[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions

You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions >> 2006 >> [2006] SAERDC 7

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Vajdic v City of Burnside [2006] SAERDC 7 (18 January 2006)

Last Updated: 30 January 2006

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

VAJDIC v CITY OF BURNSIDE

Judgment of Commissioner Mosel

18 January 2006

LOCAL GOVERNMENT - TOWN PLANNING

Development application for two, 2 storey semi-detached dwellings - Residential Zone, Residential Policy Area 25 - Beaumont Common - consent refused by the Council - the extent to which the form, scale and design of the proposal conforms with the objective for the policy area the key planning issue - proper application of the provisions for the Development Plan considered - density considered - neither the prevailing character of the locality nor the existing streetscape lends weight to the proposal - little architectural reference to dwellings in the locality - objectives for the zone and policy area able to be realised in the locality - proposed development not adequately compatable with objectives for the policy area and locality - appeal dismissed.
Development Act 1993, referred to.
Heaney v City of Burnside [2005] SAERDC 106; Build-Tec Services v City of Burnside (No. 2) [2005] SAERDC 73, considered.

VAJDIC v CITY OF BURNSIDE
[2006] SAERDC 7

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1 This appeal concerns a proposal for the construction of two, two storey semi-detached dwellings on the land situated at 2 Glenroy Avenue, Beaumont ("the land"). The development application was submitted to the City of Burnside ("the Council") on 1 June 2005. It was processed as a Category 2 development. The Council refused consent and conveyed its reasons for so deciding in the requisite notification dated 29 August 2005. The applicants for consent were aggrieved with the decision and the appeal ensued.
2 The development proposed is depicted on the plan attached (Exhibit A1). The differences between Exhibit A1 and the plans upon which the Council’s decision was based does not raise jurisdictional difficulties.
3 The land is rectangular in shape, has an area of 940 square metres, a frontage of 20.42 metres and a depth of 46.03 metres. Exhibit A1 indicates that the allotment for each proposed dwelling will be formed by dividing the land into two equal areas (each having an area of 470 square metres, a frontage of 10.21 metres and a depth of 46.03 metres). The land is vacant and has modest downward slopes toward the road and the western boundary.
4 The land is in the Residential Zone and Residential Policy Area 25 in the Development Plan for the Council (dated 17 March 2005). It is depicted on Maps Bur/7 and 15.
5 Mr Manos appeared for the appellant and called Mr J Smith, a qualified and experienced planner in support of his case. Mr Hilditch appeared for the respondent Council and called Mr A Rumsby, a qualified and experienced planner. Both Mr Smith and Mr Rumsby each prepared a locality plan for the purposes of their assessment. There is very little between the areas depicted by them. To the extent that the proposed development will be visible from properties in West Terrace, the locality depicted by Mr Rumsby is the more appropriate.
6 Mr Rumsby was more detailed than Mr Smith in his description of the character of the locality (Exhibit R2). He identified at some length the nature of development on properties within the locality that have a frontage to Glenroy Avenue, Devereux Road, West Terrace and Fernleigh Avenue. He summarised his observations in the following terms:

I consider the locality to comprise, largely, original housing stock of modest size and quality of conventional built design. A most notable feature also is that there are only detached dwelling types in the locality. Important elements are the generally single storey design, or single/two storey format generally utilising the lower ground slope to accommodate garaging/carports and to moderate the overall building height. Also important is the conventional roof forms and building modelling and strong street-fronting format (albeit there are a number of "sideage" fences and screen fences on Glenroy Avenue). The avenue of street trees; strong, mature, garden character, and landscape-style brush and screen fencing are also strong elements.

7 I did not read anything in Mr Smith’s statement (Exhibit A4) nor did I observe anything on the view that would be inconsistent with Mr Rumsby’s remarks about the locality. However, Mr Smith made observations about the two storey developments in Fernleigh Avenue and Glenroy Avenue and the prominence of garages attached to some dwellings. He said that the primary character of Glenroy Avenue is drawn from the verges and trees within Glenroy Avenue.
8 As I said earlier, the land is situated in Residential Policy Area 25 – Beaumont Common ("RPA 25") which in turn forms part of the Residential Zone ("the Zone"). Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the Zone and Objective 1 for the Policy Area are expressed thus:

Residential Zone

Objective 1: A zone primarily for residential use with a range of dwelling types in appropriate policy areas to accommodate varied socio-economic needs.
Objective 2: Protection and enhancement of the amenity of residential areas, with particular reference to the objectives for the relevant policy area.
...
Objective 5: Enhancement of the attractive qualities of streetscapes and particularly areas of cohesive character or visual sensitivity, through good design.

Policy Area

Objective 1: Maintenance and enhancement of the low scale, low density residential character that is derived particularly from:
(a) one-storeyed, detached dwellings, predominantly from the post-war period, in a variety of styles, with more recently built dwellings, of one or two storeys, on rising ground towards the south-eastern corner;
(b) streetscapes enhanced by open, well-established, front gardens, grassed verges, and views of public open space;
(c) the existence of Beaumont Common and stands of indigenous trees throughout much of the eastern part of the Policy Area.

9 The extent to which the form, scale and design of the proposed development adequately conforms with the provisions of the Plan which urge compatibility with and conservation of the desired character for RPA 25 is the principal planning issue in these proceedings. The following provisions are those additional to the foregoing which go to the nub of the issue:

Policy Area
1 Development should:

(a) conserve and enhance the character of the Policy Area, described in Objective 1, and significant trees therein; and
(b) complement the scale, bulk, siting and positive elements of existing dwellings where a distinctive and attractive streetscape character exists.

...

4 The site area per dwelling of any type, other than a detached dwelling, (averaged for group dwellings or dwellings in a residential flat building) should be not less than 425 square metres.
Residential Zone

2 Development should be designed to:
...

(d) be consistent with and contribute to achievement of the objectives for the relevant policy area, having due regard to:
(i) siting;
(ii) mass and proportion;
(iii) building materials, patterns, textures, colours and decorative elements;
(iv) ground floor height above natural ground level;
(v) roof form and pitch;
(vi) facade articulation and detailing, and window and door locations and proportions;
(vii) verandas, eaves and parapets;
(viii) fence style and alignment; and
(ix) landscaping.

Residential Development

115 The outer walls of a building should be of a height and length, and located in relation to the boundaries of its site (other than a boundary of a road), so that:
(a) they do not cause a significant loss of amenity, in terms of their visual impact, overshadowing effect or access to daylight, to occupants of adjoining land and buildings; and
(b) the established or desired pattern of space between buildings, as viewed from each road to which the site has frontage, is reinforced;

and in any case (unless prescribed in part of the Zone)

(c) where the floor level of part of the building is more than 1.5 metres above ground level on the site, that portion of the building above that floor level should be set-back not less than four metres from each side boundary of the site and not less than eight metres from the rear boundary; and
(d) where the floor level of part of the building is 1.5 metres or less above ground level on the site, the building should be set-back not less than 1.5 metres from each side boundary of the site (unless it is built abutting such boundary) and not less than four metres from the rear boundary, except that:
...
(ii) a wall of that part of the building, that is between three metres and six metres high above ground level on the site, should be set-back not less than two metres from a side boundary of the site;
...

117 Unless otherwise prescribed in part of a zone, buildings should not exceed:

(a) two storeys (where "two storeys" is defined as one habitable floor level directly above all or part of another); and

(b) a building height of nine metres above natural ground level.

118 Unless otherwise prescribed in part of a zone, a building or buildings on a site, including any building containing a dwelling or dwellings, a carport, a garage or outbuilding, but excluding any building or part of a building comprising a veranda, or a pergola or other garden structure, should not:
(a) have a ground floor area, measured from the external faces of the walls of the building or buildings (or, in the case of a carport, from the outer face of supporting columns), of more than 40 percent of the area of the site (excluding the area of the access strip of a battleaxe site); or
(b) together with impervious driveways and car parking spaces, cover more than 50 percent of the area of that site; or
(c) have a total floor area, measured from the external faces of the walls of the building, or buildings, (or, in the case of a carport, from the outer face of supporting columns) of more than 50 percent of the area of that site.

