1
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
TO:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL
DATE:
SUBJECT:
26 FEBRUARY 2014
AUTHOR:
ROBERT DE ZEEUW
6.7
60/14
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
LOCALITY PLAN
2.
PROPOSED PLANS
HEARING OF
REPRESENTORS:
NOT APPLICABLE
HEARING OF APPLICANT:
NOT APPLICABLE
DA NO.
:
APPLICANT
:
LOCATION
:
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
:
ZONE AND POLICY AREA :
NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT:
PROPOSAL
:
110/00055/14
FRONT LINE DEVELOPMENTS
75 HARDING STREET, SOMERTON PARK
CONSOLIDATED 21 MARCH 2013
RESIDENTIAL
MERIT
LAND DIVISION (TORRENS TITLE) CREATING THREE
ALLOTMENTS FROM ONE – ONE TO BE USED FOR
ACCESS PURPOSES
SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DWELLING
CITY ASSETS - INFRASTRUCTURE
ONE
NOT APPLICABLE
REFUSAL
EXISTING USE
REFERRALS
CATEGORY
REPRESENTATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1.
:
:
:
:
:
Background
Development Application 110/00055/14 was lodged with Council on the 28 January 2014.
The relevant Development Plan is 21 March 2013. During the early stages of the
Development Application, the applicant was advised that the proposed land division was
significantly at odds with the Residential Zone sub-division requirements and that the
application would be difficult to support. This non-compliance is considered fundamental. The
applicant also previously lodged an associated land use development application – DA
110/00875/13, however it was advised that the division of land needed to be considered first
and then if that was successful, the built form could come afterwards. The applicant now
seeks a decision on the current proposal.
2
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
2.
6.7
60/14
Site and Locality
The subject site is located on the northern side of Harding Street, specifically to the east of
Stevens Street. The site currently contains a single storey detached dwelling with associated
ancillary structures. The allotment is regular in shape with an area of approximately 801m2.
The site has a frontage of 16.05 metres and a depth of 44.81 metres. The land is essentially
level and there are no significant trees on the subject site. The adjoining site to the east
contains the former Somerton Park Dental Clinic. Adjoining the site to the east is a single
storey detached dwelling.
The locality comprises predominantly single storey detached and semi detached dwellings.
The majority of allotments range in frontage from 8 metres to 20 metres in width and areas
from 330m2 to over 900m2. The housing stock varies in style and quality. The amenity is
considered to be moderate. There are almost no examples of hammer-head style
development.
Refer to Attachment 1
3.
Proposed Development
The proposal is to subdivide the current site into three allotments on a Torrens Title,
unusually using one to serve as ‘common’ land. It is not clear why the proposed land division
is not a community title land division given the intent of the land use. The front allotment has
a frontage of 11.05 metres to the street, allotment A has a frontage of 5 metres to the street
(to provide vehicular access to both allotments, although there would be nothing to stop
another land use application utilising allotment 702 for a detached dwelling having its own
access if the land division was approved. A further land division could then also amalgamate
allotment 701 and allotment A as well to create one allotment.
Refer to Attachment 2
Development Data
Aspect
Site Area
Site Frontage
Proposed
Allotment
701
and allotment A
& 702
2–
431m 309m2
excluding
allotment A site
area.
2
288m .
11.05m
Required/Allowed
2
Compliance
400m for detached
dwellings, 350m2 for
group dwellings.
No to all scenarios.
12m
No for detached or
for group dwelling
when one faces the
street.
3
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
4.
6.7
60/14
Development Plan Provisions
The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the majority of relevant provisions of
the Holdfast Bay (City) Development Plan. The following tables contain a detailed
assessment of the proposal against the provisions in the Development Plan:
HOLDFAST BAY (CITY) DEVELOPMENT PLAN – ASSESSMENT
1.
Council Wide – General – Form of Development
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
1. Development should be in accordance with the Structure Plan,
Map HoB/1 (Overlay 1), including that part of the urban area in the
adjoining council areas.
ASSESSMENT
Complies.
