PlanningAlerts

19 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Two 2-storey detached dwellings on this site are, I believe, not in sympathy with existing houses in The Grove. Just another greedy developer.

2. The Grove is a beautiful street. Why ruin it with some 2-storey cookie cutter buildings? This area needs protection from greedy developers simply looking to profit!

3. Previously Mitcham Council would have vetoed proposals unlike this because they do not fulfill the area requirements for central plains 8.

   However as it would not tick all of the boxes one would hope Mitcham council would have more say in assessing this application.

   2 storey houses are in my opinion out of character for this street. One only needs to look at 49 price avenue to see what the 2 storey development will look like - overdeveloped, dominated by garage doors and badly proportioned.

   The site is simply not big enough for 2 detached dwellings either (425m2 ea, min 500m2). They would need to be attached. Which would lead to a back to back arrangement with garages. Standard bland cookie cutter design. Please do this kind of thing in a different suburb.

   It’s obvious to all why the owner wants to develop this - one house will pay for the other. A new house for free. There is no reason why these need to be 2 storey other than greed. Surely a better outcome for the area could be achieved by making these single storey and maintaining as many trees as possible so we do not have to look at this monstrosity.

4. Lower Mitcham is a beautiful area of character and some newer homes.
   There appears to have been an increase in redevelopment lately in the area.
   Thankfully, most have been done keeping with, or complementing, the character of the suburb.
   To consider building 2 x 2 storey houses on a single block in this area, in my opinion, does not fit in with the area and would also result in the loss of more tree coverage.
   Urban infill is becoming more commonplace in many areas.
   This increases local traffic volume and on-street parking, and also increases the load on old and already stressed services such as sewer and stormwater.
   If it is necessary to build 2 on a block, let's please keep them to single storey and to maintain the long standing character of this area.

5. My wife and I own 50 The Grove, Lower Mitcham and absolutely object to the approval of a proposed development involving 2 x 2 story houses at 25 The Grove, Lower Mitcham. The proposed development is completely out of character for such a grand boulevard that is The Grove. Moreover it will completely destroy the privacy of the two adjacent houses, and cause parking problems in both The Grove and in Catherine Street. Whilst there have been recent new developments on the The Grove, they have all been single story, single dwelling developments that are sympathetic to the wonderful character of The Grove.

6. We recently moved onto The Grove, Lower Mitcham and it was the lack of urban infill and the tree lined streets which attracted us to the area. 2 X 2 storey houses on that corner block would look out of place and may result in the loss of more trees. 2 storey houses would also overlook the neighbours and block light from them. If there needs to be 2 houses on that corner single story would be more in keeping with the street.

7. All of these postings adequately state the case for this planned development to be blocked. However, additionally what needs to be done is to email the two councillors for Gault Ward, Coralie Cheney and Rod Moss. Both people, I believe, would show empathy with our views. I believe a letterbox drop in The Grove and preferably surrounding streets, should be a priority. I would be more than happy to coordinate and participate in this, however circumstances currently prevent my participation.
   Contact details for the Councillors are as follows:
   rmoss@mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au and ccheney@mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au
   Local residents may consider additional representations to the relevant authorities that decide on such matters.

8. This proposal is completely out of character for The Grove. I feel strongly that this development not only negatively affects neighbours in terms of natural light and privacy, but sets a precedent for what I believe is one of Lower Mitcham’s greatest assets.

9. This proposal is completely out of character for The Grove. I feel strongly that this development not only negatively affects neighbours in terms of natural light and privacy, but sets a precedent for what I believe is one of Lower Mitcham’s greatest assets.

10. Clearly, there is very considerable concern in regard to this application. And the concerns are very valid, for all the reasons that have been spelled out above. For this reason I feel its essential that the proposed development should be deemed Notifiable by the council planning department. This would allow further time for consideration and provide a formal process for residents concerns to be included in the decision.
    Otherwise, the council will be forced by legislation to complete the approval very quickly. I also support the suggestion made by Brian Ross, of contacting the two councillors for Gault Ward, Coralie Cheney and Rod Moss. Brian believes that both of them would show empathy with our views. Their contact details are: rmoss@mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au and ccheney@mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au

    As an immediate (and very long term) neighbour of the proposed development I would be severely impacted if it went ahead as planned. I greatly appreciate the support being shown for blocking the new proposal. There has already been approval for two single storey homes at 25 The Grove, and for the land division. But now the developer is pushing for more. Having two 2-storey McMansions on this block would clearly:

    Block out light and sunshine for neighbours.
    Provide a planning precedent for similar developments anywhere in The Grove
    Negatively alter the character of the street
    Reduce backyard privacy
    Lower the value of adjacent houses.

