m.m I .

From: Smith, Sally (DIT)

Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2020 3:39 PM

To: Mai, Katie (DIT) > Subject: FW : Cit y of M itcham Submission on Revised Planning and Design Code

Hi Katie, pis register this as a submission. Ta Sal

Sally Smith I Executive Director Plannin & Land Use Services I Attorney-General's Department E www.agd.sa.gov.au

... . . . . ~ .. _. . . . . . ... ~ · .. ~ .. ·-.. -~ . . . . . . . . . : . - . . . - ..

. • · • ••••• ..

•. • •

From: Alex Mackenzie

To. Attol"My-Gerw3"• Oepa-tmcnt IICll~-OQI• Abcx,gnal peopi. u the In.I AUW111..-.s. W. pay

ow reepects 10 m.m a>d thew cuhnll. ar-.d 10 lhw Bcl«9 pat. ~ and tmn.

Cultural divcr.slty I Rosp11ct I lncluslvoness:

Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2020 3:27 PM To: DIT:Planning Reform Submissions <DIT.PlanningReformSubmissi

. .

1

• ' . a I

.• ,.• .. ••

Alexa Carr

2

Subject: City of Mitcham Submission on Revised Planning and Design Code

Dear Mr Lennon

Please find enclosed a cover letter and copy of the City of Mitcham’s submission on the revised draft Planning and Design Code.

We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the State Planning Commission and Planning and Land Use Services in response to the first round of Code consultation, and accordingly appreciate this further opportunity to comment on the revised draft Code as proposed for the City of Mitcham.

We would be pleased to receive confirmation via our CLO as to whether our feedback results in decisions by the Commission to further amend the Code and look forward to continuing to work closely with you in implementing South Australia’s new planning system.

Should you or the Department wish to discuss the feedback provided in our submission, please get in touch. Have a safe and enjoyable Christmas and New Year.

Kind regards, Alex

Alex Mackenzie Manager Development Services City of Mitcham Civic Centre, 131 Belair Road, Torrens Park 5062

M I T

PO Box 21, Mitcham Shopping Centre, Torrens Park, SA 5062 www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au -

_ ..... 21 December 2020

Mr Michael Lennon Chair, State Planning Commission

CITY OF By email to - [email protected] MITCHAM

Dear~ ~V-1\C'J_

RESPONSE TO REVISED DRAFT PLANNING AND DESIGN CODE

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the revised draft Planning and Design Code.

We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the State Planning Commission and Planning and Land Use Services in response to the first round of community engagement and appreciate the opportunity to further comment on the revised draft Code as it is proposed to apply in the City of Mitcham.

A number of areas have been identified for particular feedback in relation to the draft Code. Accordingly, we have prepared a detailed submission for consideration, which is enclosed. Key topics covered in our submission include:

• State Heritage Area policies, in particular for Colonel Light Gardens, • Updated hazard (specifically flood) mapping and associated policies, • Policy to be applied in our hills neighbourhoods, • Updated residential infill and design in urban areas policies, and • A number of general operational updates and proposed policy improvements

to the Code prior to 'go live'.

We would be pleased to receive confirmation as to whether our feedback results in decisions by the Commission to further amend the Code as it applies in the City of Mitcham, and look forward to continuing to work closely with you in implementing South Australia's new planning system next year.

Should you have any questions in relation to our submission, please get in touch on 0405 581183 or by email to [email protected].

Alex Mackenzie Manager Development Services

Street Address: 131 Belair Road Torrens Park SA 5062

Postal Address: PO Box21 Mitcham Shopping Centre Torrens Park SA 5062

Phone: (08) 8372 8888 Fax: (08) 8372 8101 [email protected] www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au

City of Mitcham

Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code - December 2020

PLANNING & DESIGN CODE SECTION SUPPORT / COMMENT / CONCERN SUGGESTION AMEND / OPPOSE

Part 1 - Rules of Interpretation

Hierarchy of Policies/ Modification of Provisions Amend • To ensure clarity to readers/users of the Code and • Include Designated Instruments (eg Heritage Guidelines

Section 71 - Designated Instrument Guidelines, the Rules of Interpretation should include (Colonel Light Gardens - State Heritage Area) in the

explicit instruction on where a Designated Instrument hierarchy diagram of Policies/Modification of Provisions in

under Section 71 fits w ithin the hierarchy of policies. the Rules of Interpretation

• The Heritage Guidelines (Colonel Light Gardens - State • Include the Designated Instrument in the rules that apply to

Heritage Area) are a Designated Instrument under th is the extent of any inconsistency between policies. provision of the Act and provide interpretation of the State

Note - it w ill also be recommended to Heritage SA that a Heritage Area Overlay as it applies to Colonel Light Gardens.

similar statement be included in the Heritage Guidelines

• The Guidelines should prevail over the Overlay and Zone (Colonel Light Gardens - State Heritage Area to ensure that

provisions in the case of any inconsistency between "to the extent of any inconsistency between the Guidelines

policies. and the policies contained in the Zone, that the Guidel ines

w ill prevai l.

Part 2 - Zones & Subzones

Neighbourhood Zones - All

Procedural Matters - Publ ic notification Amend • Boundary development is often a source of concern for • Include boundary development that exceeds the numerical affected neighbours and there is a community expectation al lowances of the Code in terms of height and length as an

that affected parties be afforded an opportunity to provide exception in the PM - Public Notifi cation table in all

feedback during an assessment process neighbourhood-type zones

• It is reasonable that a proposal that includes development

on a boundary which exceeds the numerical provisions in

terms of length and height in the Code, should be subject to notification.