Council Wide

25 The design of buildings should be of a high standard and related to adjacent buildings and other features which contribute to streetscape quality.
26 To maintain the harmony of built-form character within a streetscape, buildings should:

(a) seek to maintain the continuity of vistas and existing building set-backs;

(b) not be set-back a lesser distance than the nearby buildings with frontage to the same road unless such distance is consistent with the minimum set-back prescribed in the relevant zone and policy area; and
(c) be set-back a greater distance if the proposed building is of greater bulk or height than other buildings fronting the same road, unless the taller or bulkier portion of a building is positioned towards the rear of its site, or the building is effectively screened, so that it will not dominate views from the road.
139 Garages and carports should be compatible with the associated dwelling and adjacent development in terms of scale, roof form and pitch, building materials, colour and detailing.
140 The individual or aggregate width of garage or carport doors should not exceed one-third of the width of the site of the dwelling measured at the front alignment of the building, except on sites fronting the head of a cul-de-sac, or on battleaxe or similarly-shaped allotments.

10 I have also taken into account (Residential Development) Objective 54 and the following text which forms part of that Objective:

Residential development that is well designed takes into account factors such as the bulk, height, set-backs, orientation, and external appearance of a building and its relationship to its site and environs, access needs (inclusive of visitors and people with disabilities), and the privacy, amenity and security of occupants and neighbours.