    I strongly believe there should be more consultation on this proposal. It should be made notifiable so that residents concerns can be heard. This needs to be done immediately, as a final decision will otherwise be made in a matter of days.
    

11. This is the full text of the comments we have recently sent to the planning officer and councillors relevant to this application.

    ======

    We are writing to register objection to the proposed development at 25 The Grove, Lower Mitcham. The property is a corner block with a block size of 851sqm. We understand it has recently had approval for subdivision into two 425sqm blocks. Due to this size, under the PlanSA Planning Code we assume the proposed development is for semi-detached properties, but we have not seen copies of the development plans.

    Without detail of the plans being made available we can only speculate, but it seems to us that achieving this much dwelling on this small a block will likely substantially exceed the percentage site area and setback requirements.

    The details provided in the SA Planning Portal indicate that the proposed development will consist of two 2-storey properties on this subdivided block. However, the code states, for Suburban Neighbourhood Zone, Desired Outcome DO 1, that: "Low density housing is consistent with the existing local context and development pattern."

    In addition, Performance Outcome PO 2.1 states that "Allotments/sites created for residential purposes are of suitable size and dimension and are compatible with the housing pattern consistent to the locality."

    We will show that the proposed development does not satisfy either DO 1 or PO 2.1.

    Lower Mitcham contains a number of broad leafy "avenue"-like streets, of which The Grove is one. The Grove in the east contains a single-storey Local Heritage property (#12) and in the west it ends in the suburb of Colonel Light Gardens where all properties are heritage listed. Along the entire stretch of The Grove, there are numerous bungalows and other character houses, and it is notable that within Lower Mitcham and particularly in its broad avenues, there are very few houses with a two-story frontage.

    On the Grove itself, one kilometer long and comprising over one hundred properties, only one of those (#62) has a two-storey frontage. (In the few cases where a second storey has been added to an existing dwelling, it has been done at the rear of the property and in a way that minimises the visual impact from the street.) This one property with a two-storey frontage is a 1977 property on a large corner block with a large setback, several blocks away from the proposed development. In contrast, the proposed development for #25 would place a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on the minimum block size allowable after subdivision.

    Therefore, the proposal to build two-storey semi-detached dwellings on The Grove is not consistent with the primary Desired Outcome of the Planning Code for this locality, since the nature of the proposed dwellings is entirely out of character (i.e., does not match the local context and development pattern) with the street and many surrounding streets. As there are no other small-block, semi-detached, two-storey properties nearby, the proposed development is simply not compatible with the local housing pattern, which is the requirement of Performance Outcome PO 2.1.

    We also note that it will be a loss for the suburb to lose the substantial native trees that currently exist along the fenceline of this property. The green canopy and shade provided by the trees on this block truly has a positive influence on the amenity along this stretch of The Grove. Green space in Mitcham is reducing as a result of new development (as documented in "Greener Spaces Better Places") and although we do not object to new development we believe it is vital that there are accomodations for new trees to be planted around new properties, and wherever possible for substantial and native trees to be retained.

12. having spoken to Sean Elliot at Mitcham Council is sounds like as long as they amend their current application they can fulfil the 'deem to satisfy' requirements they can have their 2 x 2 storey mc mansion application approved by a private certifier without any public consultation.

    the planning laws have been 'simplified' in SA recently so that in certain areas (such as this) a simple check box approach is all that is required. i strongly disagree as there is no consideration for local context or orientation to sunlight. there should be no 2 storey developments on this street - especially on the south side where there will be limited access to daylight.

    it might be worth contacting the local MP Carolyn Power to voice your concerns as it sounds like Mitcham Council are unable to do anything about this.

13. Carolyn Power has a coffee catch-up tomorrow (23 November 2021) from 11a.m.-noon at Bracegirdles on Cross Rd, Clarence Park. I intend to go as I am really worried about Planning SA's new development rules not sufficiently taking into account overlooking into backyards. DTS/DPF 10.1 provides rules to ensure that upper level windows facing side or rear boundaries shared with a residential use in a neighbourhood-type zone do not overlook rear and side neighbours' private gardens; however, it is unclear about front boundaries overlooking across narrow streets like Catherine Street. The proposed development does not mitigate overlooking into backyards on the western side of Catherine Street. If it is allowed as is, this will set a precedence for all future developments in Mitcham and de-value corner blocks subjected to two-storey houses overlooking their backyards. Children should be able to feel safe playing in backyards without potentially being spied on from people in upper-storey rooms or balconies.

    This development may also block sun to solar panels installed to the south of the development.

    The original proposal of two single-storey houses were compatible with the area, were not an eye-sore, do not overlook backyards, do not block sunshine onto solar panels and do not negatively impact all the neighbours that do not deserve inconsiderate treatment by the owner. There is a high demand for modest-size homes with modest-size gardens so I am sure the original proposal would be economically viable to the owner.