Amend • Neighbourhood zones al low for a degree of fl exibility and • Include uses that represent a change of use from

mix of land uses, including non-residential development in Residential to Non-residential (eg shop, office, consulting

what t radit ionally have been residential streets. room) as an exception in the PM - Public Notification table

in all neighbourhood-type zones.

PLANNING & DESIGN CODE SECTION SUPPORT / AMEND / OPPOSE

Establ ished Neighbourhood Zone

•

•

COMMENT / CONCERN

City of M itcham Submission on t he Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 2

SUGGESTION

W ithin these predominantly residential areas, shops, offices and consulting rooms w ill only be publ icly notified where exceeding the scale (100m2 or 200m2) or height al lowances

in the Code.

Such fl exibility for the establishment of new shops and

offices in residential zones is likely to be contentious w ith

surrounding neighbours and there is community

expectation that these types of uses should be subj ect to

public notification.

See comments regard ing Colonel Light Gardens in Part 3 below.

• Council has previously expressed concern regard ing the • Revise DOl to remove the words "range of housing types

language in DOl. The Development Plan does not typically that respond to housing preferences" and rep lace w ith

seek a "range of housing types that respond to housing words which encourage new housing types that are

preferences" and would not necessarily want to encourage sympathetic to the established neighbourhood character.

this, particularly in heritage/ historic conservation areas -It is considered such a change still ensures the abil ity to be

eg PA17 states that semidetached, row, group and RFBs • should not be established.

flexible across a variety of established neighbourhood

contexts, whi le managing those neighbourhoods (e.g.

• In Colonel Light Gardens the only dwelling type is single where the zone is applied to heritage areas) which may not

storey detached bungalow style dwellings - other dwelling contemplate a range of housing types.

types and styles are inappropriate. While other housing

types exist in the nominated areas, these are anomalies and not considered to be the predominant built form.

• The areas affected by the Established Neighbourhood Zone

are not intended to provide for a variety of housing

preferences - it is generally to maintain the

existing/established character of these locations and as

such the DO could better reflect th is.

• Council agrees that new build ings should be sympathetic to

the predominant built form character and development

patterns - this should be the primary objective for the

Established Neighbourhood Zone - potentially delete part

o f DOl


General Neighbourhood Zone

Table 2 - DTS Development Classification Amend • Land Division

•

•

•

Hills Neighbourhood Zone

•

•

COMMENT / CONCERN

General Neighbourhood Zone applies to the suburb of

City of M itcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 3

SUGGESTION

• Land Division in a Hazard (Bushfi re - Medium Risk) Overlay Craigburn Farm, which has the Hazard (Bushfi re - Medium) should be excluded from the DTS Development

Overlay applied and is surrounded by high bushfire risk Classifi cation.

areas. It is noted that th is notion could apply equal ly to Suburban •

The assessment tables determine that most forms of Neighbourhood Zone. development are excluded from DTS pathway where a Hazard (Bushfire - Medium Risk) Overlay applies.

Land division however, is not excluded from the DTS pathway.

Land division within a Hazard (Bushfire - Medium Risk) Overlay area warrants closer assessment than the DTS pathway offers to ensure that it is occurring in an appropriate location in terms of access and egress and, in the case of Craigburn Farm, proximity to high bushfire risk

areas.

Siting and Design • Strengthen policies in the Hil ls Neighbourhood Zone to

There is opportunity to place greater emphasis on the place greater emphasis on retention and protection of

existing character and environmental qualit ies of the area -existing character and environmental qualities of the area.

topography, vegetation (including remnant native • Strengthen qualitative policies in the Hi lls Neighbourhood vegetation). Zone in relation to sit ing and design, as it relates to the bulk

There is also opportunity to include additional qualitative and scale of buildings, minimising cut and fill, retention of vegetation (including mature t rees) and preservation of

provisions regarding general principles around the siting vistas from adj oining properties/ publ ic spaces.

and design of buildings (not just about quantifiab le site coverage, setbacks, wal l heights etc) - particularly as it • Amend the DTS/DPF minimum secondary street setback of relates to building w ith the slope of the land, minimising cut 3m as per Development Plan. and f ill, preserving existing vegetation (including mature t rees), preserving natural drainage and creek lines and maintaining vistas of adjoining properties/public spaces.

PLANNING & DESIGN CODE SECTION SUPPORT /

AMEND /

OPPOSE

•

•

•

•

•

Strategic Innovation Zone - Repatriation Subzone Amend •

•

Cit y of Mitcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 4

COMMENT / CONCERN SUGGESTION

Site Coverage

The Zone introduces site coverage provisions (where the Development Plan is current ly silent) of 50% for sites w ith a

gradient of less than 1 in 8, and 40% for sites w ith a

gradient of greater than 1 in 8

It is highlighted that this provision has potential to create

tensions between policies in t he zone. For example, when

balancing site coverage wit h ot her key pol icies in the zone

w hich seek maintenance of topography, landscape, nat ural landforms and vegetation.

The Development Plan does not have a maximum site

coverage in R(H) or R(FH) but rather relies on qualitative

measures relating to bulk & scale of build ings, minimising cut & f ill, retention of vegetation, preservation of vistas

from adjoining properties/public spaces.

