Recent comments on applications from City of Holdfast Bay, SA

  1. In Hove SA on “Removal of regulated tree...” at Alwyndor Aged Care 52-64 Dunrobin Road Hove SA 5048:

    Jeff Lennard commented

    Rembrandt Living in Oaklands Park is removing a large tree, and now so is Alwyndor Aged Care in Warradale. What have aged care homes got against trees? Never mind social distancing, how about a bit of botanical distancing between them and their neighbours. Do they have to develop every square centimetre of their land?

  2. In North Brighton SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Quandong Street North Brighton SA 5048:

    Sue Horstmann commented

    What’s the point if providing feedback to Council when the DAP ignore their own guidelines.
    This developer has received approval to subdivide this land & build 2 two story houses on a hammerhead which ignores numerous development guidelines. What’s more the recommendations to proceed by the Town Planner were Based on the wrong code for this area

  3. In Somerton Park SA on “Change in use of land from...” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Linda C commented

    I am completely against this proposed development by McDonald’s. This location is very close to both a primary and high school, encouraging unhealthy eating choices in our children. There will be an increase in traffic, noise and litter in the area. This is already a busy place with traffic and children commuting to school. The council must reject this application

  4. In Glenelg SA on “Regulation 47A Minor...” at 8 South Esplanade Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Can you please supply specific detail as to what these changes are, why they are considered necessary and what the benefit is, and to whom. Thank you.

  5. In Somerton Park SA on “Two dwellings (Residential...” at 42 Tarlton Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Simon commented

    Dear Sir/Madam
    We are a neighbour of this property.
    Our recently completed home design has been approved and based on the Northern aspect. We have a significant interest in any development pertaining to the Southern Boundary of 42 Tarlton Street.
    Accordingly , we seek strong consideration on maintaining both
    - any overshadowing that diminishes our Northern light
    - our privacy from any overlooking dwelling
    Given multiple dwellings are proposed , we view this as potentially materially effecting our peace and enjoyment of our property.

  6. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 64 Bowker Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Nick Pedler commented

    Hi Janet,

    Unfortunately the house is already demolished, otherwise I would’ve definitely been ok to let you come through and have a look.

    Cheers,
    Nick

  7. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 64 Bowker Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Mrs Janet Russack commented

    If 64 Bowker Street is going yo be demolished I would love the opportunity to look through the home. I grew up there, my parents built that house in 1952 and we moved in in the October of that year.
    There are many memories I have and it would be wonderful to see inside.

  8. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Elissa commented

    This strip of 5ks of Brighton Road has 5 petrol stations and multiple shops. There is so many issues with traffic and congestion along this strip. Its a short space of road and there is no need to add another petrol station when there is one about 500m up the road. This needs to be rejected - its bad for the road space, the locals and the environment. Please consider these comments.

  9. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    We are trying to reduce our dependence on petrol and a lot of people are looking to electric cars
    Why are you even considering this?

  10. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Claire Lock commented

    Please reject this application. There are already multiple stations within close proximity to the site and this proposal brings traffic, health and safety concerns.
    Traffic is already an issue at the intersection of Francis Street, with the street being used for U-turns and thoroughfare traffic due to Cecilia Street being closed from right turns. We have witnessed near collisions at this intersection and the location of a petrol station will only add to traffic congestion and road safety issues.
    Furthermore, how are local residents health, safety and welfare being taken into consideration?
    Placing a petrol station adjacent to housing presents unnecessary risks, including potential for explosions, loitering, late night noise and unsavoury behavior, air, noise and light pollution for residents in the immediate area.
    Bringing an additional service station into the area is completely unnecessary and does not consider the welfare or investment implications for the existing community.

  11. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Dave Lock commented

    A service station is unnecessary with many options within 3km of this application, not to mention the 4 way intersection leading into Francis St which is already dangerous with minimal turning right lane off Brighton Road and acts as a U turn to many because it’s the only right hand turn because Cecelia St has been blocked.
    Has any thought been put into place with design to protect my investment and my home and our surrounding neighbours community from noise pollution, late night hoons, fuel tankers, possible explosions, crime and loitering, plant equipment noise all which come hand in hand with a 24/7 service stations.

  12. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Wade Hoey commented

    Please reject this application. Another petrol station on Brighton Road is totally unacceptable and unhealthy to the community specifically in this section of Brighton Road. There already is a Caltex across the road with 2 OTRs on the same side as the application in very close proximity. There would be no commercial advantage or supply requirement in building another petrol station at this location due to the heavy competition of already established petrol stations especially the OTRs. Again please reject this application.

  13. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Nick Pedler commented

    Ridiculously unnecessary application. There is already 2 OTR’s, 1 Caltex and 1 Woolworths petrol within that 3km stretch of Brighton road between Diagonal and Sturt Roads.