2. Urban development should create a safe, convenient and
pleasant environment in which to live.
See report.
3. Development should only take place on land which is suitable
with regard to:
Complies.
(a) the location of that land;
(b) conditions on that land, including the slope and nature of the
land; and
(c) the stability of the land, particularly steeply-sloping land used
for the erection of buildings.
4. Development should take place in a manner which:
Not considered to comply.
(a) will not interfere with the effective and proper use of any land;
and
The site area of the proposed allotments is
significantly below that of the minimum required by
the Development Plan.
(b) will have a proper relationship with any continuing use of land
or building on the site of that development.
2.
Refer to detailed discussion in ‘Summary of
Assessment’ section below.
Council Wide – Land Division – Objectives
OBJECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Objective 18: Land in appropriate localities divided into
allotments in an orderly and economic manner.
Land should be divided at a rate based on the building demand to
prevent premature division and scattered and haphazard
development. Vacant land within the urban area should be
developed in order to contain the spread of the urban area.
ASSESSMENT
Considered not to comply.
The proposed subdivision involves land within the
urban area. However, the ‘orderly and economic’
manner in which it is divided is not strictly in
accordance with the Development Plan.
4
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
2.1
6.7
60/14
Council Wide – Land Division – Principles of Development Control
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
16. Land should not be divided:
(a) in a manner which would preclude the possibility of further
development of that land or prevent the satisfactory future
division of the land, or any part thereof in accordance with the
provisions of the Development Plan;
ASSESSMENT
Does not comply.
The proposed subdivision would create three
allotments, one with frontage width less than required
within the Residential Zone. The proposed allotments
would be less than the average of that of many of the
existing allotments and may prevent satisfactory
future development of that land in accordance with
the provisions of the Development Plan. Site areas
also not meet for allotments 701 and 702, regardless
of configuration.
(d) if the size, shape and location of, and the slope and nature of
the land contained in, each allotment resulting from the
division is unsuitable for the purpose for which the allotment is
to be used;
17. When land is divided:
Complies.
(a) any reserves or easements necessary for the provision of
public utility services or for the accommodation of any
watercourse or drainage channel of significance should be
provided;
(b) stormwater should be capable of being drained safely and
efficiently from each proposed allotment and disposed of from
the land in a satisfactory manner;
(c) a water supply sufficient for the purpose for which the
allotment is to be used should be made available to each
allotment;
(d) provision should be made for the disposal of waste waters,
sewage and other effluents from each allotment without risk to
health;
(e) roads or thoroughfares should be provided where necessary
for safe and convenient communication with adjoining land
and neighbouring localities;
(f) each allotment resulting from the division should have safe
and convenient access to the carriageway of an existing or
proposed road or thoroughfare;
(g) proposed roads should be graded, or be capable of being
graded to connect safely and conveniently with an existing
road or thoroughfare;
(h) for urban purposes, provision should be made for suitable land
to be set aside for usable local open space; and
(i) and the land borders a river, lake or creek, the land
immediately adjoining the river, lake or creek should become
public open space, with a public road fronting the open space.
However no details have been provided in regards to
stormwater arrangements. The subject site is not
subject to inundation during a 1 in 100 year flood
event.
18. Allotments should be located and designed in respect of:
(a) the size, shape and layout of allotments to permit the efficient
management and utilisation of the land therein; and
Considered not to comply.
(b) the slope, nature or liability to inundation by drainage or flood
waters of the land therein, to contain a site suitable for building
and development or a use of land of a type consistent with the
objectives and principles of development control for the zone
concerned.
Considered to comply.
The size and shape of the allotment is of a regular
nature however the effective management and
utilisation of the land could be compromised by the
allotment width.
5
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
2.1
6.7
60/14
Council Wide – Land Division – Principles of Development Control (Cont)
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
19. The boundaries of an allotment should be located where
interference with a tree or trees will be minimal.
ASSESSMENT
Complies.
20. Land division should include an appropriate contribution
towards the area’s open space resources. The allocation and
design of open space should:
Complies – The Development Assessment
Commission will require a financial contribution into a
metropolitan open space Planning and Development
Fund if approved.