Secondary Street Setback

DTS/DPF 6.1 of t he Zone allows for secondary street

set backs in th is zone of 900mm,a substant ial reduct ion from t he Development Plan's cur rent requi rement of 3

metres.

W hile th is smaller setback might be appropriate in the

more "urban" areas of t he Hil ls Neighbourhood Zone, in

ot her areas, such a setback is likely to impact on streetscape character and pattern of development.

PO3.2 of the Strategic Innovat ion Zone includes • Include a building envelope plane for area affected by the

Performance Outcome and DTS/DPF provisions regarding Strategic Innovation Zone Repatriat ion Subzone that

interface management, including a range of bui lding reflects t he existing building envelope plane in the

envelope planes to be applied variously to affected areas. Development Plan.

The Enquiry Tool for the Repatriat ion General Hospital does

not produce a building envelope plane to correspond wit h

t his Performance Outcome, despite t here being a one in the

Development Plan.


•

Urban Renewal Zone Amend •

•

•

•

Part 3 - Overlays

Character Area Overlay Amend •

•

COMMENT / CONCERN

To manage interface issues between this Zone and the

adjacent neighbourhood zone, it is recommended that a building envelope plan be included that reflects (as closely


Pa e 5

SUGGESTION

as possible} the building envelope plan in the Development Plan.

The Suburban Activity Node Zone in the Development Plan • Strengthen policy in the Urban Renewal Zone to place

is t ransitioning to the Urban Renewal Zone. greater emphasis on pedestrian oriented development.

The Desired Character of the SANZ seeks pedestrian- • Reinstate the concept plan to differentiate between core oriented development in terms of the quality and design of and non-core areas. both the private and public realms.

Include addit ional TNVs for primary setbacks in core and • Much of this emphasis is lost in the transit ion from the non-core areas . Development Plan to the Code.

Extend the core area to include all land fronting main roads • The removal of the concept plan results in the inabi lity to w ithin the zone (South Road, Sturt Road & Shepherds Hill differentiate between the core and non-core parts of the Road}. zone. This has several implications - for instance, the mix of land uses, bui lt form and setbacks for the core area are different than in the non-core area.

Council is currently undertaking a Special Residential • That Council's nominated t ransition for these areas from Character Areas DPA which affects a number of areas the DPA to the Code is noted and accommodated in due across the council area, including Cumberland course. Park, Westbourne Park, Hawthorn, Springfield, Eden Hills, Belai r, Blackwood and Coromandel Valley.

These areas are proposed to be transitioned to either Established Neighbourhood or Hills Neighbourhood Zones in the Code (depending on their location}, w ith each subj ect to a Character Area Overlay and accompanying Character Area Statement.


Design Overlay Amend •

Hazards (Bushfi re - High Risk) Overlay Amend • Procedural M atters - Referrals

•

Hazards (Flooding) Overlay Amend •

•

•

Amend •

•

COMMENT / CONCERN

The Design Overlay has been applied to Urban Corridor

Zones in other Council areas, but has not been in City of M itcham.

The purpose of the CFS referral is limited to assessment of t he 'potent ial impacts of bushfi re on t he development', w hich appears somewhat insular to the subject property.

The CFS as part of its assessment, should also include considerat ion of t he impact a proposed development may have in terms of its potential to exacerbate fire spread to ot her properties in the event of a bushfire.

The two flood related overlays are a welcome inclusion to

t he Code.


Pa e 6

SUGGESTION

• The Design Overlay is supported for application to t he Urban Corridor (Living) Zone (Goodwood Road and Belair Road) and Urban Neighbourhood Zone (Panorama).

• These are areas of Council wit hin which a higher density of development is anticipated, and which would benefit from

addit ional performance outcome standards from a design perspect ive.

• This issue is also included in the attachment Spatial Requests which forms part of t his submission.

• Reword t he purpose of t he referral to include additional considerations in the assessment of the development and

w hen providing advice/ direction.

• Determination of application of high ri sk and low risk hazard overlay to consider velocity of flow.

However, t he Code considers only depth and not velocity of • Policy w ithin hazard overlay should consider velocity of

flow. flow, as well as depth.

Hazards are typically considered as a combination of both dept h and velocity of flow - t his issue t herefore requires fu rther consideration.

The Hazards (Flooding) Overlay has not been applied to • Review t he extent of the Hazards (Flooding) Overlay land which is affected by t he flood mapping in t he application, and update as previously agreed. Development Plan ("Residential Land w ithin the Vicinity of a Watercourse") as had been anticipated and agreed. • Apply t he overlay to t he properties identified in t he

"Residential Land w ithin t he Vicinity of a Watercourse" in The land within this mapping in the Development Plan is the Development Plan . known to be at risk of local ised flooding.

PLANNING & DESIGN CODE SECTION SUPPORT / COMMENT / CONCERN AMEND / OPPOSE

• In the SAPPA mapping tool, these properties eit her have

the Hazards (Flooding - General) Overlay, or no flood hazard overlay, applied. This leaves already high-risk

properties further exposed in the event of a flood.

• This issue is included in the attachment Spatial Requests

w hich forms part of t his submission

Hazards (Flooding - General) Overlay Amend • The Hazards (Flooding - General) has been applied broadly

in the counci l area, except for a corridor alongside t he

Brown Hill Creek and M inno Creek corridors.