  14. In Brighton SA on “Construction of three...” at 7 Jetty Road Brighton SA 5048:

    Neil Morris commented

    There is already heavy demand for parking and access on Jetty Road and surrounding areas. Allowing the continual over-development is destroying Adelaide's way of life. This application should be reviewed to ensure that cars are off the street (think about the business in this area. Where will patrons go?) Enforce 1 onsite carpark per bedroom. (if not enough space go back to 2 buildings!) Under Main Roof garage is storage, not a carpark. Ensure the open/free space for rainfall soakage. Consider the building orientation to integrate with existing residence and maximise curb on road.

    Put an end to the over-development. Please support the below.

    http://chng.it/4xHd8JWHcY

    https://www.makingmarion.com.au/not-in-our-streets

  15. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Alan commented

    Its nearly 12 months since the McDonalds application.
    Is there any comment on this thread from the Local Council?
    Has any decision been made to accept or reject the application?
    McDonalds should re-open one of their two closed franchises at Westfield Marion, not open a new one near schools.
    It would also affect the students of Sacred Heart upper school campus, not just Brighton High and Paringa Primary.

  16. In Glenelg East SA on “Removal of significant SA...” at 122 Brighton Road Glenelg East SA 5045:

    Sarah commented

    Could the occupants of this home please consider donating the leaves to Koalas in need of fresh browse.
    With the fires in cuddles creek affecting their habitat, the Koala hospital and koalas on KI are in need

  17. In Glenelg East SA on “Removal of significant SA...” at 122 Brighton Road Glenelg East SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    I am assuming that significant trees are protected on private property (as there would be no reason to apply to council for removal if this was not the case). Therefore what is the basis for considering removal? If approval to remove tree is granted, what Protection is actually afforded to the tree by being termed significant in practical terms?

  18. In Glenelg SA on “Removal of Significant...” at 37-39 Partridge Street Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  19. In Glenelg North SA on “Regulated tree removal...” at 27 Golflands Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  20. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Salisbury Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Brigg Maund commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am the owner of 2B Boundary road which backs onto the garden of this property and shares a boundary. I would like to understand the plans for this development before it proceeds as there may be significant impact to both our peace, privacy and property value caused by the new build.
    I would also like to discuss if there are any more land on fencing, which I understand is a shared responsibility.

    Sincerely,
    Brigg Maund

  21. In Brighton SA on “Two, two storey detached...” at 20 Coventry Street Brighton SA 5048:

    Resident of Holdfast Council commented

    In the interest of public disclosure - I'd like to illustrate how inept Holdfast Council is at performing their duty. Essentially, the below chain of communication highlights that Holdfast Council do not have any inclination to observe the requirements in their own Development Plan and completely ignore any development requirements. This is posted as a "buyer beware" notification for anyone who is considering purchasing a property in an area in which the Development Plan indicates that no two storey development should be allowed. This is total rubbish and the council will approve two storey development at the drop of a hat. (names removed for privacy - suggest reading from the bottom up from this point.)
    ______________________________________

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 4:48 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    Sorry for any confusion here however I thought I clarified that in my email dated 19/07/19. As explained in that email because the application was considered under the Residential Code the only aspect of the development that Council could assess and refuse was the setback from Swan Street. For reasons explained in that email the setback was considered satisfactory and approved. The applicant could have chosen to have the whole development assessed by a private certifier , in which case there would have been no involvement by Council other than to issue development approval once the planning and building consents had been received.
    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 11:32 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    Thank you for your response. I appreciate that Council agrees with the Residential Code assessment outcome. However this does not deal with the fact that the development application is in gross misalignment with the principles of the Council Development Plan. In your below email dated 23 September, you indicated that Council has less control over applications, but you have not stated that Council has zero control. On this point, you have also not answered my question in my former email of 18 September, specifically:

    Did Holdfast Council have the capacity to reject the Development Application?

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 11:16 AM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I note the Ministers response which correctly states that it is the role of Council to grant development approval after planning and building rules consents have been granted. In deed the law requires Council to grant development approval once planning and building rules consents have been obtained. The processes involved with the planning assessment and consent as distinct from the final development approval was explained in my previous email, noting that Council has less control over development when assessed against the Residential Code as opposed to Council Development Plan. Council is of the opinion that the assessment procedures and approvals for the development are correct.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2019 9:42 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I have contacted the Minister for Planning in regards to this application to seek advice on why/how it is possible that a Development Plan that specifically indicates “no two story houses east of Brighton Road” can be entirely ignored.

    The Minister’s response is attached for your reference. In it, he writes that “It is then the role of council to grant development approval after planning and building rules consents have been granted”. This implies that Holdfast Council still had right of refusal to grant development application as said application was in breach of the principles of the Development Plan as I have highlighted in previous emails.