(a)
conform to a hierarchy of open space provision;
(b)
promote multi-functional and/or joint usage with other
community facilities, where possible;
(c)
enable convenient access for users;
(d)
promote the safety and security of users;
(e)
enhance the environmental quality of the area and protect
significant elements of the landscape;
(f)
provide usable activity space;
(g)
avoid conflict between competing recreational and leisure
activities;
(h)
permit open spaces to be used as safe and convenient
channels for pedestrian and cyclist movements between
residential areas and community focal points; and
(i)
provide adequate curtilage adjacent to items and areas of
heritage merit.
3.
Council Wide – Land Division – Residential
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
ASSESSMENT
Neighbourhood Planning
47. The design and layout of a land division should be capable
of, or provide for:
Complies.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
linkage with the surrounding urban environment and facilitate
shared use of public facilities by adjoining communities;
access to public open space through provision of land or
linkage to existing areas of public open space;
protection, where practicable, of substantial vegetation;
minimise impact on landform and drainage systems;
retention of State and Local Heritage Places;
flood prone land being kept free from flood-sensitive land
uses;
efficient solar access for dwellings and private open space.
Where practical, narrow allotments should be located with
private yard space oriented to the north in order to maximise
access to sunlight; and
minimal risk to personal safety and potential for crime.
48. Allotments should have an orientation, size and dimensions
that will facilitate the siting of dwellings to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Complies - the proposed allotments are orientated
north west/south east with private open space at the
rear of the allotments which would have a northerly
aspect.
Complies.
protect natural or cultural features;
minimise the need for earthworks and retaining walls; and
face streets and open spaces.
49. The size and frontage of residential allotments should
comply with the relevant provisions within the zone or policy area
provisions (whichever is more specific).
Does not comply.
50. Residential allotments should be of varying size to
encourage housing diversity.
Complies.
See Summary of Assessment.
6
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
3.
Council Wide – Land Division – Residential (Cont)
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
ASSESSMENT
Neighbourhood Planning (Cont)
51. Land for dwellings should have an appropriate area,
configuration and dimensions for:
Does not comply.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
the siting and construction of a dwelling and ancillary
outbuildings;
the provision of landscaping and private open space;
convenient vehicle access and parking;
minimising the need for earthworks and retaining walls; and
siting building frontages to address public streets.
52. Development design, construction and the use of land
should take place in a manner which:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
6.7
60/14
enhances the longer term protection and management of
biodiversity;
provides linkages and corridors between key areas of native
vegetation;
rehabilitates degraded areas that are an intrinsic component
of the nature conservation network; and
incorporates the retention and establishment of native
vegetation in landscaping.
The reduced allotment areas could restrict the type of
dwelling which could be built.
The failure to achieve the minimum site areas will
jeopardise the ‘primary suburban character’ sought
by the Zone with smaller landscaped front yards,
higher proportions of paved surfaces and additional
driveway areas and crossovers likely to result from
expected dwellings sought for the areas.
Complies.
The site is within an urban area and has previously
been developed for a residential use.
Stormwater Management
70. Minor System
The design and layout of a land division should facilitate a minor
storm drainage system which has the capacity for minor
stormwater flows and should:
(a)
(b)
not overload adjoining downstream systems; and
where practicable, provide for stormwater to be detained and
retained close to its source.
Design Technique (this technique is ONE WAY of satisfying the
above Principle)
70.1 The minor storm drainage system has the capacity to convey
stormwater flows for ARI = 2 years for suburban residential lots
with neighbourhood densities not greater than 20 dwellings per
hectare, and ARI = 10 years for neighbourhood densities greater
than 20 dwellings per hectare.
70.2 The minor system design outflow is matched to the capacity
of any existing downstream system.
70.3 The design of the stormwater drainage system is based
upon the on-site detention of all stormwater (roof and surface
water) exceeding a maximum permitted discharge of 20 litres per
second for a rainfall 1 in 20 years recurrence interval.
