Upload
tranhanh
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
City of Charles Sturt 38. DAP Report 1/04/15
TO: Development Assessment Panel
FROM: Manager Planning and Development
DATE: 1 April 2015
FIN DON WARD
ITEM 3.22 10 BURNS AVENUE KIDMAN PARK SA 5025
Applicant MrD Leonard
Development Application No 252/2319/14
Proposal Carport 5.0m x 6.0m x 2.6m high located forward of the dwelling 6.8m from the Burns Avenue frontage.
Owner of land Mr G N Sheehy, Ms C A Sheehy
Zone Residential
(Mid Suburban Policy Area 16)
Form of assessment Consent
Public notification category Consent Cat 2 Neighbour Notice
Representations 0 representation received, 0 to be heard
The applicant's agent, Tim Pride has asked to address the Panel in support of the proposal
Agency consultations Nil
Author, Samantha McKin lay - Development Officer (Senior Planner)
Attachments a. Development Plan provisions table
b. Application documents
C. Notification map
Development Plan 25 September 2014
Recommendation Refusal
City of Charles Sturt 39. DAP Report 1/04/15
Report
Background
The application was originally submitted in October 2014 and the applicant was
subsequently advised of concerns for the 6.8 m setback proposed as it meant that the
carport will be significantly forward of the associated dwelling. The applicant was also advised:
The Development Plan requires that garages and carports do not dominate the
streetscape and should be set back no closer than any part of its associated dwelling
and 0.5m behind the main face of the associated dwelling.
The length of the carport is not sufficient to park a B85 vehicle. (Drawing attention to
the length of the carport was for information only and to outline that the structure may not be long enough to fit a vehicle under).
Based on the above Council advised the applicant that they would be unable to support the
application in its submitted form. At this time the applicant was also advised that should
they wish to proceed with this application in its current form it would be recommended for
refusal. They were also advised that amended plans addressing the issues identified could be submitted or alternatively they may choose to proceed with the application as submitted.
In any event the applicant was advised that the following additional information would also be required.
The applicant was requested to supply:
All elevations of the proposed building showing all external materials, finishes and colours.
The applicant later advised that amended plans and details would be supplied. A
supplementary letter was supplied by the applicant on 16 January 2015. Following this the
supply of further plans was submitted on 27 January. The application then went on public notification.
Proposal
The application involves an open carport forward of the existing dwelling 6.8 metres from
the street frontage. The carport is proposed to be 6.0 metres wide and 5.0 metres in length.
The roof of the carport is proposed to be tiled in brown tiles to match the existing dwelling.
The carport is proposed to have arched fascias to match the existing dwellings verandah/
eave and fluted posts to match existing verandah! eave.
Site/Locality
The subject land is located on the northern side of Burns Avenue and is a regular shaped
allotment. The site has a frontage width of 24 metres, a depth of 31 metres and is 762 m 2 in
area. The subject site is presently occupied by an established dwelling that includes a single
garage under the main roof with an uncovered parking space located forward of the garage.
City of Charles Sturt 40. DAP Report 1/04/15
The subject land has established landscaping and a pool is located to the rear of the dwelling.
The dwelling was originally built with a double garage but this was subsequently varied in
1979 to convert one side of the garage to a study accessed off a bedroom.
The locality is residential in nature and predominantly comprises single storey detached
dwellings. There are examples of carports being sited forward of the dwelling within the
locality with setbacks for these examples being between 5.00 m and 9.9m to the street
frontage. However, the referred to examples of dwellings that includes covered parking
spaces forward of the main face of the dwelling have been established for many years prior
to the current planning policy within the Development Plan. In any case the prevailing
character of the locality is for covered parking spaces being either in line with or behind the
main face of the associated dwelling. Those parking spaces located forward of the
associated dwelling still achieve a suitable streetscape setback with adjoining dwellings.
Front property boundary setbacks within the locality are fairly consistent along Burns Avenue. Some variation to the setbacks occur for a couple of the dwellings within the
locality that are situated on corner blocks and front both Burns and Kimberly Court.