    I would appreciate your response on this matter to clarify whether Holdfast Council did in fact have the capacity to reject the development application or whether the Minister has provided me with incorrect information.

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Friday, 19 July 2019 3:16 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I note your concerns and if fully assessed under Councils Development Plan I agree that there would be more reasons to warrant a refusal. As previously advised however the application has been submitted under the Residential Code, which was introduced by the Minister and supersedes Councils Development Plan in areas that are applicable to the Code. The Code does not have the same regard to bulk and scale as does our Development Plan and if the application meets certain basic criteria of the Code then it is ‘complying’ development which must be approved. The Code also allows for one non-compliance of the relevant criteria, which can be assessed as a ‘limited assessment’ on merit.

    The subject development meets the relevant Code criteria regarding the secondary road setback to Coventry Street, side and rear setbacks, boundary and other wall heights and other criteria except for the Swan street setback which was assessed as the limited assessment. This was the only aspect that could legally be assessed so most of the Development Plan provisions you have referred to could not be considered. In assessing the Swan street setback consideration was given to a number of factors including its location at the end of Swan Street, the similar setbacks associated with the two storey development previously approved and under construction at the western end of Swan street and reduced setbacks to a number of other dwellings facing Swan Street. Having regard to those it was considered the street setback is satisfactory and given compliance with other Code criteria Development Plan Consent has been granted.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Friday, 19 July 2019 9:56 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    I thank you for responding to my previous email. I note that the development application related to 20 Coventry Street, Brighton (i.e. Application ID 110/00426/19) has transitioned to “planning consent” and this concerns me deeply hence I would like to make further enquiries and advise that I am still highly dissatisfied with any decision that would allow the construction of two storey dwellings at this location. I am not opposed to the subdivision of the land as has been done already at 10, 12, & 16 Coventry Street. My grievance is solely with any application to allow multiple-storey construction on this street.
    I fail to see how any development can occur that does not need to be considerate of the Development Plan related to the area in which that development is planned. In this instance, there are multiple elements of the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, 2016 which specifically deter and prohibit the construction of a multiple-storey development at this location as per below.
    I draw your attention to Clause 1 (a) of General Section, Design & Appearance, Principles of Development Control (pg. 33), which states “Buildings should reflect the desired character of the locality while incorporating contemporary designs that have regard to the following… building height…”. There are no two storey dwellings at all on Coventry Street or Swan Street and in allowing the construction of such, I feel would be in contravention of this guiding principle.
    I note that Coventry Street is classified within the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, 2016 as a general “Residential Zone” which highlights the third objective of this Zone as “development that contributes to the desired character of the zone” (pg. 179). This desired character is then defined on the same page as “predominantly low-density suburban form” and that development “will not compromise the suburban character but will progressively increase dwelling densities through unobtrusive small-scale developments. In this regard, infill development will have a comparable height, mass, scale and setbacks to that of existing dwellings in the relevant locality.”. Finally, it is explicitly stated in this description of ‘desired character’ that “Development outside of the policy areas will generally be single storey in height in the areas east of Brighton Road”.
    For all reasons above, I cannot see how it would be possible to permit the construction of two-storey dwellings on 20 Coventry Street, Brighton.

    In regards to setbacks, personally having significant experience in the construction industry, I do not feel that appropriate prescribed setbacks can be achieved for two multiple-storey dwellings on 20 Coventry Street, giving consideration to:
    1. The need to achieve a setback from street frontage consistent with adjacent dwellings (Clause 19, pg. 79; Objective 3, pg. 179)
    2. The need to have sufficient side boundary setback to minimise the visual impact and overshadowing of adjacent properties (Clause 20, (a) & (b), pg. 80)
    3. Rear boundary setbacks of minimum of 6 metres (Clause 21, pg. 80)
    4. Side boundary walls should be limited in length and height to minimise visual impact on adjoining properties (Clause 23 (a), pg. 80)

    I would like to re-iterate my previous point that I am entirely supportive of subdivision and the construction of multiple dwellings at this address and my sole objection is to the allowance of multiple-storey construction.

    It is with respect that I ask that this development application be rejected for all the above reasons and that permission be granted to the applicant to further develop the site to the extent that single storey dwellings only be permitted.

    If this is outside of Holdfast Bay Council’s ability to control, I would be appreciative of information and contact details to allow me to escalate this concern further. I would be happy to discuss this further at any time and can be contacted on xxxxxxxxxx.