• It seems i llogical t hat t hese properties are excluded from

eit her of t he flooding overlays given their proxim ity to t he

creek corridor relat ive to other areas which have the

Hazard (Flooding - General) Overlay applied.

• This issue is included in the attachment Spatial Requests

w hich forms part of t his submission.

Heritage Adjacency Overlay Amend • Comments relating to t he Local Heritage Place Overlay

affect the Heritage Adj acency Overlay (see below).

Histori c Area Overlay Amend • It is pleasing t hat Representat ive Buildings (formerly

Cont ributory Items) are to be recognised in t he Code and

referenced in t he Historic Area Statements.

• It is noted, however that t here is limited, if any, policy

w hich provides guidance in relation to these buildings.

Given their now recognised importance, it is reasonable to

expect t here to be policy directly relating to t hem.

Interface Management Overlay Amend • Resident ial (Central Plains) Zone Pol icy Area 12 acts as a

"buffer" between t he land uses wit hin the

Indust ry/Commerce M elrose Park Zone and the adj acent

residential neighbourhood.


Pa e 7

SUGGESTION

• Review t he extent of the Hazards (Flooding) Overlay

application.

• Apply t he Hazards (Flooding - General) Overlay to the

balance of properties (both whole and portion thereof).

• Properties which are not subject to the high- risk fl ood

overlay should have t he general flood ri sk overlay appl ied

so that appropr iate and relevant policies can be ut i lised in

development assessment.

• The Heritage Adjacency Overlay should subsequently be

cor rected after review and cor rect ion of the Local Heritage

Place Overlay (see below).

• Include policy in the Historic Area Overlay (or ot her relevant

heritage/character type overlay) which provides guidance in

regard to considerat ion of Representat ive Buildings through

the planning assessment process.

• Apply t he Interface M anagement Overlay to Residential

(Cent ral Plains) Zone Policy Area 12 to bet ter manage

interface matters.


•

•

•

Local Heritage Place Overlay Amend •

•

•

•

•

State Heritage Area Overlay - Colonel Light Gardens Amend •

City of M itcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 8


In part, the interface between t he two types of uses is

managed by limit ing land division in Pol icy Area 12 and t herefore t he Development Plan does not nominate

minimum quantif iable requirements for new allot ments. As such, in the t ransition to the Code, t here have not been any

minimum al lot ment size or frontage w idth TNVs appl ied.

There is concern that transit ioning this area to the Code

w it hout TNVs or ot her mechanisms to cont rol land division

t hat interface issues between t he types of zones and land

uses w ill be exacerbated.

Applicat ion of t he Interface Management Overlay would

provide addit ional requi rements of a development to

ensure it properly considers and addresses interface issues.

It has been identifi ed t hat t he Local Heritage Place Overlay • Prior to the Code being implemented, the Overlay should

has been applied in error to numerous sites which currently be careful examined and revised fu rther to ensure that t he

do not have a Local Heritage Place listing. correct sites are captured (and incorrect ones are not).

This has implications for class ification of development types

and assessment pathways for sites w hich are incorrectly

capt ured.

It also has implicat ions for t he Heritage Adj acency Overlay

and its applicat ion.

Due to t ime constraints, not al l properties have been cross

referenced.

Examples of incorrect Overlay appl ication have been

included in the attachment Spatial Requests w hich forms

part of th is submission.

The w hole of Colonel Light Gardens is subject to a State • That Council, PlanSA and HeritageSA continue to work

Heritage Area Overlay. Since t he first iterat ion of the Code, collaboratively to ensure that the policy framework and

PlanSA has sought to introduce an addit ional layer into the provisions afford Colonel Light Gardens State Heritage Area

Code as it related to CLG. in its entirety the ongoing heritage protection to the same

degree it currently has.


•

•

•

•

•

•

Stormwater Management Overlay Amend •


Pa e 9


HeritageSA's revised Guidelines for Development in Colonel

Light Gardens are ca lled up via the State Heritage Area Overlay and will become the principal document to guide

development assessment in th is location.

While PlanSA is confident that the zones, overlayed with

the State Heritage Overlay and subj ect HeritageSA's

Guidelines wi ll provide sufficient protection to the Garden

Suburb, Council remains concerned that the proposed approach w ithout inclusion of sufficient guidelines, may

diminish heritage protection within the suburb.

Planning staff have viewed an early version of the

guidelines and while they conta in important guidance as to

residential development in the area, there is limited focus

on the importance of the layout of the area by functional

land use and limited guidance on non-residential

development in the area.

There would appear opportunity to improve and expand

the draft guidelines to ensure that there are no "gaps" in

the transition from Development Plan to the Code.

At the t ime of writing this submission, and w ithout the having viewed the revised HeritageSA Guidelines in detail,

the Code in and of itself does not provide adequate

protection for Colonel Light Gardens and Council reiterates

its desire for greater protection through the Code.

Ideally, the Heritage SA Guidel ines would have been

released w ith the revised Code for concurrent consultation.

Such an approach would have ensured greater clarity for

the community and Council as to how Colonel Light

Gardens w ill be addressed by the system in its ful lness.

The Stormwater Management Overlay is supported in • Increase DTS/DPF requirements for on-site stormwater

principle in that it incorporates design techniques to management to manage future pressures on stormwater

capture and reuse stormwater onsite. infrastructure systems.