City of Charles Sturt 41. DAP Report 1/04/15
Site and Locality Plan
I . N
mg
- 2 ... • -
: ç i
I
jt1: L:i sf
• A
'•
' ? .••_ .* •
., •
. .i'1 • ø*.; *1 -'
Aid if • •• i • _ t*_ .*;Z-& 1
Jgt
4 , \ç4s
c , 4. I.. . ••
-, - . .#__ - - i• t -
• *•,
Subject Site shown in blue and Locality in red
U,
Q
0
0
ci)
CN
4
U
0
t
C
C
-
cci - o
U
o
,r.
tl
i. _
I
• _
14
-
In
a)
E (5
a) >
.
(5 U
0
a) 4
-. (5
a) E E
4-.
(I,
0
ci
ci
0
a) Ln 0
U
ca >-
a) I-
a)
E C
(5
a)
C
a) >
C
4-
0
a) C
0
0
a) .4-..
C
0
0
4-.. (0
4-.
a) Ln
UC
>
. (0
• L)
a)a)
L/) a) 4-.
IJ -1
0
0 1J
Cl.
Of
0
In
Lf)
0
-c
U
0
>-
U
C)
C
C)
>
C
0
>
C)
a-
Co 4-
0
C
C)
F- (1) U
C
o
0
C)
Co
Co
N
0
N
C
C)
>
0
a-
a-
Co
Co
0
0
Co U
C)
-c
C)
C
C)
>
C
- C
0
Co U
0
C)
E
Co 'I)
a)
C
C)
U
cI.
City of Charles Sturt
44 DAP Report 1/04/15
;
-
6 Kim berley Close - at the bottom of a cul-de-sac
5 Kimberley Close- at the bottom of a cul-de-sac
City of Charles Sturt 45 DAP Report 1/04/15
2 Burns Avenue
A
-V.,.
4,
4-
4. 22 Burns Avenue
-: ,,f ',• i'
. ': .• .
City of Charles Sturt 46. DAP Report 1/04/15
Summary of Representations and Applicants Response
Representations
The proposal underwent the Category 2 Public Notification process and no representations were received.
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.
The following table provides a summary of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan:
Proposal Development
Plan
DPP Provisions
Met?
Building Height 2.6 m (walls)
1.5 m (roof)
4.1 m (Total)
8.2m Yes
Setbacks
• Front (carport)
• Front (dwelling)
6.8 m
12.5 m
13.0 m No (*see below)
• Side 3.0 m 0.9m Yes
Carparking
• Tenant 1 1 Yes
• Visitors 1 1 Yes
* General Section - Residential Development - Principle of Development Plan Control 8
requires the following:
Garages and carports setback in accordance with the following:
(a) within the Residential Zone or Residential Character Zone - at least 5.5 metres or 0.5 metres behind the main face of the associated dwelling, whichever is the greater distance from the primary frontage
City of Charles Sturt 47. DAP Report 1/04/15
(b) no closer than any part of its associated dwelling and in any other case, be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres
Outbuildings should not protrude forward of any part of its associated dwelling.
Qualitative Standards
Development Plan Met?
Scale Maximum wall height 3 metres; Maximum Yes building height 5 metres
Appearance Garages, carports and residential outbuildings Yes
should have a roof form and pitch, building
materials and detailing that complement the associated dwelling.
Visual impact Garages, carports and residential outbuildings No should not dominate the streetscape and be
designed within the following parameters. * See below.
*p ursuan t to General Section - Residential Development - Principle of Development Plan
Control 8, the proposed structure will dominate the streetscape in that it is proposed to be situated substantially forward of the main face of the dwelling.
Desired Character
The subject site is located within Council's Residential Zone, Mid Suburban Policy Area 16. Within this Policy Area, the desired character statement seeks that "dwellings be designed
to complement and enhance the high quality pre and post-World War Two building styles and incorporating setback, siting, materials and roof forms and features consistent with and
enhancing the established character." Whilst it is acknowledged that there are some
examples of garages/carports being built forward of the main faceof the associated dwelling
within the immediate locality however these are still typically in alignment with the setbacks
of the neighbouring dwellings or locatedon cul-de-sacs where setbacks are more staggered,
the majority of dwellings in the immediate locality have a carport/garage component
setback either in line with or behind the main face of the dwelling. It should also be noted
that these examples appear to be constructed in approximately the 1980s, well before the
introduction of the present planning policy, if not well before any planning policy existed at
all. They are not representative of the Desired Character sought for the Policy Area, which
character predominates along the rest of Burns Avenue (excluding numbers 14, 22 and 11).
As such it is considered that the desired character statement for the Policy Area envisages a
setback for garages that is in keeping with this pattern of development in the locality and
now seeks to avoid the introduction of new development with setbacks such as those sited
in examples raised and seeks to minimise the visual impact of covered parking spaces.
Further, General Section, Design and Appearance, Principle of Development Control 22
seeks that "Except in areas where a new character is desired, the setback of buildings from public roads should:
City of Charles Sturt 48. DAP Report 1/04/15
(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".
The Development Plan is therefore considered to provide a clear direction in relation to the
placement of garages and carports within the Mid Suburban Policy Area 16. As outlined in
the provisions above, there is clear intent of the Development Plan to locate the
garage/carport component behind the main face of the dwelling and to be of a similar setback to the dwelling in order to reflect the character of the locality.
The form of the proposed carport compliments the existing dwelling in terms of its bulk and
scale and utilises similar materials to the established dwelling. However, the established
prevailing character within the locality does not comprise carports and garages sited
substantially forward of the associated dwelling and neighbouring dwellings in the streetscape context. On this basis the proposed carport is not considered to compliment the established or desired character within the locality or policy area
Land Use
Domestic structures in association with the primary use of the site for a dwelling within the Residential Zone are envisaged. However, General Section, Residential Development
Principle 8 requires a front property boundary setback for garages and carports of 5.5
metres or 0.5 m behind the existing dwelling, whichever is greater. The proposed
development does not meet this provision as it will be located forward of the associated dwelling. The proposed carport will also be visually dominant within the streetscape.
Visual Appearance/Built Form
The desired character for the Mid Suburban Policy Area 16 states that development should
be designed to complement and enhance the high quality and pre and post World War Two
building styles and incorporate setbacks, siting, materials, roof forms and features
consistent with and enhancing the established character. The proposed development does
not meet the setbacks required in that the carport is proposed to be forward of the main
face of the dwelling. In addition, the proposed carport will not reflect the prevailing character of the locality.
The carport proposed is 6 metres in width and 6.8 m from the front property boundary while
the dwelling is 12.5 m from the front property boundary, resulting in a visually prominent
carport particularly when combined with being situated well forward of the associated dwelling and those adjoining.
While the built form of the carport and its finishes do integrate with the existing dwelling
this does not overcome the significant failure to integrate with the established setbacks and
as a result the proposed carport is not considered to achieve appropriate siting on the land.
City of Charles Sturt 49. DAP Report 1/04/15
La ndsca ping
The subject land contains an existing dwelling with associated established landscaping. No further landscaping is proposed.
Traffic Management and Parking
The Development Plan requires one covered carparking space to be provided for the dwelling. This is already provided by the existing garage adjacent to the dwelling. Uncovered visitor parking is also presently available within the driveway. On-site parking requirements are thus met and exceeded by the current arrangements for parking and would continue to be met and exceeded by the proposed development.
Conclusion
This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 25 September 2014.
The proposed carport is considered to be at variance with the relevant Objectives and Principles of the Development Plan. The siting of the proposed carport will have detrimental visual impact on the streetscape and the locality. The proposed carport is considered inconsistent with the relevant Development Plan provisions that relate to setbacks, visual impact and desired character.
For these reasons the proposed development does not have sufficient merit to warrant Development Plan Consent.
Recommendation
A. Reason for Decision
The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer - Senior Planner dated 1 April 2015 and agrees with the assessment outlined in that report.
B. That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is considered to be unreasonably at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Sturt (City) Development Plan consolidated 25 September 2015.
C. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Approval be REFUSED to Development Application Number 252/2319/15 for the following reasons:
City of Charles Sturt 50. DAP Report 1/04/15
The proposed development is at variance with:
• General Section - Design and Appearance - Building Setbacks from Road
Boundaries -Principles of Development Control 22, 23;
• General Section - Residential Development - Garages, Carports and
Outbuildings -Principle of Development Control 8;
• Residential Zone, Mid Suburban Policy Area 16 - Desired Character Statement; Objective 1; Principle of Development Control 1; and
• General Section - Orderly and Sustainable Development Objectives 1 & 4
In that development will:
• Fail to maintain suitable setbacks consistent with relevant policies and does not
contribute to the desired character of the policy area;
• Have an unreasonable visual impact on the adjoining residential dwellings and streetscape; and
• Not create orderly development or a pleasant environment in which to live.