14. As a new resident of a house on The Grove, we are strongly opposed to developing 2 x 2 storey houses at 25 The Grove Lower Mitcham.

    While we have only been in the area for the last four years, we previously lived in the Marion Council area for 17 years and watched our suburb get destroyed by developers. EVERY house that was developed during this time ( and still is), was split into 2,3 or even 4 townhouses with block sizes going under 200sqm with 3 bedroom houses on them. All this has done was create a concrete jungle, with hundreds of cars being parked on the street as all the garages on these properties are being used for storage and not for cars. This is one of the main reasons why we left and moved into The Grove. We hoped that Mitcham council had more sense to protect the heritage and not destroy what is a beautiful area just for money.

    We are not against the building of new houses that compliment the area and are single storey, but as soon as you start splitting blocks like this and building 2-storey homes, it continues with each new build and before your know it, the suburb is unrecognisable.

    I can now stress how strongly opposed we are to this planning proposal.

15. The issue of lack of privacy due to the windows of two storey houses facing adjoining properties is already taken into account. I believe such windows need to be ‘frosted’ therefore denying the two storey home owner the opportunity of prying. This issue cannot be raised with a view to stopping the totally inappropriate development planned for 25 The Grove.

16. Again, all they need to do is make their design comply with the new planning design code and they’re good to go with building 2x2 storey mc mansions and there will be nothing Mitcham council can do about it. We won’t even know it has been approved. It is a state planning policy issue and therefore you need to contact your local MP urgently to try and stop this development.

17. Approval of a development of this kind on The Grove will ruin the character of the area. The block seems too small for it and the impact on the neighbouring properties will be negative. I dread seeing the wave of ugly developments of this kind on what is a beautiful leafy street that will surely follow if it is approved by council.

18. It must surely go without saying that real estate developers desiring to make money through their developments usually have very little stake in their cultural and heritage impacts, if any at all. And that they will use every available opportunity to push applications through. It would be naive to think otherwise. The issue here is whether a proposal that can manage to “tick all the boxes” under the new planning rules, and despite failing to meet the underlying requirements of the Planning Act , somehow be given approval to proceed.
    This proposal is obviously in conflict with some of the most important considerations identified in the Act. Namely; on SA Planning Portal:
    The code states, for Suburban Neighbourhood Zone: -
    Desired Outcome DO 1, that: "Low density housing is consistent with the existing local context and development pattern.”
    and, Performance Outcome PO 2.1 states that "Allotments/sites created for residential purposes are of suitable size and dimension and are compatible with the housing pattern consistent to the locality."
    These requirements are obviously not met by the currently proposed two 2-story developments on a small block. This proposal actually exceeds the newly reduced regulations for the building to cover less than 50% of the block. It breaks the rules by demanding even more building coverage than is allowed under the new relaxed planning rules.
    I feel that for these, and other reasons spelled out by other concerned ratepayers, the proposal must be publicly notified by the City Of Mitcham Council, to allow further consultation with other residents, many of who would be negatively impacted by this shocking development, if it were allowed to proceed.
    Planning approval for any McMansion style developments on undersized blocks in The Grove would create a precedent that would allow other similar developments to gain approval much more easily. So this is not simply an issue about a single approval. It's about opening a floodgate to many similar proposals that would destroy the character of this beautiful street.
    For these reason, I feel any decisions should be delayed, and the planning proposal should be notified to other residents for their comments.

    Local counselors carry some very difficult and heavy responsibilities, and need to be supported by their community in carrying out these responsibilities.
    The Local Government Act specifies that council members must:
    represent the interests of ratepayers and residents;
    provide community leadership and guidance; and
    facilitate communication between the community and the council.
    And:
    The Local Government Act specifies that council members must:
    represent the interests of ratepayers and residents;
    provide community leadership and guidance; and
    facilitate communication between the community and the council.
    At times, this might put counselors in conflict with players who have other objectives, for example, developers who wish to profit from inappropriate developments. I feel our elected counselors should be given every possible support and encouragement to carry out their obligations under the Local Government Act. And given recognition for their courage in resisting any developments that are in not in the interests of ratepayers.

19. Hello to Wendy Lee, the developer of the two storey dwelling at the back of 25 The Grove, Lower Mitcham. Would you please move the CCTV camera that you have had installed above the garage which looks over my 1.8m high boundary fence into my bedroom. Would you please move the camera lower down the wall so that it does not look over my fence. You will still be able to keep an eye on your property without invading my privacy. I would like to be able to sleep in my bed with the window open without you filming me. I am really worried that you will be jeopardizing my safety if you leave it there.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to South Australia Planning Portal. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment