File No: DC3.3.006

28 February 2020

State Planning Commission [email protected]

Planning & Design Code Consultation Submission (Phase 3) by the City of Victor Harbor

As a result of a recent Council meeting held on 24 February 2020, the content of this letter and associated attached document titled City of Victor Harbor Draft Planning and Design Code Phase 3 Submission (dated 28 February 2020) forms the City of Victor Harbor's submission on the Draft Planning and Design Code (Phase 3).

Council recommends that the Planning and Design Code (Code) not be introduced until: • The State Planning Commission (Commission) and Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) have had sufficient time to consider in detail the submissions received during the public consultation period on the Code; and The ePlanning System is fully operational, free of errors and incorporates the Code in its entirety and, Council staff trained in its use; and Councils are further consulted on an amended version of the Code which has been prepared in response to submissions received during the current consultation period and, allowed reasonable time to test the new policy position.

Council recommends the following as it relates to the Code and the Victor Harbor Residential Development Plan Amendment (DPA) Statement of Intent (Sol), lodged with the Minister on 31 May 2019: • That Council requires assurance that the intended and desired Residential DPA policies are called up by the relevant development type and within the relevant Zones (including if/where appropriate, the General Neighbourhood and Suburban Neighbourhood Zones) and; Regarding the protection of views from Kleinig's Lookout - there is existing Development Plan policy that advocates for the protection of the existing public views, in particular the township 'approach' from the lookout and, for future development to be cognisant of retaining these significant views. Council requests for this iconic area to be recognised and protected within the Code, as per the intentions of the Residential DPA. Residential Density In 2006 both the City of Victor Harbor and Alexandrina Councils completed (in partnership) a 'Joint Residential Review' Development Plan Amendment (DPA). The DPA's outcomes were a result of the following:

• Incorporating Good Residential Design Guidelines • Reviewing the very broad, existing and proposed residential areas, resulting in creating new, more specific policy areas within an overarching Residential Zone Conducting an analysis of community preferences and attitudes for future residential development • Completing a review of infrastructure capacity of existing and proposed residential areas • Providing the location and rationale for the desired future character of each new Policy Area ( creating Desired Character Statements) Undertaking ground level analysis of existing neighbourhood character, with emphasis on topography, historical development pattern, nature of residential dwelling stock, and capacity for infill development In conjunction with DPTI, analysis of development opportunities provided under the existing Residential Zone provisions compared to the opportunities offered through the proposed policy changes. This revealed the estimated theoretical development potential in terms of actual dwelling numbers and the anticipated 'practical' development potential based on market forces (with an estimated site value/capital value factor of 1:1.5).

The result of this DPA established 14 specific Policy Areas within a new overarching Residential Zone, providing particular attention and guidance regarding future residential character, building design and desired/projected densities. It was created in partnership with Planning SA/DPTI as a result of conducting comprehensive, locally specific, detailed site analysis and GIS modelling. This local policy appears to have been ignored in the new Code, with no justification provided for its proposed replacement. This change concerns Council and is an example of policy change direction in the absence of research, undermining locally applicable policy which has been strategically planned for over many years.

State Government Interest Some aspects of the Draft Code may be of particular interest and requires input to be sought from relevant State Government agencies where it affects regional/state wide objectives, paying particular attention to tourism and/or conservation priorities, such as:

Granite Island Heysen Trail and Waitpinga Cliff line South Coastal District Hospital site and the associated helipad Concept Plan Iconic public views enjoyed from the approach into Victor Harbor along Hindmarsh Road (near Kleinlg's Hill Lookout)

Page 2 of3 Classification Tables There is some good policy content in the Code and, there may be more yet to be introduced, as a result of the draft Code's consultation process and final implementation. It must be noted however, that there is a significant concern from Council and, an inherent risk in the process, that such hard fought policy and intent may not be referenced in the final Classification Table framework and therefore it is unable to be assessed against.

Loss of Local Policy Council's Development Plan has evolved over recent decades and has its own nuances by applying local variations, offering sometimes unique planning policy applicable to Victor Harbor only. It was initially generally understood that the Code conversion process would comprise current Development Plan policies of an important local nature into the new Code format, in effect a 'like for like' transition. In its current form, the Code does not represent that type of transition and is a concern for Council. Local policy intent, content and tools fundamental to enhance Council's ability to plan for its streets, buildings and land uses are absent and have not been replaced with substantive planning policy to enable desirable development outcomes.

It must also be noted that due to the scale and complexity of the Draft Code, Council's response to this consultation process, concerns raised and identified are not exhaustive.

