AND SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, HYDRAULIC AND CIVIL DETAILS (IF APPLICABLE)




A/C ACCESS PANEL LOCATION TO LOCATED BYNC CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED ON SITE

LOWER FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1:100

1

BALCONY

F7 EAS LIVING

j33x42m


--

0 (1)

LOWER LIVING: 41.8m 2 UPPER LIVING: 53.5m 2 GARAGE: 22.1m 2 BALCONY: 11.8m 2

PORCH: 129.2m'

AMENDMENTS REV I DATE DESCRIPTION WH(

G

F

E

D


B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REVIEW DT 0

o A 24/06/13 DRAWINGS FOR COMMENT DT 0)

Level 1, 607 Anzac N' P 08 8350 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F 0883500266

Vw.qatIro comau adrnin@qattro corn aS

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OEOAOTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

AD DR ESS

90 FREDRICK ST

WELLAND

TITLE

FLOOR PLAN - RES 2-4 DRAWING NUMBER:



CLIENT INITIALS:

* NOTE A/C UNITS TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF :ABOVE THE BATHROOM I

RESIDENCE 2,3,4


r

SYSTEM 25TPl3l3A

* NOTE: 553 2 MiRROR IMAGE

WHITE TRANSLUCENT SCYON &XON

GLAZING REBATED 100mm TO STUD


75mm FOAM RENDERED FINISH

[ 200mm(w) SURROUND

KITCHEN SPLASH BACK Wi NOW (NO BOflOM REVEAL)

...

ROLLER DOOR AS PER SELECTIONS

SYSTEM '25TPl3l3A



AMENDMENTS REV DATE DESCRIPTION WHI

G

F

E

0

C 01/07/13 CUENT AMENDMENTS CT


A 24/06/13 DRAWINGS FOR COMMENT CT

i. Level 1 607 Anzac HWr P 08 8350 5600 Glenelg, SA, 5045 F. 0803500266 www.qattro.com.au [email protected] au

COPYRIGHT 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PRORIRITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS


TITLE

ELEVATIONS - RES 2-4 DRAWING NUMBER



FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1: 100

KLIPLOK (or equMlant) ROOF 2 PITCH

BEHIND PARAPET CABLE BALUSTRADE

600mm PITCHING POINT TO BALCONY

TEXTURE COAT FINISHEBELPANEL

ALUMNIUM SLIDING DOOR


CLIENT INITIALS

GENERAL NOTES





ALL STEEL LINTELS ARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANISED, SIZES AS PER ENGINEERS DETAILS AND DESIGN

PROVIDE WALL TIES TO ALL BRICKWORK AT MAXIMUM 600mm CENTRES IN EACH DIRECTION AND WITHIN 300mm OF ARTICULATED JOINTS. SPACING OF WALL TIES TO TOP AND SIDES OF OPENING TO BE HALVED

PROVIDE INSULATION BATTS TO CEILING AND TO WALLS AS PER ENERGY REPORT.

NO VARIATION MAY BE MADE TO THIS

DPAV iT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE F1L)PRIETOR OR DESIGNERS

REFER TO ENGINEERS DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION, CALCULATION AND SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, HYDRAULIC AND CIVIL DETAILS (IF APPLICABLE)




NC ACCESS PANEL LOCATION TO LOCATED BY A/C CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED ON SITE

AF 12.09 AS 04 2 AA 10.15

r flOBE

H H

AP FG TAP PG , El J

fl KITCHEN

OPEN BALUSTE

TAP IITT( c

820 M /B

0 RETREAT HWS

BED 2 2.7x4.5m

GARAGE 36x31m

S 59o3lm (c rcbe)

w

0

LOWER FLOOR PLAN


SCALE 1:100

m

UPPER LIVING: 58.5m' GARAGE: 20.3m' PORCH: 0.7m 2

TOTAL: 116.4m2

AMENDMENTS REVI DATE I DESCRIPTION

G

F

B

D




tj .iL Level 1, 607 Anzac Hwy P 08 8350 5600 GleTeIg, SA, 5045 F: 08 8350 0266 ww.qaItro corn aS [email protected]