11 Both Mr Smith and Mr Rumsby acknowledged that the proposed development conformed with many of the relevant quantitative provisions. They include site area, road frontage, road setback distance, building height and private open space. However, they disagree when assessing the proposed against the provisions of Principle 118. Mr Rumsby contends that the terrace at the rear of the dwellings should, because of its increased massing effect, be included in the floor area coverage calculations. If the intention of the Plan is to include the terrace then the total floor area provided for in Principle 118(c) would be exceeded by some considerable margin. Their evidence indicates that any variance between the proposed development and provisions for privacy, stormwater management and environment protection can be satisfied by minor design changes.
12 Mr Smith’s evidence was in support of the proposed development. He opined that the scale of the proposed development reflects that which exists in the locality. He further opined that, in itself, the character of the locality does not conform to that which is expressly desired for RPA 25. Variations to the design of new dwellings from that which exists in the locality, he said, is contemplated in Residential Zone Principle 2. Any concerns about the design features and mass of the proposed dwellings when considered in their setting, in his view, is largely offset by the (larger than required) setback from Glenroy Avenue (and the landscaping opportunities that setback provides), the fact that its height does not exceed the provisions of Council Wide Principle 117 and the intention to construct along the front boundary a courtyard type wall. In light of the siting of other dwellings in the locality, Mr Smith did not consider the deficiency between the setback distance from parts of the upper floor to the side boundaries (Principle 115) of any planning significance.
13 Mr Rumsby opined that there is "some scope to introduce street-fronting dwellings, including semi-detached dwellings to this locality". However, after considering the proposed development within its setting he said that the streetscape impacts and building bulk are at odds with the desired character. Among his reasons for so concluding are the following:
• the strongly mirror-image format of the proposal, replicated also in the front garden layout, is at odds with the more characteristic spacious settings and informal composition of dwellings and their gardens;
• ... [the proposed filling] is at odds, in my view, with the site development approach adopted in the locality where site works are limited to undercrofting of garages and lowering finished ground levels of one/two storey buildings as a means of reducing the apparent building height and bulk ...
• the incorporation of hipped roofs, and a mix of render colours and feature face stone entry elements is generally appropriate as is the adoption of single and two storey building forms. I consider the second storey in this instance is however an excessively dominant element and that ground level wall heights of between 4m and 5m ... are excessive;
• the incorporation of 2m high rendered screen walls on the Glenroy Avenue ... is an appropriate element in this particular streetscape ... The proposed fence/wall and gates does not ... mask the significant, and excessive, hard pavement of the front garden area;
• the pair of double garages ... will also feature strongly and negatively within the streetscape ... the duplication in mirror image form of double garages is foreign in this locality, and contrary to the express terms of Council-wide principle 140, will further emphasise the introduction of a new dwelling type in the locality with design consequences the Development Plan expressly seeks to avoid;
14 Many of these factors were described by Mr Rumsby as being at serious odds with the "predominant composition and street presentation consistently found in the locality ..."
15 Mr Hilditch submitted that the way in which the authors of the Plan have constructed it is an important factor in the assessment of the proposed development. He said that where, as in these proceedings, the type of dwelling proposed in a locality is different from that which the Plan (in Objective 1 for RPA 25) determines to be the predominant type that exists and seeks to enhance and maintain, the design challenge for such a proposal is elevated. He said that satisfying RPA 25 Principle 1(b) it is not a matter in the first instance of the proposal taking its design cues from the existing streetscape. If I understand Mr Hilditch’s submissions correctly he suggested that when applying Principle 1(b), the distinctive and positive elements of the streetscapes from which the desired character of the particular policy area was derived are the proper reference points.
16 Put another way Mr Hilditch is saying that the strategic policy intent of Objective 1 for RPA 25 when applied to a particular locality should not be depreciated by elements of its character that are at odds with that which is desired for the policy area as a whole.
17 Mr Manos submitted, on the other hand, that the approach to the assessment should not lock-in-time the design of new developments to conform with that which Objective 1 describes as the predominant type characterising a policy area. New design arrangements and trends and the dictates of the housing market should not, he said, be impeded by the relevant provisions particularly when the basic land use is not deemed inappropriate for the area.