    Kindest Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2019 3:14 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development application dispute

    Dear Resident,

    Thank you for your email. Your concerns are noted however the application has been submitted pursuant to the Residential Code. The Residential Code was introduced by the Minister and where applicable supersedes Council’s Development Plan. Developments that meet certain provisions of the Code (Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations – complying development) are not subject to public notification. The Code does allow for two storey developments regardless of existing character subject to meeting prescribed heights and setbacks. Council will finalise its assessment once final plans have been submitted.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay
    Brighton Civic Centre
    24 Jetty Road, Brighton SA 5048

    From: Resident
    Sent: Monday, 17 June 2019 1:30 PM
    To: Holdfast Mail
    Subject: Development application dispute

    Good Morning,

    I am a resident of Holdfast Council and would like to dispute a development application to build two two-storey detached dwellings on an adjacent property. This related to Application 110/00426/19. I do not consent to this development and feel this would significantly detract from the immediate area and devalue my current property. There are currently no two storey dwellings on the entire street, or the entire block on which this development is proposed. There is currently a single single-storey dwelling and demolishing this and replacing with two two-story dwellings would significantly deteriorate from the current amenity of the surrounding area.

    Moreover, the second storey of the dwellings would significantly affect the privacy of the backyards of adjacent dwellings.

    Please advise the process to formally lodge this notification of dispute.

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

  22. In South Brighton SA on “Eight, two storey row...” at 558 Brighton Road South Brighton SA 5048:

    Jane commented

    Totally agree with the above comment! Well said . Trees are going fast , no backyards anymore . We will end up like Sydney and Melbourne. Very sad for our children .

  23. In Brighton SA on “Removal of regulated willow...” at 2/24 Rutland Avenue Brighton SA 5048:

    Jenny Gyss commented

    What’s the point of the tree being ‘significant ‘ if you or other persons can go ahead & remove it, no doubt for ‘significant’ development.🤬

  24. In South Brighton SA on “Eight, two storey row...” at 558 Brighton Road South Brighton SA 5048:

    Neil Morris commented

    To paraphrase the Australian Anthem, ..Beneath our radiant Southern Cross, We've boundless plains to share;
    Yet here we are with another proposed overdeveloped site, on a busy main road, no thought to impact to climate, community or infrastructure.
    This level of development is not sustainable and is destroying what makes Adelaide one of the top 10 city in the world to live. Put an end to this cancerous greed and support the petition on the following link.
    http://chng.it/qZpgjFkKVf

  25. In Hove SA on “Detached dwelling...” at 20 Shephard Street Hove SA 5048:

    Robert Miller commented

    Hi there just wondering if this application is for one storey or two? If it is two stories I would not be happy with windows over looking my property. I hope this will be considered in the planning. thank you

  26. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Canning Street Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Paul Williams commented

    i just hope that the Council is taking into acc the extra parking and traffic flow to the area

  27. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 19 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Bronwyn Watt & Darren Matthew commented

    I feel that the application here is a little misleading. It states two storey townhouses. When in fact it is a SEVEN STOREY (46 apartments), with 10 two storey townhouses in Todd street.
    This is a FIVE storey zone, so why is this development even being consider at SEVEN? I rang SCAP and they advised that it had to be at least six storeys. Seems the zoning is a joke not taken seriously.
    There is another 40 unit development (within 20 metres of this proposal) that was approved last December. This adjacent development has limited parking which will inevitably mean more residents cars being parked in the vicinity. We hope that you consider that Tod Street is very narrow and would find it difficult to accommodate more traffic and/or off-street parking. The area is already very congested. An extremely high-density living area, yet there isn’t enough thought going into the outcome of these high-rise developments.

  28. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Susan You g commented

    We use Kings bridge daily as we go to Glenelg North Beach everyday. The congestion on the bridge at peak times morning, and from 3.30pm and week ends is bad enough but to put a huge apartment building at the end of it is just silly. Who is responsible for rubber stamping these stupid decisions? And we don’t even live nearby!

  29. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 19 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Paul Williams commented

    it states that it is only a two Storey development as long as it has room on site for owners and visitor parking and dose not impinge on Tod st or the surrounding area

  30. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Rachel Koch commented

    We are a family with 5 children (both highschool and primary age) living in this zone/area. Putting a maccas directly across from BSS and Paringa Park Primary School is deplorable. It can be stated again and again that the students are not the target, but let’s be honest.... they will be there all the time! We see enough problems with health, not to mention the environmental effects of this franchise. Our schools are so diligent with educating the kids and parents on ‘one use’ packaging. I send my kids lunchboxes in Tupperware and use no plastic waste. Yet here we are with a place that only uses this toxic waste. Our community is family and environmentally focussed. Please keep this away. There are enough of these franchises already. As a community we are all saying, no. Please consider not just the families, but also the massive damage this will do to our amazing locally owned and operated small food businesses in the area. This will no doubt affect them hugely. I’d rather support local small business any day. As would most others I’m certain. Protect our health, environment and small businesses.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts