Allotment 2 Andrew Road, Andrews Farm...21 January 2016 1 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Simon Cross c/- Alexander Symonds Land division – 1 into 832 Allotment 2 Andrew Road, Andrews Farm 292/D093/14

Development Assessment Commission

21 January 2016

1

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

Simon Cross c/- Alexander Symonds

Land division – 1 into 832

Allotment 2 Andrew Road, Andrews Farm

292/D093/14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO

AGENDA REPORT 2-13

ATTACHMENTS

1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 14-23

2: PLANS, PHOTOS & DIAGRAMS 24-36

3: APPLICATION & PLANS

a. MasterPlan

37-78

4: AGENCY COMMENTS 79-91

5: COUNCIL REPORT 92-112

6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 113-124


21 January 2016

2

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

OVERVIEW

Application No 292/D093/14

Unique ID/KNET ID EDALA ID 48906, KNET ID 2015/17457/01

Applicant Simon Cross c/- Alexander Symonds

Proposal Land division – 1 into 832

Subject Land Allotment 2 Andrews Road, Andrews Farm

Zone/Policy Area Suburban Neighbourhood Zone

Relevant Authority City of Playford, DAC Concurrence Schedule 8 (5)(2)

Lodgement Date 21 October 2014

Council City of Playford

Development Plan Consolidated 20 March 2014

Type of Development Merit

Public Notification Category 2

Representations No

Referral Agencies State Heritage Unit, EPA, DPTI Transport Services Division, SA

Water

Report Author Laura Kerber, Senior Project Officer

RECOMMENDATION CONCUR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal is for a land division (1 into 832) and associated roads and stormwater

infrastructure to be delivered in 21 stages over 8-10 years. The subject site is adjacent

the Northern Expressway and comprises a State Heritage Place (two munitions bunker

buildings and associated embankments).

The subject site was rezoned to Suburban Neighbourhood as part of the Playford Urban

Growth Areas Development Plan Amendment approved on 30 January 2014 and is

earmarked for residential development in the Playford Council Development Plan.

This application has been referred to the Development Assessment Commission for

concurrence pursuant to Regulation 25 and Schedule 8 (5)(2) of the Development

Regulations 2008 as Council has not adopted the recommendations made by State

Heritage Unit. State Heritage Unit has advised that Stage 20 of the proposal will have an

adverse impact on the State Heritage Place by creating an inappropriate physical barrier

between the two buildings.

The State Heritage buildings have been incorporated as features into the open space

network of the subdivision. The applicant intends to utilise the buildings for a community

purpose, subject to a future development application. Whilst the proposal seeks to

maintain a line of site between the two buildings, it is difficult to maintain a true ‘open

setting’ without compromising other aspects of the proposal such as landscaping,

amenity, stormwater management and road design. The heritage impact has also been

considered in the policy context, which envisages residential development on this site.

On balance, it is considered the proposal provides an acceptable outcome in terms of

heritage impact, infrastructure requirements, urban design, and the intended use of the

subject site. It is recommended that the Commission concur with Council’s

recommendation to grant development plan consent, however Council should be

encouraged to incorporate the standard notes provided by EPA and State Heritage Unit.

In all other aspects Council has undertaken the correct public notification process and

has made a fair reasonable assessment of the application against the relevant provisions

of the City of Playford Development Plan consolidated 20 March 2014.


21 January 2016

3

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

Strategic Context

The subject site was rezoned to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone as part of the Playford

Urban Growth Areas Development Plan Amendment approved on 30 January 2014. The

subject site is earmarked for residential development in Concept Plan Map Play/37 and

40 within the Playford Council Development Consolidated 20 March 2014.

This DPA represented Part 2 approval of the DPA relating to those parts of the Playford

North Extension Growth Areas where infrastructure agreements to allow rezoning had

been finalised.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Application details are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

The proposal is for a land division – 1 into 832, to create a residential subdivision known

as MacDonald Park. The land division will be delivered in 21 stages, generally moving

from north to south across the site. The land division application will not deliver the

complete MacDonald Park Master Plan; the lower portion of Allotment 2 will remain

undeveloped until such time as a future development application is lodged.

The residential allotments are arranged around a central road and reserve spine which

runs north-south through the subject site, roughly dissecting it in half. A State Heritage

Place (comprising two buildings) is located at the southern end of the land division

proposal, and will be impacted by Stage 20 and 21 of the land division. The Applicant

has indicated that the project is expected to take 8-10 years to deliver.