18 As a general proposition, the approach suggested by Mr Hilditch is a proper approach so far as it goes. It is an approach to be applied in circumstances where a particular locality has within it aspects which might vary from the stated desired character. However, it is not inconceivable that there exists in a policy area as large as RPA 25 localities in which existing development is not consistent with that sought for the policy area as a whole and where prevailing circumstances might, for all practical purposes, prevent the desired character being realised. Furthermore, the extent to which Mr Hilditch’s approach lends weight to a proposition that the scale of new development must be similar to "one-storeyed, detached dwellings" (Objective 1(a)) is a matter that ought to be viewed in the context of the whole of the Plan. It is a proposition that is supported by the terms of Zone Objective 2 and Principle 2(d) for the Zone. However, the way in which the 31 policy areas for the Zone are differentiated suggests to me that the authors of the Plan purposefully placed additional emphasis in eight of the policy areas on one-storeyed buildings as a means of preserving and enhancing their low scale low density residential character. RPA 25 is not included in those policy areas having within them a principle expressly limiting new development to one-storey in height.
19 I have considered at some length the submissions and evidence and that which I saw on the view. The area of the sites for each dwelling exceeds that provided for in Principle 4 for RPA 25. In light of my comments in the matter of Heaney v City of Burnside [2005] SAERDC 106 (at paras 24, 25 and 26) the proposal could be characterised as a low density development. Were considerations of density limited to compliance with numerical guidelines for a particular policy area such a conclusion is supported by the proposal’s compliance with the frontage guidelines in Principle 6. However, as I said in the matter of Build-Tec Services v City of Burnside (No. 2) [2005] SAERDC 73 there are many other considerations (eg dwelling type, form and layout, site coverage, space between buildings) that are to be considered when determining whether a proposed development is a low density type.
20 The extent to which the proposed development achieves the intent of Objective 1 and Principle 1 for the RPA 25 (which objective is to be read with Principles 2 and 3 for the Zone and Council Wide Principle 26) is a question related to its bulk, height and scale. I acknowledge that the total height of the building is within the guidelines established in Principle 117. However, that is not the end of it. The following factors, in my view, tip the scales against the proposed development:
• I acknowledge that the character of the locality has elements that vary from the ingredients identified in Objective 1(a) as being desired for the RPA 25. However, buildings of the bulk, height and scale of the proposal are the exception rather than the rule in the locality. In this respect I disagree with Mr Smith’s evidence. When viewed as a whole, the built form character of the locality is of no assistance to the proposed development when assessed against Objective 1(a) and Principle 1(a) for RPA 25 or Principle 2(d)(ii) for the Zone.
• Much the same can be said of the proposed development when viewed in the Glenroy Avenue streetscape. It is an attractive street without being "distinctive". Its attractiveness is derived from the siting, scale and architecture of buildings on land abutting the street as well as street tree planting. The dwellings to the east are setback quite generous distances from Glenroy Avenue. The scale of the proposal when related to adjacent buildings brings it into conflict with Council Wide Principle 25. Neither the setback of the building nor the fence intended to be established along the Glenroy Avenue boundary assists attaining the harmony sought in Council Wide Principle 26.
• The proposal exhibits little if any architectural reference to dwellings in the locality. It appears to me that the design and siting of the dwellings has largely ignored the purpose behind the provisions of Objective 1(b) and Principles 2(d) and 3 for the Zone. Conflicts with these provisions are occasioned mainly by dominance of the top floors of the building (in turn a consequence of the high parapet style walls and proximity to the side and road boundaries) and the width of the four vehicle garage exceeding as it does the provisions of Principle 140 and necessary driveways which together reduces the area for gardens to a point that is uncharacteristic of the streetscape and unacceptable.
• I acknowledge that the fence may well have been employed as a technique to satisfy Principle 26(c). I acknowledge also that there are some properties in the locality that have erected fences on the road boundaries. Objective 1(b) is clear in its intent but has been ignored largely as a consequence of having to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the proposed building when viewed from Glenroy Avenue by partially concealing it behind the fence.
21 It is not necessary for a building on the land to be restricted to one storey in height to comply with the intent of Objective 1 for RPA 25. Development that is acceptable in terms of its bulk and scale is one that adequately addresses the objectives and related principles when prevailing circumstances of its setting are taken into account. On my observation the foundation of that aspect of the character of the locality that is reflected in Objective 1 remains intact. There is no evidence to suggest that the purpose and intent of RPA 25 cannot be realised with new development providing the design harmony sought in the relevant provisions are met. The scale of the development proposed is not assisted by the realities of existing development in the near vicinity or the locality. By virtue of its architecture, height, total floor area, side setback distances (upper floor), the "consumption" of the available frontage with the garages the development fails to achieve the required compatibility with its setting and the intentions for the Zone and Policy Area.
22 I listened carefully to the submissions of Mr Manos in his final address. There is nothing in the Plan that suggests to me that the design requirements for a building are out of kilter with the housing market. Simply put, the size of the development and the way in which the appellants have sought to accommodate their required facilities is not able to be adequately catered for by the size and dimensions of the land when all relevant circumstances and the provisions of the Plan are considered.
23 The appeal is dismissed. There will be an order accordingly.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAERDC/2006/7.html