The subject site is not located in a flood prone area.
7
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
6.7
60/14
HOLDFAST BAY (CITY) DEVELOPMENT PLAN – ASSESSMENT
1.
Residential Zone
Objective 1: Development in accordance with the Desired Future Character Statements for the
relevant Zones and Policy Areas.
Desired Future Character Statement
... Major sites where infill residential development is anticipated include the former Monier site,
south of Scholefield Road, at Seacliff ... Infill residential development that does not compromise
the Zone’s suburban character will progressively increase dwelling densities, through unobtrusive
small scale developments in all parts of the Zone. The Zone’s primary suburban character is
defined by detached dwellings on individual allotments. Infill development should have a
comparable height, mass, scale and setback to that of existing dwellings in the Zone. This infill
development should make an important contribution to the Zone’s housing diversity and hence
housing location and type choices in the city.
The Zone’s infill development opportunities should be in the nature of (in order of preference):
(a) Increasing dwelling numbers on allotments that have dual frontages
(b) Development of low scale infill dwellings at the rear of large allotments that have wide
street frontages that can accommodate appropriately sited and dimensioned driveways
with associated landscaping
(c) Semi-detached dwellings where site considerations permit
Tapleys Hill Road and Brighton Road for a continuous north-south arterial road corridor that divides
the Zone into east and west portions:
DESIRED FUTURE CHARACTER STATEMENT
ASSESSMENT
(a) The eastern portion is generally lower in scale and density, more
uniform in street patters and more consistently open and suburban
in existing character, and offers more living opportunities for
families.
Does not comply.
See Summary of Assessment.
8
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
6.7
60/14
Objective 2: A zone primarily accommodating single storey detached dwellings on individual
allotments, while providing opportunities for compatible infill development.
A detailed assessment of the proposed development against the Residential Zone provisions of the
Development Plan is provided below:
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
ASSESSMENT
AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES
1. Development in the Residential Zone should provide for an
increase in the number of dwellings through small-scale infill
development and redevelopment.
The Residential Zone anticipates infill development. The
replacement of one single storey dwelling with two
detached/group dwellings is anticipated, subject to site
constraints. See Summary of Assessment.
2. A dwelling on land within the Residential Zone which is not
located within a Policy Area should have a minimum site area
(and in the case of group dwellings and residential flat buildings,
an average site area per dwelling) and a frontage to a public
road not less than the following:
Complies with site areas for detached dwellings.
Does not comply with allotment frontages.
The proposal is for subdivision comprising two allotments
for detached dwellings.
Design Technique:
2
Dwelling Type
Area (m )
Frontage
(m)
Detached Dwelling
400
12
(1)
Semi Detached
350
12
(1)
Group Dwelling
350
12
(1)
350
12
(1)
350
10
(1)
Residential
Building
Row Dwelling
Flat
Proposed site areas:
Allotment 701: 309m
2
Allotment 702: 288m
2
Proposed frontages:
11.05 metres for the allotment 702
(1)
In the case of hammerhead shaped land where 1-2 dwellings
are proposed, a frontage of 5 metres is required, and where 3
or more such dwellings are proposed a frontage of 6 metres is
required.
5.
Summary of Assessment
Form of the Development
The Residential Zone cautiously encourages in-fill development which may progressively
increase dwelling densities while maintaining the Zone’s suburban character. However, the
objectives for the zone call for adherence to the Desired Future Character Statement (DFCS)
which specifies low density infill with uniform in street pattern and maintaining the open and
suburban character, particularly on the eastern side of Brighton Road. It is the author’s
opinion that the proposal is contrary to this objective. The Zone's primary suburban character
is defined by detached dwellings on individual allotments. While infill development is
envisaged, three sorts of opportunities for infill development are explicitly identified, in order
of preference, they are:
(a) increasing dwelling numbers on allotments that have dual road frontages,
(b) development of low scale infill dwellings at the rear of large allotments that have wide
street frontages that can accommodate appropriately sited and dimensioned driveways with
associated landscaping,
(c) semi-detached dwellings where site considerations permit.