Should you wish to discuss this furth~ clarification, please contact me by email orphone-

Yours sincerely GrnJ~ Director Community and Development

Page 3 of 3 rity of Victor Harbor

City of Victor Harbor CCity ofg Victor Harbor Draft Planning and Design Code Phase 3 Submission

Adopted by Council 24 February 2020

r City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Contents Preamble ...... 9 Interpretation ...... 9 Abbreviations ...... 9 Summary Tables ...... 10 1. Procedural ...... 10 1.1...... 10 Notification Procedure ...... 10 1.2...... 10 Easements ...... 10 1.3...... 10 Land Management Agreements and Encumbrances ...... 10 1.4...... 10 Restricted Development Tables ...... 10 1.5...... 11 Extent of Overlays ...... 11 1.6...... 12 Waste Water Systems...... 12 1.7...... 12 Classification Tables ...... 12 1.8...... 12 Demolition ...... 12 2. State Wide Policy ...... 13 2.1...... 13 Water Tanks (above ground) ...... 13 2.2...... 13 Secondary Street Setbacks ...... 13 2.3...... 13 Underutilisation of Environmental Performance policy...... 13 2.4...... 13 Temporary Holiday Accommodation ...... 13 2.5...... 13 Unnecessary Notification ...... 13 2.6...... 13 Caravan and Tourist Park Zone ...... 13 2.7...... 14 Exclusions from the definition of development ...... 14

Page 2 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response 2.8...... 14 Rural and Peri-Urban Classification Tables ...... 14 2.9...... 14 Open Space Zone ...... 14 2.10 ...... 14 Urban and Major Urban Transport Routes Overlay ...... 14 2.11 ...... 14 Classification Tables ...... 14 3. City of Victor Harbor Specific Policy ...... 15 3.1...... 15 Residential ...... 15 Density ...... 15 3.2...... 15 Hammerhead Allotments ...... 15 3.3...... 15 Retaining walls ...... 15 3.4...... 15 Lakeside pontoons, jetties & structures ...... 15 3.5...... 16 Waterfront Policy Area 24 – Building heights ...... 16 3.6...... 16 Kleinig’s Hill ...... 16 3.7...... 17 Waitpinga Cliff lines and Heysen trail ...... 17 3.8...... 17 Granite Island ...... 17 3.9...... 18 Open Space vs Conservation for our coast line ...... 18 3.10 ...... 18 Victor Harbor Golf Course ...... 18 3.11 ...... 19 Regional Centre Zone Transition ...... 19 3.12 ...... 19 Mainstreet ...... 19 3.13 ...... 19 Local Centres ...... 19 3.14 ...... 20

Page 3 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Terminology ...... 20 3.15 ...... 20 Regional Centre Zone Landmark Sites ...... 20 3.16 ...... 20 Ocean Street & Coral Street Verandah Setbacks ...... 20 3.17 ...... 20 Concept Plans ...... 20 3.18 ...... 20 Concept Plan Map ViH3 – Regional Centre ...... 20 3.19 ...... 21 Deferred Urban and Concept Plan Map ViH/5 ...... 21 3.20 ...... 22 Concept Plan Map ViH/6 – Landmark Development Sites ...... 22 3.21 ...... 22 Concept Plan Map ViH/7 ...... 22 3.22 ...... 23 Concept Plan Map ViH/8 ...... 23 3.23 ...... 23 Concept Plan Map ViH/10 ...... 23 3.24 ...... 23 Concept Plan Map ViH/11 – Mixed Use Neighbourhood Centre ...... 23 3.25 ...... 24 Car Parking Fund ...... 24 3.26 ...... 25 Rural Zone Classification Table – Hazard Sulphate Soils ...... 25 3.27 ...... 25 Character Area Overlay ...... 25 3.28 ...... 26 Building Setbacks from Road Boundaries ...... 26 3.29 ...... 26 Bay Road, Mill Rd and Waitpinga Road ...... 26 3.30 ...... 26 Ring Road / Armstrong Road ...... 26 3.31 ...... 27 Flooding ...... 27 3.32 ...... 27 Armstrong Road (Ring Road) Landscape Buffer ...... 27

Page 4 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response 3.33 ...... 27 Landscaping ...... 27 3.34 ...... 27 Open Hills Face Character /Finished Floor Levels ...... 27 3.35 ...... 27 Water Resources Overlay ...... 27 3.36 ...... 28 Building Heights ...... 28 3.37 ...... 28 Foreshore Precinct ...... 28 3.38 ...... 28 Suburban Employment Zone...... 28 3.39 ...... 28 Home Industry ...... 28 3.40 ...... 28 Mainstreet and Activity Centre Zones ...... 28 3.41 ...... 29 Supported Accommodation, Housing for Aged Persons and People with Disabilities ... 29 3.42 ...... 29 AHD levels – Rural Living Zone ...... 29 3.43 ...... 29 State Government Interest ...... 29 4. Zone Specific ...... 30 4.1...... 30 Caravan & Tourist Park Zone ...... 30 4.2...... 30 Coastal Conservation Zone ...... 30 Precinct 1 Granite Island Tourist Facilities ...... 30 4.3...... 30 Coastal Open Space Zone ...... 30 4.4...... 30 Commercial Zone ...... 30 4.5...... 31 Deferred Urban Zone ...... 31 4.6...... 31 Light Industry Zone ...... 31 4.7...... 32