•

•

•

•

•

Cit y of Mit cham Submission on t he Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 10


This is particu larly important where hard surface run-off • Apply the Stormwater Management Overlay to other forms

(via infill development or dwelling addit ions) occurs at a of DTS development including dwelling addit ions and rate greater than the capacity of the existing stormwater dwellings or res idential flat buildings developed by the SA

system can accommodate. Council's Development Plan has Housing Trust.

policies with sim ilar intent. • Ensure that independent accredited professionals are

The requirements for on-site stormwater management unable to accept exclusion or reduction in DTS/DPF

(retention and detention) under the Code, however, are requ irements for rainwater tank capacity as minor

substantial ly less than the requirements for development variations (effectively directing such an application into a

assessed under the Development Plan and therefore pose performance assessed pathway)

the risk to Council's existing stormwater systems.

Under the Code, independent accredited professionals can

approve DTS developments, including determining

(unlimited) minor variations. There is a concern that an

independent accredited professional may accept the

exclusion (or substantial reduction) of on-site stormwater

management as a minor variation which, even in small

numbers, would have a detrimental impact on Council's

stormwater systems and may result in local ised flooding.

It is noted that the overlay does not apply to dwelling

addit ions and that the Code does not otherwise requi re on-

site stormwater management for this type of development.

Council currently requires provision of on-site stormwater

retention and detention for dwell ing additions, based on

the size of the addition. Given that dwell ing addit ions

contribute to increased pressure on Council 's stormwater

systems, it is considered appropriate that the overlay is also

applied to this type of development.

It is also noted that the overlay does not apply to other

forms of development in the DTS assessment pathway

including ancillary dwell ings and dwell ings or residential flat

buildings developed by SA Housing Trust. These forms of

development should requi re on-site stormwater

management in that they have potential to impact on

Council's stormwater systems.


Urban Tree Canopy Overlay Amend •

•

•

•

•

•


Pa e 11


The Urban Tree Canopy Overlay is supported, in principle, in • Develop a Tree Planting Guide for appl icants (and relevant

t hat it seeks to establish a consistent t ree canopy, and authorit ies) to refer to when selecting tree species for circumvent inherent tensions between achieving infill plant ing to achieve the Urban Tree Overlay provisions.

development and t ree canopy coverage in the 30 Year Plan. Ensure independent accredited professionals are unable to •

It is unclear whether or not independent accredited accept exclusion or reduction in DTS/DPF requirements for

professionals w i ll be able to accept exclusion or reduction replacement t ree planting or payment in lieu as minor

in DTS/DPF requi rements for t ree planting or payment in variations and t hat such a variation directs an application to

lieu as " minor variations" . a performance assessed pathway.

It is understood the nominated amount for payment in lieu • Ensure that the Code determines that payment in lieu of

of t ree planting is $300. Given the insignif icant cost, this plant ing is a last resort and that such determination can may incent ivise payment into the fund rat her than t ree only be made by Council as part of a Performance Assessed

planting, which t hen places the onus on Council to source, development.

plant and maintain the t ree on public land. The amount is Increase the nominated amount for payment in l ieu of

insufficient to cover these costs. It is considered that • payment in lieu should be of a last resort only and that the

plant ing so that the cost to Counci l o f sourcing, planting and

amount should be dramatically increased. maintaining the tree on public land is covered.

It is noted that the Urban Tree Canopy Overlay does not • Include addit ional forms of DTS development which is

apply DTS forms of development including dwell ing subject to the overlay.

addit ions and that the Code does not otherwise require

t ree plant ing (unless a significant or regulated t ree is

removed) for th is type of development. It is also noted that

ot her forms of DTS development including dwellings and

residential flat buildings undertaken by SA Housing Trust

are not subj ect to the Urban Tree Canopy Overlay

provisions.

Given a consistent t ree canopy is requi red in order to

reduce the heat island effect (and t hat this requi res

planting on bot h publ ic and private land) t here is

opportunity to apply t he Urban Tree Canopy Overlay to

addit ional forms of development.

Council raised in its previous submission t he suggest ion of a

reference guide as to t he most appropriate t rees to plant

on site. This suggestion is reiterated herein.


Part 4 - General Development Policies

Design in Urban Areas

PO 10.1-2 - Overlooking/ Visual Privacy Amend •

PO 21.1 - Private Open Space Amend •

•

PO 22.1 - Landscaping Amend •

•

•

•

All Development - Four or M ore Building Levels Amend • Ext ernal Appearance

COMMENT / CONCERN

Council's previous submission raised concern w it h the

proposed provisions in relat ion t o overlooking/ visual

privacy in that t he requi rements of the Code represent a

departure from community expectat ions.

The Code requires provision of private open space of 24m2

irrespective of the size of t he site.

This is substant ially less than Council's Development Plan

requires (20% of the site)


Pa e 12

SUGGESTION

• Screening should be to a minim um height of 1.7m, rat her

than 1.Sm as proposed in the Code.

• For sites greater than 300m2, private open space should be

a percentage of t he total site, rat her than a fixed value -

20% of t he site is suggested.