1	This appeal concerns a proposal for the construction of two, two storey semi-detached dwellings on the land situated at 2 Glenroy Avenue, Beaumont ("the land"). The development application was submitted to the City of Burnside ("the Council") on 1 June 2005. It was processed as a Category 2 development. The Council refused consent and conveyed its reasons for so deciding in the requisite notification dated 29 August 2005. The applicants for consent were aggrieved with the decision and the appeal ensued.
2	The development proposed is depicted on the plan attached (Exhibit A1). The differences between Exhibit A1 and the plans upon which the Council’s decision was based does not raise jurisdictional difficulties.
3	The land is rectangular in shape, has an area of 940 square metres, a frontage of 20.42 metres and a depth of 46.03 metres. Exhibit A1 indicates that the allotment for each proposed dwelling will be formed by dividing the land into two equal areas (each having an area of 470 square metres, a frontage of 10.21 metres and a depth of 46.03 metres). The land is vacant and has modest downward slopes toward the road and the western boundary.
4	The land is in the Residential Zone and Residential Policy Area 25 in the Development Plan for the Council (dated 17 March 2005). It is depicted on Maps Bur/7 and 15.
5	Mr Manos appeared for the appellant and called Mr J Smith, a qualified and experienced planner in support of his case. Mr Hilditch appeared for the respondent Council and called Mr A Rumsby, a qualified and experienced planner. Both Mr Smith and Mr Rumsby each prepared a locality plan for the purposes of their assessment. There is very little between the areas depicted by them. To the extent that the proposed development will be visible from properties in West Terrace, the locality depicted by Mr Rumsby is the more appropriate.
6	Mr Rumsby was more detailed than Mr Smith in his description of the character of the locality (Exhibit R2). He identified at some length the nature of development on properties within the locality that have a frontage to Glenroy Avenue, Devereux Road, West Terrace and Fernleigh Avenue. He summarised his observations in the following terms:

11	Both Mr Smith and Mr Rumsby acknowledged that the proposed development conformed with many of the relevant quantitative provisions. They include site area, road frontage, road setback distance, building height and private open space. However, they disagree when assessing the proposed against the provisions of Principle 118. Mr Rumsby contends that the terrace at the rear of the dwellings should, because of its increased massing effect, be included in the floor area coverage calculations. If the intention of the Plan is to include the terrace then the total floor area provided for in Principle 118(c) would be exceeded by some considerable margin. Their evidence indicates that any variance between the proposed development and provisions for privacy, stormwater management and environment protection can be satisfied by minor design changes.
12	Mr Smith’s evidence was in support of the proposed development. He opined that the scale of the proposed development reflects that which exists in the locality. He further opined that, in itself, the character of the locality does not conform to that which is expressly desired for RPA 25. Variations to the design of new dwellings from that which exists in the locality, he said, is contemplated in Residential Zone Principle 2. Any concerns about the design features and mass of the proposed dwellings when considered in their setting, in his view, is largely offset by the (larger than required) setback from Glenroy Avenue (and the landscaping opportunities that setback provides), the fact that its height does not exceed the provisions of Council Wide Principle 117 and the intention to construct along the front boundary a courtyard type wall. In light of the siting of other dwellings in the locality, Mr Smith did not consider the deficiency between the setback distance from parts of the upper floor to the side boundaries (Principle 115) of any planning significance.
13	Mr Rumsby opined that there is "some scope to introduce street-fronting dwellings, including semi-detached dwellings to this locality". However, after considering the proposed development within its setting he said that the streetscape impacts and building bulk are at odds with the desired character. Among his reasons for so concluding are the following:
•	the strongly mirror-image format of the proposal, replicated also in the front garden layout, is at odds with the more characteristic spacious settings and informal composition of dwellings and their gardens;
•	... [the proposed filling] is at odds, in my view, with the site development approach adopted in the locality where site works are limited to undercrofting of garages and lowering finished ground levels of one/two storey buildings as a means of reducing the apparent building height and bulk ...
•	the incorporation of hipped roofs, and a mix of render colours and feature face stone entry elements is generally appropriate as is the adoption of single and two storey building forms. I consider the second storey in this instance is however an excessively dominant element and that ground level wall heights of between 4m and 5m ... are excessive;
•	the incorporation of 2m high rendered screen walls on the Glenroy Avenue ... is an appropriate element in this particular streetscape ... The proposed fence/wall and gates does not ... mask the significant, and excessive, hard pavement of the front garden area;
•	the pair of double garages ... will also feature strongly and negatively within the streetscape ... the duplication in mirror image form of double garages is foreign in this locality, and contrary to the express terms of Council-wide principle 140, will further emphasise the introduction of a new dwelling type in the locality with design consequences the Development Plan expressly seeks to avoid;
14	Many of these factors were described by Mr Rumsby as being at serious odds with the "predominant composition and street presentation consistently found in the locality ..."
15	Mr Hilditch submitted that the way in which the authors of the Plan have constructed it is an important factor in the assessment of the proposed development. He said that where, as in these proceedings, the type of dwelling proposed in a locality is different from that which the Plan (in Objective 1 for RPA 25) determines to be the predominant type that exists and seeks to enhance and maintain, the design challenge for such a proposal is elevated. He said that satisfying RPA 25 Principle 1(b) it is not a matter in the first instance of the proposal taking its design cues from the existing streetscape. If I understand Mr Hilditch’s submissions correctly he suggested that when applying Principle 1(b), the distinctive and positive elements of the streetscapes from which the desired character of the particular policy area was derived are the proper reference points.
16	Put another way Mr Hilditch is saying that the strategic policy intent of Objective 1 for RPA 25 when applied to a particular locality should not be depreciated by elements of its character that are at odds with that which is desired for the policy area as a whole.
17	Mr Manos submitted, on the other hand, that the approach to the assessment should not lock-in-time the design of new developments to conform with that which Objective 1 describes as the predominant type characterising a policy area. New design arrangements and trends and the dictates of the housing market should not, he said, be impeded by the relevant provisions particularly when the basic land use is not deemed inappropriate for the area.
18	As a general proposition, the approach suggested by Mr Hilditch is a proper approach so far as it goes. It is an approach to be applied in circumstances where a particular locality has within it aspects which might vary from the stated desired character. However, it is not inconceivable that there exists in a policy area as large as RPA 25 localities in which existing development is not consistent with that sought for the policy area as a whole and where prevailing circumstances might, for all practical purposes, prevent the desired character being realised. Furthermore, the extent to which Mr Hilditch’s approach lends weight to a proposition that the scale of new development must be similar to "one-storeyed, detached dwellings" (Objective 1(a)) is a matter that ought to be viewed in the context of the whole of the Plan. It is a proposition that is supported by the terms of Zone Objective 2 and Principle 2(d) for the Zone. However, the way in which the 31 policy areas for the Zone are differentiated suggests to me that the authors of the Plan purposefully placed additional emphasis in eight of the policy areas on one-storeyed buildings as a means of preserving and enhancing their low scale low density residential character. RPA 25 is not included in those policy areas having within them a principle expressly limiting new development to one-storey in height.
19	I have considered at some length the submissions and evidence and that which I saw on the view. The area of the sites for each dwelling exceeds that provided for in Principle 4 for RPA 25. In light of my comments in the matter of Heaney v City of Burnside [2005] SAERDC 106 (at paras 24, 25 and 26) the proposal could be characterised as a low density development. Were considerations of density limited to compliance with numerical guidelines for a particular policy area such a conclusion is supported by the proposal’s compliance with the frontage guidelines in Principle 6. However, as I said in the matter of Build-Tec Services v City of Burnside (No. 2) [2005] SAERDC 73 there are many other considerations (eg dwelling type, form and layout, site coverage, space between buildings) that are to be considered when determining whether a proposed development is a low density type.
20	The extent to which the proposed development achieves the intent of Objective 1 and Principle 1 for the RPA 25 (which objective is to be read with Principles 2 and 3 for the Zone and Council Wide Principle 26) is a question related to its bulk, height and scale. I acknowledge that the total height of the building is within the guidelines established in Principle 117. However, that is not the end of it. The following factors, in my view, tip the scales against the proposed development:
•	I acknowledge that the character of the locality has elements that vary from the ingredients identified in Objective 1(a) as being desired for the RPA 25. However, buildings of the bulk, height and scale of the proposal are the exception rather than the rule in the locality. In this respect I disagree with Mr Smith’s evidence. When viewed as a whole, the built form character of the locality is of no assistance to the proposed development when assessed against Objective 1(a) and Principle 1(a) for RPA 25 or Principle 2(d)(ii) for the Zone.
•	Much the same can be said of the proposed development when viewed in the Glenroy Avenue streetscape. It is an attractive street without being "distinctive". Its attractiveness is derived from the siting, scale and architecture of buildings on land abutting the street as well as street tree planting. The dwellings to the east are setback quite generous distances from Glenroy Avenue. The scale of the proposal when related to adjacent buildings brings it into conflict with Council Wide Principle 25. Neither the setback of the building nor the fence intended to be established along the Glenroy Avenue boundary assists attaining the harmony sought in Council Wide Principle 26.
•	The proposal exhibits little if any architectural reference to dwellings in the locality. It appears to me that the design and siting of the dwellings has largely ignored the purpose behind the provisions of Objective 1(b) and Principles 2(d) and 3 for the Zone. Conflicts with these provisions are occasioned mainly by dominance of the top floors of the building (in turn a consequence of the high parapet style walls and proximity to the side and road boundaries) and the width of the four vehicle garage exceeding as it does the provisions of Principle 140 and necessary driveways which together reduces the area for gardens to a point that is uncharacteristic of the streetscape and unacceptable.
•	I acknowledge that the fence may well have been employed as a technique to satisfy Principle 26(c). I acknowledge also that there are some properties in the locality that have erected fences on the road boundaries. Objective 1(b) is clear in its intent but has been ignored largely as a consequence of having to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the proposed building when viewed from Glenroy Avenue by partially concealing it behind the fence.
21	It is not necessary for a building on the land to be restricted to one storey in height to comply with the intent of Objective 1 for RPA 25. Development that is acceptable in terms of its bulk and scale is one that adequately addresses the objectives and related principles when prevailing circumstances of its setting are taken into account. On my observation the foundation of that aspect of the character of the locality that is reflected in Objective 1 remains intact. There is no evidence to suggest that the purpose and intent of RPA 25 cannot be realised with new development providing the design harmony sought in the relevant provisions are met. The scale of the development proposed is not assisted by the realities of existing development in the near vicinity or the locality. By virtue of its architecture, height, total floor area, side setback distances (upper floor), the "consumption" of the available frontage with the garages the development fails to achieve the required compatibility with its setting and the intentions for the Zone and Policy Area.
22	I listened carefully to the submissions of Mr Manos in his final address. There is nothing in the Plan that suggests to me that the design requirements for a building are out of kilter with the housing market. Simply put, the size of the development and the way in which the appellants have sought to accommodate their required facilities is not able to be adequately catered for by the size and dimensions of the land when all relevant circumstances and the provisions of the Plan are considered.
23	The appeal is dismissed. There will be an order accordingly.