Allotments range in size from 240m² with 8m frontages to 540m² with 18m frontages for

detached dwellings, and from 144m² with a 4.8m frontage to 204m² with a 6.8m

frontage for row and semi-detached dwellings. The land division is expected to deliver a

net density in excess of 25 dwellings per hectare.

The allotments adjacent the Northern Expressway will incorporate a 4.5 metre high

acoustic wall and possibly an earthen mound with landscaping. These allotments will be

7 metres deeper to allow for the mounding option. The proposal also includes the

delivery of associated infrastructure including roads and stormwater management.

Future development of the southern portion of the site is earmarked to include a

recreational reserve comprising multi-purpose playing fields which will serve as a

catchment area for peak/flood stormwater flows.


concurrence pursuant to Regulation 25 and Schedule 8 (5)(1) and (2) of the

Development Regulations 2008: (1) Other than development to be undertaken in accordance with a Heritage Agreement under

the Heritage Places Act 1993 or in a River Murray Protection Area under the River Murray Act 2003, development which directly affects a State heritage place, or development which in the opinion of the relevant authority materially affects the context within which the

State heritage place is situated

(2) Development where a consent or approval proposed by a council as a relevant authority in relation to the development does not totally adopt the recommendation or any condition proposed in a report forwarded by the Minister under subclause (1)


21 January 2016

4

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

In line with the current (interim) delegations dated 7 December 2015, the power to grant

or deny heritage concurrence sits with the Presiding Member, Development Assessment

Commission; hence the application cannot be dealt with under delegation. In order to

give the Council and the State Heritage Unit the opportunity to address DAC, the matter

has been referred to DAC for decision.

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

The site consists of one allotment, described as follows:

Lot No Section Street Suburb Hundred Title

Reference A2 - Andrews Road Andrews Farm Munno Para CT 6035/395

The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment of 70.27ha bounded by Curtis Road

to the north, Andrews Road to the east, and the Northern Expressway to the west.

Vegetation on the site is limited to an avenue of trees along the Andrews Road

boundary, which includes numerous Regulated and Significant trees, as well as a

cluster of trees and shrubs to the west of the Davoren Road / Andrews Road

intersection. The remainder of the site is cleared. Council advises that the site was

previously used for horticultural purposes but has remained unused since the land

was excised from a larger allotment as a result of the Northern Expressway

construction.

The subject site is relatively flat with a gradual fall from north to south. There is a

small ridgeline running along the eastern flank and the Applicant has advised that

stormwater naturally runs down the middle of the site.

Two (2) ex munitions bunkers, identified as Building No 29 and 33, are located on the

site. These buildings are State Heritage Places and form part of the Smithfield

Magazine Area.

3.2 Locality

The locality is characterised by a mixture of primary production and low density

residential land uses. The subject site abuts the residential subdivision of Andrews

Farm to the east. The majority of allotments to the east of Andrews Road are

orientated east, with their rear fences facing Andrews Road. Dwellings in the locality

are primarily single storey detached dwellings constructed during the 1990s and later.

There are also nine dwellings to the west of Andrews Road which were constructed

earlier (70s or 80s).

To the north and south of the subject site are vineyards although these areas are also

part of the land rezoned to Suburban Neighbourhood through the Northern Growth

Areas DPA.

Council considers that the locality does not extend to the west of the Northern

Expressway, as the expressway creates a marked barrier between the rural living and

primary production land uses to the west and residential land uses to the east.


21 January 2016

5

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

Figure 1 – Locality

4. COUNCIL REPORT

4.1 City of Playford

The Council Officer report to the City of Playford Development Assessment Panel

(19 October 2015) was prepared by a qualified planner, Jordan Leverington.

The application was correctly categorised as a merit form of development, being

neither complying nor non-complying pursuant to the provisions of the Suburban

Neighbourhood Zone and the Development Regulations 2008. Public notification is

discussed in Section 6 below. The application was referred to all required agencies

pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008. Agency responses are

detailed in Section 5 below.

Council has assessed the application against the relevant provisions of the

Development Plan. The key planning issues considered by Council were:

Whether the proposed allotments are suitable for their intended use.


21 January 2016

6

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

Whether the application will have a detrimental impact on the desired and existing

character and amenity of the locality.

Whether the application is consistent with the various concept plans in the

Development Plan.

Council is satisfied that the proposal creates a range of allotments types to

accommodate various dwelling forms with an appropriate net density. The allotments

are suitable for their intended purpose in terms of size, orientation, access, and

proximity to public open space.

The land division is expected to alter the existing land use and amenity of the locality

from primary production to residential as sought through the Playford North DPA and

reflected in the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone provisions. The land division

incorporates a network of public open spaces including recreational facilities, wetlands

and shared paths. These open spaces will feature the State Heritage Place bunkers

and may include information signage, artwork, water features, decking, and BBQ and

picnic facilities.

The proposal has been developed to reflect Concept Plan Map Play/37 and Play/40

which set out the desired layout of the Playford North Growth Area. With Council’s

support the proposed recreational area has been relocated closer to Andrews Road.

On balance Council is satisfied that the proposal contributes to the objectives of the

Suburban Neighbourhood Zone. The infrastructure requirements have been

appropriately dealt with and the proposed allotments are suitable for their intended

use. Council is satisfied that the issues of heritage impact, contamination risk and

noise amelioration are acceptable in terms of impact and management.

The conditions proposed by Council relate to the protection of trees and assessment

of site contamination. The conditions are considered to be fair and reasonable.

5. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS

Referral responses are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

5.1 State Heritage Unit, DEWNR

State Heritage Unit is a mandatory referral body in accordance with Schedule 8(5)(1)

of the Development Regulations 2008. The Commission must have regard to this

advice.

The State Heritage Unit advice dated 19 August 2015 states that the State Heritage

listed munitions bunkers were selected from a much larger group of such buildings to

be representative of the group, most of which have subsequently been demolished.

Their context, open setting and the distance that they are set apart from each other

(to prevent a chain of explosions) are identified by State Heritage Unit as being of

high significance as a State heritage place (19/08/15, pg1).

State Heritage Unit has advised that Stage 20 of the proposal will have an adverse

impact on the heritage values of the State Heritage Places. The development will

create an inappropriate physical barrier between the two buildings once dwellings,

landscaping and fencing are constructed. State Heritage Unit is seeking that the

buildings be kept in a greater open context and be read as a pair (19/08/15, pg2).

Further, the landscaping plan does not show the blast embankments that surround

the larger bunker, nor how the embankments will be accommodated in future stages

of the development.


21 January 2016

7

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

The recommended notes provided by State Heritage Unit have not been adopted by

Council.

Building No 29

Building No 33


21 January 2016

8

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

5.2 Safety and Services Division, DPTI

The Commissioner for Highways is a mandatory referral body in accordance with

Schedule 8 (3) of the Development Regulations 2008. The Commission must have

regard to this advice.

The subject land is covered by a Social Infrastructure Deed, a Road Infrastructure

Deed, and a Stormwater Management Deed. The Stormwater Management Deed is

currently in interim form and DPTI has expressed concern that it provides insufficient

information. Notwithstanding DPTI’s concern, the interim deed allows the applicant

to develop up to 4 ha of the subject site, being stages 1-5, on the understanding that

additional works may be required in the future pending the resolution of the final

Stormwater Management Deed.

With regard to the site’s proximity to the Northern Expressway, DPTI has

recommended that consideration be given to creating a continuous strip allotment

dedicated for noise attenuation. This will ensure that the allotments abutting the

expressway have no potential means for legal access to/from the expressway. This

recommendation has not been adopted by Council.

5.3 Environment Protection Authority

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is a mandatory referral body in

accordance with Schedule 8 (10b) of the Development Regulations 2008. The

Commission must have regard to this advice.

The two key issues raised by EPA in their revised comments dated 2 September 2015

are as follows:

The potential for site contamination: the subject site is listed in Overlay Map

Play/15 Development Constraints as being a site with potential contamination.

EPA recommends that a full audit be conducted on the whole site.

Noise impact from the Northern Expressway: an amended acoustic report and

treatment should be supplied to ensure that outdoor ambient noise is below

52dB.

Modelling provided by the Applicant’s engineers demonstrates that, once developed, a

4m high acoustic wall will sufficiently ameliorate noise impact such that only the

allotments immediately adjacent the Northern Expressway will experience an outdoor

ambient noise level greater than 52dB. Dwellings immediately adjacent the

expressway will be constructed in accordance Minister’s Specification SA 78B which

specifies construction requirements for the control of external sound through glazing,

insulation and other relevant treatments. This is considered to be reasonable given

the location of the subject site adjacent a major highway.