The Code requires provision of soft landscaping on a sliding • Clarificat ion required as to whether soft landscaping is able

scale set out in the table in DTS/DPF 22.1. to contribute to the private open space or if it is an element

It is not clear whet her th is proportion of the site can be to be calculated separately.

assessed as a cont ribut ion to Private Open Space or is a • Include requi rement in PO19 (Anci llary Development) that

separate element . ancillary development should not result in the loss of soft

There is concern that the soft landscaping component on a landscaping such t hat it would fa il to meet the provisions of

PO22.1 (soft landscaping). site could be eroded over t ime by future anci llary building

type developments which have an Accepted Development

or DTS assessment pathway and do not requi re such

considerat ion.

This would impact on the permeabi lit y of the site and

therefore impact on stormwater systems by way of increased hard surface runoff.

• Include PO12.5 in assessment table An error is noted in that PO12.5 has been missed, meaning

DTS/DPF12.5 onwards is in the incorrect column.


Transport, Access & Parking

Table 1 - General Off-Street C/P Requirements Amend • Table 2 - Off Street C/P Requirements Table 3 - Off Street Bicycle Parking Requirements

•

Part S - Designated Areas

Table 1 - Designated Areas under the Planning, Amend • Development and Infrastructure (General) Regulations

2017

•

•

•


Pa e 13


Visitor parking rates for mult i-level buildings, are relatively • Increase on-site visitor carparking for mult i-level buildings. low and may exacerbate demand for on-street parking

Increase the rate of bicycle parking - particularly for associated with higher density development. •

dwellings in multi-level bui ldings and where there is The requirement for bicycle parking (particularly for otherwise lim ited storage.

residents and visitors of dwellings in multi-level build ings)

seems low - especially if the Code is seeking to encourage

reduced vehicle usage and walkable neighbourhoods, as per the 30 Year Plan.

The table identif ies areas for the purpose of Clause 1 of • All areas which are included in Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Schedule 3 under the Regulations - Excavating or filling in Development Regulations, 2008 should also be included in identified zones or areas. Table 1 Designated Areas under the Planning, Development

W ithin the City of M itcham this includes Hi lls Face Zone and and Infrastructure (General) Regulations, 2017 and referenced in Part 5 of the Code.

Hills Neighbourhood Zone.

This clause is intended to replicate the existing Development Regulations, Schedule 2, Part 2 which apply to:-

- Residential (Hi lls) Zone; - Residential (Foothills) Zone w ith in Bedford Park; - Residential (Blackwood Urban) Zone; - Commercial (Main Road) Zone; - Neighbourhood Centre Zone w ithin Belair; - Historic Conservation Zone - Belair Vil lage;

- Special Uses Zones; - Rural Landscape Zone

The current Designation affects only (b)(i) and (ii) above and

therefore may have unintended consequences for the other areas now not affected by the legislation.


•

•

Part 6- Index of Technical & Numeric Variations

Amend •

•

Part 7 - Land Use Definitions

Land Use Definit ions Table Amend •

•

•

Part 8 -Administrative Definitions

Administ rat ive Terms and Definitions Table Amend •


Pa e 14


As an example, the historic conservat ion area of Adey Road is currently captured as it is zoned Resident ial (Hi lls) Policy Area 17. Under t he new Designat ion, this area is not capt ured as it is wit hin the Established Neighbourhood Zone w ith an Historic Area Overlay.

It remains Council's view that, in lieu of the now removed Sloping Land Overlay, the Designation should apply to all of the areas listed above (not ing these w ill now have different

zone names in the Code).

A number of TNVs have been omitted or incorrectly applied • Review and correct omissions and incorrectly applied TNVs through the SAPPA mapping tool. as detai led separately.

These are detailed in the separate Spatial Requests document which forms part of Council's submission on t he revised Code.

In Council's previous submission a number of suggestions • Include further clarif ication of t he definit ion of Ancillary were made in respect of clarifying a number of definit ions. Accommodation and in particular t he types of bui ldings and

While some have been addressed in the revised Code, their uses t his might include (eg granny fl ats, Ai r BnB, detached habitable rooms).

ot hers still requi re clarificat ion including Ancillary Accommodation. • Either provide a definition for "storeys" or use consistent

The Code uses the term "storeys" and "levels" terminology throughout t he Code when referring to a building's height (unless a numerical value).

interchangeably when referring to a building' s height, however the definitions table only define "building level".

In Council's previous submission a number of suggestions • Include further clarif ication, simplified language and

were made in respect of clarification, language and diagrams in regard to definit ions to ensure a consistent explanatory diagrams. approach and avoid confusion.


•

Part 11 - Local Heritage Places

M itcham Amend •

•

•

Part 12 - Concept Plans

M itcham Amend •

Practice Guideline

Histori c Area Overlay- Demolit ion Control Amend •

•


Pa e 15


It is noted these suggestions have not been included in the

revised Code

In Council's previous submission a number of anomalies • Prior to the Code being adopted and implemented, the list

w ith respect Local Heritage listings were raised (which had in Part 11 should be reviewed and amended to ensure it is

previously been raised w ith DPTI}. correct and is correlates with SAPPA.

The list in Part 11 of the revised Code has not been

amended to reflect the comments on Council's previous

submission. It is noted that the list in Part 11 does not

correspond w ith the SAPPA mapping tool which could

potentially create confusion and difficult ies in correctly

identifying listings.

Also see comments re Local Heritage Places in Part 3 above .