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFGATTRO ANT REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROFIIRITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS:


TITLE

FLOOR PLAN - RES 5 DRAWING NUMBER


11309 ASSPECIFIED C

* NOTE A/C UNITS TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF (ABOVE THE BATHROOM)

RESIDENCE 1-5

LOWER LIVING: 36.9m'

CLIENT INITIALS

SYSTEM 25TP1313A


WHITE TRANSLUCENT GLAZING

SCYON 'LINEA' BOARD

TO BEDROOM WINDOW

REBATED 100mm TO STUD

NO WINDOW REVEALS

(VILLABOARD REVEALS)

OBSCURED GLAZING - -

TO BATHROOM WINDOW -

ALUMINUM FLASHING - - TOCNRCOLUMN

- - - - - - - - 75mm FOAM RENDERED -- - -

,. -- :- ---200mm)w) SURROUND

SIDE ELEVATION SCALE 1100

AMENDMENTS REV DATE DESCRIPTION WHI

G

F

E

D




MIA

Level 1 607 Anzac Hwy P. 06 8350 5600 GIeneIg, SA, 5045 F: 08 8350 0266 www qatIra corn au adminl4lqaltro corn au

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTEAL PROPERTY OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS:


TITLE

ELEVATIONS - RES 5 DRAWING NUMBER.

10 of 11 JOB NUMBER. DRAWING SCALE: REVISION

11309 ASSPEC)FIED C

CLIENT INITIALS:

75mm FOAM RENDERED FINISH SCYON 'AXON

200mm)w) SURROUND REBATED 100mm TO STUD SCYON 'LINEA' BOARD REBATED 100mm TO STUD

WHITETRANSLUCENTGLANG Fr

-.

KITCHEN SPLASHBACK WINOW L RENDERED HARDITEX HEBEL PANEL L ROLLER DOOR

FLUSHED TO BENCHTOP PIER I CANOPY TEXTURE COAT FINISH AS PER SELECTIONS

(NO BOTTOM REVEAL)

FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 1:100

WHITE TRANSLUCENT KLIPLOK (or equMlant) ROOF 2 PITCH

GLAZINGTO -i - BEHIND PARAPET

SCYON 'LINEA' BOARD STUDY WINDOW 600mm PITCHING POINT

REBATED 100mmTOSTUD - --- ------- ----- ------------

-

- OBSCURED GLAZING

I I -- - TO BATHROOM WINDOW ALUMINUM FLASHING

- -' - ----

[

TOCNIRCOLUMN

-

- - '- - -

- HEBEL PANEL

J - - - - - TEXTURE COAT FINISH

Th

-

- SOLIDCORE000R L ALUMINUMSLIDING

TO GARAGE STACKER DOOR


MAmA lULDEAl

Level 1 607Anzac Hwy P 08 8350 5600 Glerivlg. SA, 5045 F. 088350 0266 wvw qatlro.com au [email protected]

COPYRIGHT 2013

ALLRIGHTS RESERVED THESE DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERW OFOATTRO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THU WHOLE OR PART THEREOF IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT

ADDRESS,


INTERNAL DRIVEWAY ELEVATION SCALE 1:150


G

F

E

D


B 26/06/13 AS PER DRAWING REVIEW DI


FREDERICK ST ELEVATION SCALE 1:150

TITLE

STREETSCAPE DRAWING NUMBER


11309 ASSPECIFIED C

CLIENT INITIALS:

Attachment B Shadow Diagrams of 21 June between 9 am and 3pm Proposed Development Upper Level at 90 Frederick Street Welland