With regard to potential site contamination, the applicant has asserted that a full site

audit is not required at this stage. The northern portion of the subject site, being

proposed stages 1-5 of the development, has been tested with no contamination

found to exceed the allowable levels. This portion of the site is considered to be low

risk and suitable for residential development. The remainder of the subject site,

being proposed stages 6-21 of the development, requires further investigation as

asbestos fragments have been identified. To address this matter, Council has

proposed a Reserve Matter that precludes the development of stages 6-21 pending an

EPA approved audit and any associated remedial works.


21 January 2016

9

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

5.4 SA Water

SA Water is a mandatory referral body in accordance with Section 33 of the

Development Act 1993.

SA Water has advised:

The financial requirements of SA Water shall be met for the provision of water

supply and sewerage services.

The augmentation requirements of SA Water shall be met.

The necessary easements shall be vested to SA Water.

The developer will be required to augment existing system for water and

sewer - exact requirements will require detailed staging plan and

investigation.

These requirements have not been reflected as conditions of approval or notes in

Council’s recommendation.

6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was notified as a Category 2 development pursuant to Schedule 9 Part 2

(21) of the Development Regulations 2008, as the division of land will, in the opinion of

the relevant authority, change the nature or function of an existing road.

Public notification was undertaken by Council by directly contacting 58 adjoining owners

and occupiers of the land and no representations were received.

7. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject site is within the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone described within the City of

Playford Development Plan Consolidated 20 March 2014. Relevant planning policies are

contained in Appendix One and summarised below.

Figure 3 – Zoning Map


21 January 2016

10

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

7.1 Zone

The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone is for low and medium density residential

development comprising a range of dwelling types. Residential neighbourhoods

should support the theme of walkable communities and be designed to create active

public spaces. The public realm should provide interest through landscaping, surface

treatments, street furniture and building design. Residential neighbourhoods should

be located adjacent activity centres that provide a range of retail, education and

community services.

Diversity in housing type should be facilitated through innovative land division layouts

and access arrangements that cater for a variety of household sizes and preferences.

Average residential density should be 20-35 dwellings per hectare.

Residential development in the Playford North area, abutting the Northern

Expressway will require a noise barrier to provide a reasonable level of amenity for

residents.

The subject site is identified as an area of potential site contamination on Maps

Play/4, 15 and 16 due to the use of the land as a former munitions dump.

Development should be in accordance with Concept Plan Map Play/37 & Map Play/40

– Playford North Urban Growth Area.

7.2 Council Wide

The Council-wide provisions of the Development Plan provide guidance in respect of

site contamination, hazards (flooding), provision of infrastructure, land division, open

space and recreation, orderly and sustainable development, and transportation and

access.

The development plan seeks land division that occurs in an orderly sequence and

facilitates the intended land uses for the zone. Development should create safe,

convenient and pleasant places in which to live, incorporating a network of parks,

reserves and areas for active and passive recreation. Land division design should

have regard for, and existing site features, adjacent land uses, and transport

networks, and be serviced with all necessary infrastructure. Land division should not

occur where site contamination has occurred unless the site has been assessed and

remediated as needed.

The division of land containing a State Heritage Place should reinforce the integrity

and character of the surrounding area. Allotment layout should provide sufficient

curtilage for a State Heritage Place; allow for landscaping; and allow for the

appropriate siting or setback of new buildings to minimise impact to adjacent State

Heritage places.

7.3 Overlays

7.3.1 Affordable Housing

The site is located within the designated area in Overlay Map Play/15

Affordable Housing.

7.3.2 Noise and Air Emissions

This site is located within the designated area in Overlay Map Play/15 Noise

and Air Emissions, and as such requires assessment against Minister’s


21 January 2016

11

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

Specification SA 78B for Construction Requirements for the Control of External

Sound.

7.3.3 Strategic Transport Routes

The subject site is adjacent the Northern Expressway which is identified in

Overlay Map Play/15 as a Strategic Transport Route and the subject site is

located within a Strategic Transport Route Designated Area.

7.3.4 Development Constraints

The subject site is listed in Overlay Map Play/15 Development Constraints as a

site with potential contamination.

7.3.5 Heritage

As noted, the subject site contains a State Heritage Place, being two ex

munitions bunkers.

8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT


concurrence as Council has not adopted the recommendations made by State Heritage

Unit. This planning assessment therefore should primarily concern the matter of State

significance, being the impact on the State Heritage listed ex munitions bunkers (Building

No 29 and 33).