While it is acknowledged that the Code focusses concept • Include a concept plan for Colonel Light Gardens which

plans on infrastructure provision, it is considered that the reflects existing policy areas which set out the distinct land

State Heritage Area of Colonel Light Gardens would benefit use functions which forms an intrinsic part the area's

from the inclusion of a concept plan to clearly del ineate the heritage value.

functional layout of the area. Further comments in relation Counci l would accept th is inclusion with in the Heritage SA

to Colonel Light Gardens are contained in Part 2 above. • Guidelines for Development in Colonel Light Gardens.

The Historic Area Overlay (at PO 7.1) introduces a • A Practice Guideline be developed to provide guidance on

"reasonableness" test when determining whether the the term " reasonableness" in the context of demolit ion

demolit ion of bui ldings and structures is appropriate. contro l.

The term "reasonableness" is not defined and w ithout

guidance in the form of a Practice Direction, interpretation

(by applicants and the courts alike) is likely to revert to an

economic viabi lity test.

Attachment A - Spatial Requests - City of Mitcham

Current Proposed Planning and Design Code

Craigburn Farm (suburb)

' '· l 111, fl f<

I

I 1 , 31 & 33 Grange Road, Lower Mitcham

4 Wattle Avenue, Lower Mitcham

558 Goodwood Road

Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/ TNV to be applied

Local Heritage Place Overlay & associated Heritage Adjacency Overlay

Overlay application correction

Cit y of M itcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 16

Rationale for proposed change

Concern

It has been identified t he Local Heritage Place Overlay has been applied to numerous sites which currently do not have a Local Heritage Place listing. Due to t ime constraints, not all properties have been cross refere nced. Examples of incorrect application of the Overlay are in Column 1.

This has implications fo r classification of development types and assessment pathways for sites which are incorrectly captured. It also has implications for t he Heritage Adjacency Overlay and its application.

Suggestion

Prior to t he Code being implemented, t he Overlay should be careful examined and amended to ensure that the correct s ites a re captured (and incorrect ones a re not).

The associated Heritage Adjacency Overlay should subsequently be corrected.


32 Price Avenue, Lower Mitcham

-!\£91 :/ U1-U6, 24 Price Avenue, Lower M itcham

,RV.<'••m :Q;-:J r_~ 1 Playford Road, M itcham

SL I L

I 31 Crozier Avenue, Daw Park

Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/ TNV t o be applied

Urban Corridor Zone (Goodwood Road)

TNV correction - minimum & maximum height

Cit y of M itcham

Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 17


Concern

The Urban Corridor Zone (transit ioned from the Urban Corridor (Living) Zone) at Goodwood Road does not have maximum or minimum height TNV (levels or metres)

Suggestion

Apply height TNV:

Min - 2 levels

Max - 4 levels/ 16.5 metres


rl

~ -Jil~

Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/TNV to be applied

Hills Neighbourhood Zone (ptn)

TNV correction - maximum height

Urban Neighbourhood Zone (Panorama)

TNV correction - maximum height & building envelope

Cit y of M it cham Submission on t he Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 18


Concern

The portion of Hills Neighbourhood Zone t ransit ioned from Resident ial (Hills) does not have maximum height TNV (storeys or metres) while t he areas which t ransit ioned from Resident ial (Foothills) do (albeit an increase over the current Development Plan and Council's nomination)

Suggestion

Apply height TNV consistently to Hills Neighbourhood Zone:-

Max - 2 levels / 8 metres

Concern

The Urban Neighbourhood Zone (transit ioned from M ixed Use Zone) at Panorama does not have maximum height TNV (metres) nor the building envelope as per the Development Plan.

It is understood that Building Envelope TNV is not proposed to apply to this type of zone in the Code, however given the zone' s boundary and proximity to much lower density residential development it is considered an appropriate TNV in this instance to assist in managing interface issues.

Suggestion

Apply TNVs:-

Maximum Height (metres) - 16.5 metres Building Envelope as per Development Plan

Current Proposed Planning and Design Code Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/TNV to be applied

Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (ptn Blackwood)

TNV correction - maximum height (metres) and minimum frontage width

Employment Zone (South Road)

TNV correct ion - maximum height (metres and levels)


Pa e 19


Concern

The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone at Blackwood transitioning from t he Suburban Neighbourhood Zone in Development Plan does not have a maximum height TNV (metres) or minimum frontage width TNV applied.

The area transitioning to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone from Residential (Blackwood Urban) does not have frontage widths TNV.

Suggestion

Apply TNVs to all areas of Suburban Neighbourhood Zone at

Blackwood consistent ly:-

Concern

Maximum Height (metres) - 8 metres

Minimum Frontage (metres) - 15m detached/ 9m semi-detached/ 12m group/ 8m row/ 18m RFB

The Employment Zone which transit ioned from Industry/Commercial (Melrose Park) Policy Area 14 does not have maximum height TNV (storeys or metres), noting the areas which transitioned from Commercial (South Road) Zone do.