UPPER LEVEL SHADOWING

SCALE 1:500 @ A3

21ST JUNE- 9AM

21ST JUNE - NOON

SHADOW DIAGRAMS - UPPER 90 FREDERICK SI, WELLAND

UPPER LEVEL SHADOWING

SCALE 1:500 @ A3

21ST JUNE - 2PM

21ST JUNE - 3PM

SHADOW I A UPPER

FREDERICK ST, WELLAND

Attachment C Letter from Botten Levison dated 16 December 2013

batten Ievnson development & environment lawyers

Our ref: JRB/213310

16 December 2013

Mr Dylan Grieve Qattro Level 1 607 Anzac Highway GLENELG NORTH SA 5045

By email: dgrieve©qattro.com.au

Dear Dylan

Qattro Pty Ltd v City of Charles Sturt -90 Frederick Street, Welland

I refer to the above appeal against a decision of the City of Charles Sturt ("the Council') to refuse development plan consent to DA 252/1388/13 for a proposed two-storey residential flat building containing five dwellings.

In refusing consent to the application the Council's Development Assessment Panel resolved that the proposal was "seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Stud (City) Development Plan consolidated 16 May 2013".

You have sought my advice on:

• the law regarding the test for what may constitute seriously at variance under section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993 ("the Act")?; and

• having regard to the relevant legal principles whether, in my view, the proposal can be said to be seriously at variance?

For the reasons that follow, it is my view that the proposed development is not seriously at variance.

1. The "seriously at variance" test

A relevant authority is not empowered to approve a development that it assesses as being "seriously at variance with the relevant Development Plan." 1

Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993.

140 south terrace adelaide sa 5000 pa box 6777 halifax street sa 5000

08 8212 9777 jrb:p21 3310_005.docx f 0882128099

a infoObIlawyers.com.au w www.bllawyers.com.au

-2-

The Supreme Court has established principles that provide guidance on the scope and meaning of the test. Those principles include:

• mere variance from the Development Plan is not the test; it is a question of whether there is "...an important or grave departure in either quantity or degree from the Development Plan..." 2 (my emphasis);

• "The question.. requires an examination of what is the essential thrust and objective of the Development Plan..." and it is necessary to look at the Development Plan as a whole to determine the extent of variance3 ;

• furthermore, the extent of variance is judged in the factual and historic context in which the project will be implemented 4 ;

• the assessment is likely to involve a judgement as to planning merit based on matters of fact and degree 5 ;

In Paradise Developments Pty Ltd & Anor v The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc, Jacobs J. of the South Australian Supreme Court, made the following observations:

Bearing in mind as well that the Planning Act itself contemplates that even a prohibited development is not necessarily seriously at variance with the Plan, it follows that it is not appropriate to reach a conclusion of "seriously at variance" and refuse consent on that ground - thereby raising the jurisdictional issue - except In cases that are really so clear and unambiguous as to be regarded as exceptional cases.

It is, moreover, in the vast majority of cases, unnecessary to reach such a conclusion, for planning authorities have an ample and wide discretion to refuse consent on the planning merits if the proposal cannot be satisfactorily reconciled with the plan. 6 (my emphasis)

In summary therefore:

• there are consistent statements of legal principle from the Courts that clearly establish that the process of determining whether a proposal is

2 Courtney Hill Ply Ltd v SAPC (1990) 59 SASR 259 at p261; Mar Mina (SA) Ply Ltd v City of Marion & Others (2008)163 LGERA 24 at [33].

Mar Mina (SA) Ply Ltd v City of Marion & Others (2008) 163 LGERA 24 at [40]; Courtney Hill Ply Ltd v SAPC (1990) 59 SASR 259 at p262.

Courtney Hill Ply Ltd v SAPC (1990) 59 SASR 259 at p263. City of Kensington & Norwood v DAC & Boscaini Investments Pty Ltd (1998) 70 SASR 471 at

p480.