9
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
6.7
60/14
The locality, in the author’s opinion, still generally retains the suburban character sought for
the Residential Zone, albeit with some narrower allotments present. However this is not the
majority of the allotments and there are very few, if any examples of hammer head
allotments within a 500 metre radius of the subject site, and specifically Harding Street. The
proposed allotments fail to meet the minimum area specified by Principle 2. Furthermore, the
“primary suburban character” sought by the Zone becomes jeopardised with smaller sites,
smaller landscaped front yards, higher proportions of paved surfaces and additional driveway
areas and crossovers. It is also considered that there are no particular site considerations
that make the subject land suitable for subject configuration. The allotment is unlikely to
accommodate more than one dwelling wen considering the density provisions of the zone.
Case Law
It should be noted that the Development Assessment Panel refused a development
application for a torrens title land division and a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings in
Melton Street, Glenelg East in 2012 which is also located within the Residential Zone. This
decision was appealed in the Environment, Resources and Development Court (Harvey v
City of Holdfast Bay (no 1) [2012] SAERDC 44) and Council’s decision was upheld. While the
judgment (and now relevant case law) raises a number of interesting points, of particular
note are the comments in paragraphs 5 and 6 which states:
Good town planning requires land to be divided in an appropriate manner consistent
with relevant planning principles. Logically, the division of land comes before the
approval of any development of the land.
This Court has stated on a number of occasions that, when considering an
application for land division for residential development, its task is to determine
whether the subject land is suitable for division into separate residential allotments "in
a generic, rather than particular, sense" (Kokkotos v City of Mitcham [2000] SAERDC
13, para 17). It was clear in this matter that the land division and the proposal to
construct two semi-detached dwellings were seen by the Appellant as closely linked
elements of the same development. Nevertheless, the appropriate approach to
assessment is to consider the land division first and then, if that is found to merit
consent, to assess the separate application for dwellings on the proposed allotments.
In the event that the proposed land division is found not to comply with the provisions
of the relevant Development Plan to a sufficient extent to merit consent, the appeal in
relation to the two semi-detached dwellings on the proposed allotments must also fail.
Therefore, it is prudent for Council to assess the merits of the land division application first,
then if that is found to have merit, to asses the built form separately. Notwithstanding this
(and it is noted that the applicant has not lodged a built form development application) there
would appear to be little merit to depart from the minimum requirements as noted above.
The principal reason for refusing development consent to the proposed land division
is that the proposed allotments fall substantially short of the minimum frontage
required by Principle 2, with the consequences identified by Ms Nolan. Counsel for
the Appellant reminded me that it is well-established that no principle of the
development plan is mandatory. However, as Debelle J stated in City of Port Adelaide
Enfield v Moseley [2008] SASC 88 at para 22:
While not mandatory, the provisions of the Development Plan are directory and
persuasive and one would normally expect a planning authority to apply them unless,
as a matter of planning judgment, there is good reason to depart from them.
10
ITEM NO:
REPORT NUMBER:
6.7
60/14
Conclusions
The Residential Zone clearly states minimum allotment frontage widths and site areas, to
maintain a pattern and streetscape rhythm along with the ability to control density. It is
therefore considered that the proposal is substantially at variance with the Development Plan
and it is recommended that Development Plan Consent be refused accordingly.
6.
MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDATION
That after considering the provisions of the Development Plan the application
110/00055/14 be refused Development Approval as it is seriously at variance with the
relevant provisions of the Development Plan and specifically that it is contrary to the
City of Holdfast Bay Development Plan, Council Wide Objective 18 and Principles 4,
16(a), 18(a), 49, 51 and Residential Zone Desired Future Character Statement (a) and
Objectives 1 and 2 and Principles of Development Control 2. More specifically, the
application does not meet the intent of the Development Plan in relation to:

Undersized frontage for allotment 701 for either group dwelling or detached
dwelling;

Undersized allotment areas for allotments 701 and 702 for either hammerhead
detached dwellings or group dwellings; and

Infill development contrary to Zones suburban character.