The State Heritage Unit’s position as detailed in section 5.1 above is that the construction

of Stage 20 of the development will adversely affect the heritage values of the State

Heritage Place by creating an inappropriate physical barrier between the two buildings

and impacting on their open context.

The Applicant intends to retain and adapt the bunkers for community use. The intention

is for the bunkers to be cleaned, re-roofed and refurbished/repaired as necessary,

however this is not part of the current application. Any future works for the repair

and/or adaptation of the bunkers will require separate development approval. Such an

approval process will necessitate a mandatory referral to State Heritage Unit.

The Applicant has engaged a landscape architect (Oxigen) to incorporate the bunkers as

features into the public open space. The landscape master plan suggests that whilst the

buildings will remain within line of sight of each other, the view will be obscured by

landscaping, trees and other public realm elements. These elements play an important

role in creating pleasant public spaces and contribute to the general amenity of the

subdivision.

Council considers that the proposed integration of the bunkers into the public open

space, with proposed reuse as community facilities, is of greater benefit to the

community than to increase the open space around the each structure. It will result in a

greater level of interaction and appreciation of the State Heritage Place than is currently

the case and is also likely to result in repair and ongoing maintenance to the bunkers

which will ensure their longevity. It is noted that the blast embankments surrounding

the bunkers are included as part of the State Heritage listing and there is no proposal at

this stage for them to be removed.

In addition to the location of the State Heritage Place, the Applicant has advised that the

subdivision layout has been influenced by several factors, the most crucial being


21 January 2016

12

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

stormwater and traffic management requirements. Stormwater naturally runs down the

centre of the site from north to south and as a result the subdivision design has been

driven by the requirement to manage all stormwater through a central reserve.

Similarly, the road network design has been driven by the shape of the subject site; the

need to create a spinal collector road that feeds into Curtis Road; and the future

development of the recreational reserve in the southern portion of the site.

The Applicant purports that the constraints on the site associated with stormwater and

traffic management mean that the central linear reserve and road network cannot easily

be redesigned to provide less separation between the bunkers. Maintaining a completely

open context for the two bunkers would necessitate a realignment of the central road,

removal of housing allotments, and potentially a reduction of landscaping and

stormwater detention features.

The reality, however, is that existing open rural context of the subject site will not be

retained by virtue of its rezoning to Suburban Neighbourhood Zones through the Playford

Urban Growth Areas Development Plan Amendment.

9. CONCLUSION

There are competing interests for this land in terms of its zoning; infrastructure and

design requirements; and the State Heritage listed bunkers. There is some tension

between the objective of the Playford Urban Growth Areas Development Plan Amendment

to facilitate residential development on this site, and the importance of maintaining an

open context between the two bunkers.

On balance, it is considered that the proposal provides an acceptable outcome for these

competing interests. Whilst there will be some level of impact to the setting of the State

Heritage Place, a true ‘open context’ between the bunkers is not achievable without

removing landscaping, redesigning the infrastructure needs of the development, and

compromising on allotment yield (and overall project economics for the Applicant).

In all other respects Council has undertaken a fair and reasonable assessment of the

application against the relevant provisions of the City of Playford Development Plan

Consolidated 20 March 2014. Council has correctly categorised the application,

undertaken the necessary public notification process, and collected the required fees. It

is noted that whilst Council has undertaken all the necessary referrals to State agencies,

the recommendations and/or notes recommended by EPA, SA Water and State Heritage

Unit have not been reflected in Council’s recommended conditions. It is recommended

that the standard notes provided by State agencies be included in the decision. This will

be communicated to Council should the Commission be of a mind to concur with the

proposal.

10. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the

policies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission CONCUR with the

recommendation by the City of Playford’s Development Assessment Panel to grant

Development Plan Consent to the proposal by Alexander Symonds Pty Ltd to

divide of one allotment into 832 allotments (in 21 stages) and the construction of

an acoustic wall and associated infrastructure at Lot 2 Andrews Road, Andrews

Farm, as detailed in Development Application No. 292/D093/14 with Reserve


21 January 2016

13

AGENDA ITEM 3.1

Matter and conditions as proposed, and subject to the inclusion of advisory notes

as recommended by the EPA, SA Water and State Heritage Unit.

LAURA KERBER

SENIOR PROJECT OFFICER

DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE

Documents

Allotment 2 Andrew Road, Andrews Farm...21 January 2016 1 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 Simon Cross c/- Alexander Symonds Land division – 1 into 832 Allotment 2 Andrew Road, Andrews Farm 292/D093/14