Page 5 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Home Industry Policy Area 1 ...... 32 4.10 ...... 34 Neighbourhood Centre Zone ...... 34 4.11 ...... 35 Open Space Zone ...... 35 4.12 ...... 35 Golf Course Policy Area ...... 35 4.13 ...... 35 Primary Production ...... 35 4.14 ...... 36 Regional Centre Zone ...... 36 Burke Street Policy Area 7 ...... 36 4.15 ...... 36 Regional Centre Zone ...... 36 Business Policy Area 8 ...... 36 4.16 ...... 37 Regional Centre Zone ...... 37 Town Centre Character Policy Area 9 ...... 37 4.17 ...... 38 Regional Centre Zone ...... 38 Shopping Policy Area 10 ...... 38 4.18 ...... 38 Regional Centre Zone ...... 38 Visitor Facilities Policy Area 11 ...... 38 4.19 ...... 38 Residential Zone ...... 38 Bay Road Policy Area 12 ...... 38 4.20 ...... 39 Residential Zone ...... 39 Policy Area 13 ...... 39 4.21 ...... 39 Residential Zone ...... 39 Policy Area 14 ...... 39 4.22 ...... 39 Residential Zone ...... 39 Hayborough North Policy Area 15 ...... 39 4.23 ...... 40

Page 6 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Residential Zone ...... 40 Canterbury West Policy Area 16 ...... 40 4.24 ...... 40 Residential Zone ...... 40 Hindmarsh River Policy Area 17 ...... 40 4.25 ...... 40 Residential Zone ...... 40 Hindmarsh Valley Policy Area 18 ...... 40 4.26 ...... 40 Residential Zone ...... 40 Hindmarsh Valley Policy Area 18 ...... 40 Precinct 2 Adelaide – Victor Harbor Road ...... 40 4.27 ...... 41 Residential Zone ...... 41 Hindmarsh Valley Policy Area 18 ...... 41 Precinct 3 Strawberry Hill Road ...... 41 4.28 ...... 41 Residential Zone ...... 41 Hindmarsh Valley Policy Area 18 ...... 41 Precinct 4 Waggon Road North ...... 41 4.29 ...... 41 Residential Zone ...... 41 Hindmarsh Valley Policy Area 18 ...... 41 Precinct 5 Waggon Road South ...... 41 4.30 ...... 42 Residential Zone ...... 42 Lakeside Policy Area 19 ...... 42 4.31 ...... 42 Residential Zone ...... 42 McCracken Golf Course Policy Area 20 ...... 42 4.32 ...... 43 Residential Zone ...... 43 Mount Breckan Policy Area 21 ...... 43 4.33 ...... 43 Residential Zone ...... 43 Town Centre Policy Area 22...... 43 4.34 ...... 43

Page 7 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Residential Zone ...... 43 Waitpinga Policy Area 23 ...... 43 4.35 ...... 44 Residential Zone ...... 44 Waterfront Policy Area 24 ...... 44 4.36 ...... 44 Residential Zone ...... 44 Yilki Residential Policy Area 25 ...... 44 4.37 ...... 45 Residential Zone ...... 45 4.38 ...... 46 Residential Park Zone ...... 46 4.39 ...... 46 Rural Living Zone ...... 46 Hills Policy Area 26 ...... 46 4.40 ...... 46 Rural Living Zone ...... 46 Crozier Hill Policy Area 27 ...... 46 4.41 ...... 47 Rural Living Zone ...... 47 Morgan Park Policy Area 28...... 47 4.42 ...... 47 Rural Living Zone ...... 47 Rural Living North Policy Area 29 ...... 47 4.43 ...... 48 Rural Living Zone ...... 48 4.44 ...... 50 Suburban Neighbourhood Zone ...... 50 4.45 ...... 50 Tourist Accommodation Zone ...... 50 4.46 ...... 51 Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone ...... 51 Detail Section ...... 52 Residential Zone / Neighbourhood Zone Density Standards ...... 52

Page 8 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Preamble The City of Victor Harbor is thankful for the opportunity to make comment on the Draft Planning and Development Code (the Code) released for public consultation in October 2019.

This submission is made by the City of Victor Harbor and is written with the intention of retaining local policy within the Code.