6 Paradise Developments Ply Ltd & Anor v The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc (1990) 59 SASR 239 at p244.

jrb;p213310_005docx

-3-

seriously at variance under s 35(2) of the Act, does not differ from the planning judgment which is required under s 33 of the Act.

• a determination that a development proposal is seriously at variance with the Development Plan is exceptional and limited to proposals where that determination is beyond reasonable debate;

it is generally unnecessary to reach such a determination because if the relevant authority agrees that the development proposal under consideration warrants development plan consent in all of the circumstances it would also follow that it is of the view that the development proposal is not seriously at variance. If the relevant authority is of the view that the development proposal does not warrant development plan consent, it would refuse it. No extra consequences would follow from a determination that the development proposal was seriously at variance; and

• when making the planning judgment, in the context of considering whether a development proposal is seriously at variance, it must be remembered that the Development Plan is to be utilised as a "...flexible, advisory planning policy document, not as a mandatory legal statute and as a practical guide for practical application, .

2. Is the proposal seriously at variance?

The short answer to this question is, in my view, "no".

The Council's Development Assessment Panel ("the DAP") gave three reasons for refusing consent, namely:

• General Section - Orderly and Sustainable Development - Objective I • Genera! Section - Design and Appearance - Principle 2(a) and (b) • General Section - Transportation and Access - Principle 23(a) and (d)

In that the development will be unduly overshadowed by the adjoining industrial property; and that the proposal will unreasonably impact occupants and visitors to neighbouring properties from increased traffic movements on site; and that the development will not create a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which to live.

The abovementioned three reasons cited by the DAP all come from the Council-wide provisions of the relevant Development Plan. Moreover, those particular provisions are very general in their ambit and application.

As stated above, a critical question, when determining whether a proposal is seriously at variance, " ... requires an examination of what is the essential thrust and objective of the Development Plan.. .' In this regard, an examination of the relevant zone and

O'Connell Property Pty Ltd V Adelaide City Council 156 LGERA 217 B Mar Mine (SA) Pty Ltd v City of Marion (2008) 163 LJERA 24.

jrb:p213310_005.docx

-4-

precinct provisions of the Development Plan applicable to the development proposal is instructive.

The subject land is located in the Mixed Use Zone and Mixed Use Precinct 47.

Objective I and the Desired Character statement for the Mixed Use Zone speak of a zone accommodating, amongst other things, 'medium density residential development.

It is plain that in land use ternis the development is not seriously at variance with the Mixed Use Zone. Indeed, the proposed development is an envisaged use within the Zone.

The Desired Character statement for the Mixed Use Precinct 47 relevantly states that:

11This precinct will be further developed as a mixed use area of commercial and medium density residential activities. Two storey housing is desirable and should be designed for arterial road conditions." (my emphasis).

Thus, within the Precinct, the proposed development is also an envisaged use. Accordingly, it is equally clear that the proposed development cannot by any reasonable measure, be said to be seriously at variance, in land use terms, with the Precinct 47 provisions.

In considering the question of whether the proposed development might be seriously at variance, bearing in mind the recognition by the Courts that there can only be serious variance where there is a clear and unambiguous departure of consequence from the Development Plan, it is revealing to note that the recommendation from the Council's planning officer assessing the proposal to the DAP was for approval of the development proposal. The report containing that recommendation is a comprehensive assessment of all relevant issues.

Thus:

the proposal is an envisaged use;

. it is in accordance with the essential thrust of the Development Plan; and

• Any departure from the Development Plan's advisory provisions could not be characterised as exceptional.

In the circumstances, the proposal is not seriously at variance.

Jrb:p21 3310_005.docx

I trust that my advice is of assistance.