Suggestion

Apply TNVs:-

Maximum Height (metres) - 10 metres Maximum Height (levels) - 2


Established Neighbourhood Zone (Colonel Light Gardens

and Adey Road Blackwood)

TNV correction - site coverage

Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (Urrbrae and Springfield)

TNV correction - maximum height (levels)

Established Neighbourhood Zone (Kingswood, Hawthorn,

Westbourne Park)

TNV correction - side setback

Cit y of M it cham Submission on t he Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 20


Concern

Not all areas of Established Neighbourhood Zone have the

site coverage TNV applied. All should all have 40% site

coverage (except Mitcham Village which has 45%)

Suggestion

Apply site coverage TNV to Colonel Light Gardens and Adey

Road Blackwood

Maximum site coverage - 40%

Concern

The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (at Urrbrae and Springfield) has a maximum height TNV of 2 levels o r 9 metres - Development Plan allows for 3 levels

Suggestion

Apply TNVs:-

Maximum Height (levels) - 3

Concern

A minimum side setback TNV of 3m has been applied to

Established Neighbourhood Zone in Kingswood, Hawthorn and Westbourne Park. The Development Plan seeks

minimum side setbacks of lm from one side and 3m from the other.

Suggestion

Allow for the side setback TNV to replicate the lm & 3m

rule.


Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (Melrose Park)

Interface Management Overlay application

Hazards (Flooding) Overlay & Hazards (Flooding -General) Overlay

Overlay application correction


Pa e 21


Concern

Resident ial (Central Plains) Zone Policy Area 12 acts as a "buffer" between the land uses within the Industry/Commerce Melrose Park Zone and t he adjacent residential neighbourhood. In part, the interface between the two types of uses is managed by limiting land division in Policy Area 12 and therefore t he Development Plan does not nominate minimum quantifiab le requirements for new allotments. As such, in the transition to t he Code, there have not been any minimum allotment size or frontage width TNVs applied. There is concern that transitioning this area to the Code wit hout TNVs o r other mechanisms to control land division that interface issues between t he types of zones and land uses will be exacerbated.

Suggestion

Apply the Interface Management Overlay to Resident ial (Central Plains) Zone Policy Area 12 to better manage interface matters.

Concern

It is noted that there is a corridor of properties which runs alongside the Hazard (Flooding) Overlay for both the Brown Hill a nd Minno Creeks, within which neit her the high risk nor low risk flood overlays are applied.

This is an anomaly given the proximity of t hese properties to t he creek corridors relative to t he balance of the council area, over which the low risk overlay applies. It leaves a relevant authority without any policy lever to apply in respect to flood management aspects of a development assessment and t herefore exposes the subject property (and potentially others in t he vicinity) to risk.


Minno Creek (upper) corridor

Minno Creek (middle & lower) corridor

Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/ TNV t o be applied

Cit y of M itcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 22


It is also noted that the mapping contained within the Development Plan ("Residential Land within the Vicinity of a Watercourse") has not been translated to the Hazards (Flooding) Overlay as Council had a nt icipated and instead has either t he Hazards (Flooding - General) Overlay or no overlay. This leaves several properties exposed to significa nt risk in terms of flood management.

Suggestion

Review the extent of t he Hazards (Flooding) Overlay application Apply the Hazards (Flooding) Overlay to properties already subject to flood mapping within t he Development Plan ("Residential Land within the Vicinity of a Watercourse") Apply the Hazards (Flooding - General) Overlay to the balance of properties (both whole and portion thereof). Work through t hese detai ls with council's planning and engineering staff to ensure the mapping properly represents the risk.


City of Mitcham Submission on the Revised Draft Planning & Design Code

Pa e 23



' .

-



Pa e 24




Pa e 25



St Marys Anglican Church, 1163-1167 South Road, St Marys

- . •• I

--l,..~ ~:;, - .... , "

~'\,• ~ ;,,_ .. . ' ~..... r\0.,

~·•· ·. ~

• PftOf't llTV lt.lfOl'tl,O,TlOM.11.(v:ol 1 OE 1 •

1i6~~161 S.Ov.h Ro111d ST MAAYS SA 51),f,2

la~I() 42340

CTRi!f 6237iS33

• Q\V',HI.D£fJJLS • 1 OF 1 •

o wner N;e.-re S,'1:Ki o=~t J..del11i~A."tsl 'un Ch"°'hAUst

Owner Add"e:ci; , !:rl:,1e\'Cc~I Street HJ,o\i;,iORI, SA SC&J


Clarity required


Pa e 26


The e nquiry tool does not provide a response for searching the address at 1163-7 (or any variation thereof) South Road, St Marys

Enquiry via SAPPA for t his s ite (St Marys Anglican Church) returns dupl icate zones (Community Facilit ies and Employment)

The s ite occupied by the Church is located adjacent selfstorage fa cility (properties are both owned by Synod

Diocese Adelaide Anglican Church.


~""'"" Sf'OdO.O:-,:;,,,,,-... ,:,,,g,;un (/'U!'C:l\;\Uf

0...-- j,ddt"i- , IOWW-4" SlffN

"'wr,.om$1,5(6?



Pa e 27


Current Proposed Planning and Design Code Proposed Planning and Design Code modules -Zone/subzone/Overlay/ TNV to be applied

Design Overlay


Pa e 28


The Design Overlay appears suitable for application to the Urban Corridor (Living) Zone (Goodwood Road and Belair Road) and Urban Neighbourhood Zone (Panorama).

These are the areas of Council w it hin which a higher density of development is ant icipated, and which would benefit from addit ional performance outcome standards from a design perspective.


Urban Corridor (Living) - Goodwood Rd

1 qy 1 , 2.1 Tll Urban Neighbourhood - Goodwood Rd



Pa e 29


Documents

m.m I .