Yours faithfully

Jamie Botten BOTTEN LEVINSON Mob: 0419 816 598 Emafi: jrbbllawyers.com.au

-5-

Jrb:p213310_005.docx

Attachment 0 Letter from Murray F Young dated 16 December 2013

rnEy BNW/13-0340

Traffic. Parking Transport

16 December 2013 Unit 6, 224 Glen Osmond Road

FULLARTON SA 5063

1: +61 8 8338 8888

F: 61883388880

Mr Ruan Perera E: [email protected]

Ruan Consulting W: mfy.com.au

P0 Box 3099 MFYPtyLtd

NORWOOD SA 5067 ABN 79 102 630 759

Dear Ruan,

PROPOSED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

90 FREDERICK STREET, WELIAND (DA252/1388/13)

Further to your request, this letter provides a review of the traffic impact associated with the

proposed multiple dwellings for 90 Frederick Street, Welland. Specifically, this letter provides a

response to traffic issues raised by Council's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) in forming its

decision to refuse the application. It should be noted that this letter does not comprise a detailed

design assessment of the site layout to determine compliance with the relevant Australian

Standard, however, reference is made to the Standards where relevant to the traffic impact.

The subject site currently accommodates a single residential dwelling with access provided by a

single driveway to Frederick Street. It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct

a two-storey residential flat building comprising five (two-bedroom) dwellings on the subject site.

Parking for residents will be provided in single garages for each dwelling with an additional two

uncovered spaces for visitor use. MFY has not undertaken a detailed review of parking

requirements associated with the proposal. However, from the report prepared by Council's

Planning Officer to the DAP, it is understood that the parking requirements of the Development

Plan are met by the proposal.

Vehicular access to the site will be provided via a single 6.0 m wide (two-way) crossover. The

driveway will have localised narrowings, approximately 3.6 m in width, with the first narrow

section located approximately 10 m into the site. Such an arrangement is permitted by

Australian/New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking (AS/NZS 2890.1 :2004) which requires two-way width for the first 6.0 m of a low volume driveway within

the site from the property boundary (which is in fact exceeded by the subject proposal).

Council's DAP refused the subject application on the basis of concerns relating to overshadowing

and traffic impact. In specific relation to the traffic impact, the decision notification advised that

the DAP considered that "... the proposal will unreasonably impact occupants and visitors to

F:13-O34O Ruan Perera 16 Dec 13.docx

niry 13-0340

16 December 2013

Page 2 of2

neighbouring properties from in creased traffic movements on the site; and that the development will not create a safe, convenient and pleasant environment in which to live".

Recent studies undertaken by MFY indicate that traditional residential dwellings generate

approximately 7.5 vehicle trips per day (with 10% of movements occuring during the peak hours).

On this basis, the existing site would generate approximately eight daily trips and one trip during

the am and pm peak hours. Assuming the proposed medium density dwellings generate traffic at

the same rates, the proposal would generate 38 daily trips and four peak hour trips. In reality, flat

dwellings typically generate lower traffic volumes than traditional dwellings and the volumes

associated with the proposal will be less than above. Nevertheless, taking a conservative

approach there could be up to 30 additional daily trips and three additional peak hour trips. Such

an increase is negligible. Furthermore, the future traffic volume of four peak hour trips at the

site's driveway will be well below the level of 30 peak hour trips identified by AS/NZS 2890.1:2004

for low volume driveways.

In addition to the above, it is pertinent to note that the subject site lies within the Mixed Use

Precinct 47 zoning which allows for medium density residential and commercial development.

This zoning would allow for commercial development which could include higher intensity traffic

generating use (both in volume generated and potential for larger commercial vehicles) on the

subject site.

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the very low traffic volumes generated

by the proposal will have negligible impact on traffic conditions and safety on and adjacent the

subject site. Furthermore, the current zoning of the site would allow for the development of a

higher level of traffic generation than associated with the subject proposal.

Yours sincerely,

MFY PlY LTD

BEN WILSON

Senior Associate

TO: Development Assessment Panel FROM: Manager … · dwellings (ERD Court Compromise) Owner of...

Documents

Transcript of TO: Development Assessment Panel FROM: Manager … · dwellings (ERD Court Compromise) Owner of...