Interpretation  The issues identified are not in order of importance  The recommendations that have been made have been sourced within the existing framework, where possible, and do not necessarily represent a complete or ideal solution.  Given the timeframe afforded, Council resources and, the way in which the draft Code was provided, Council is not in a position to make assurances that every inconsistency and issue has been identified. This submission is definitely not exhaustive in raising issues of concern which may require further attention and consideration.  Bold text is a request

Abbreviations Draft Planning and Design Code : the Code

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure : DPTI

City of Victor Harbor : the Council

Technical Numerical Variation : TNV

Deemed to Satisfy : DTS

Performance Assessed : PA

Designated Performance Feature : DPF

Australian Height Datum: AHD

Page 9 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Summary Tables 1. Procedural Topic Issue 1.1 Notification The on-site sign notification requirement, and the resource and environmental impacts associated, are not supported. Procedure Discounting the method of notification, DPTI have not addressed the issues with the perceived position and role representors have over development applications. People are, and will continue to be, disillusioned with the weight and consideration of their input.

Information be provided on what the DPTI are trying to achieve through this process and subsequent reasoning behind this particular method.

Other options for notification are explored, with consideration given to the purpose and weight of representations. 1.2 Easements The new Regulations no longer require applicants to submit a copy of the Certificate of Title as part of the development application lodgement process. Council is concerned that there is nothing to safeguard against easements being built over. This could result in increased compliance matters and issues of safety and resources for service providers trying to access their easements.

Easements are mapped on the ePlanning solutions so that they are considered by anyone assessing an application.

Certificate of Titles are required to be submitted as part of a Development Application. 1.3 Land Encumbrances and land management agreements are included as a TNV type Overlay on properties where one exists. Management Agreements and Encumbrances 1.4 Restricted Can justification be provided as to why restricted tables are so limited and omit clearly inappropriate development in contrast to the Development former ‘non-complying’ lists in the Development Plans? Tables Although the Code policy framework may speak against certain types of development, they will be performance assessed and not escalated in the first instance as restricted/non-complying development, raising concerns that the performance assessed provisions in the Code are not robust enough to refuse such development, and that appeals to the Court will increase.

Page 10 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Restricted Development tables be reviewed with an aim of extending the range of restricted development within particular Zones. 1.5 Extent of Can justification be provided as to why Overlays extend as a buffer as appose to specific properties? For example the Urban Overlays Transport Routes Overlay only applies to properties fronting a state-owned arterial road however the water resources Overlay has a ‘buffer’ around water sources. This buffer approach results in properties being effected by the Overlay unnecessarily. Example demonstrated below: 62 Lakeside Circuit been captured by the Water Resources Overlay when 63 Lakeside Circuit has not. The presence of the Water Resources Overlay in particular has significant impacts on assessment pathways and provisions and therefore care should be taken to only apply when necessary/relevant.

3ddress or place Layer List 1111 Q X ... mOverla ys

..,. mRes ilient Communities & Environment (I

► 0 Prescribed Surface Water Areas Over '-. ► 0 Prescribed Water Resources Area Ovi " ., ► 0 Prescribed Watercourses O verlay ., ► 0 Water Protection Area Overlay ► Water Resources Overlay 'f m

.. "' Zones "' ... o .. ..,. mP&D Code Zones. by individual zones ~ 0 Zones (A-D)

., ► ~ Coastal W at ers and Offshore lslanc

,. "

"

Page 11 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

1.6 Waste Water A significant issue is the lack of consideration given to the assessment of onsite wastewater systems at a development application Systems stage. This is often overlooked by private certifiers - in such cases this puts Councils and land owners in a difficult position when having to resolve building siting and design issues post a Development Approval stage. It is therefore imperative, that the Code policy be amended to place a stronger requirement for onsite wastewater to be assessed at a development application stage, and that Deemed to Satisfy and Performance Assessed assessment tables be strengthened to ensure development approvals are not issued in advance of detailed wastewater assessments by qualified wastewater engineers.

In relation to the above, based on liaison with the Wastewater Management section of SA Health, it has been noted that the Code makes reference to ‘South Australian standards for wastewater management and disposal’ and ‘South Australian Standards’. It is recommended that the Code has a consistent reference to the SA Health’s On-site Wastewater Systems Code and the Community Waste Management System Code.

Recognition is given to the relationship between waste water applications and the development approval process and make adjustments accordingly.

The ePlanning portal be expanded to include the processing waste water applications be processed through the Planning and Design Code portal. 1.7 Classification On review of all of the applicable classification tables, there are many examples where an Overlay exempts a development from Tables the accepted pathway but then the Overlay DTS criteria isn’t brought up for Deemed to Satisfy pathway for same form of development.

A thorough review of the classification tables is executed to ensure that any Overlays that exempt a development from accepted or deemed to satisfy pathways, are considered in subsequent pathways (i.e. provisions/DTS/DPF are called up). 1.8 Demolition In the Planning Development and Infrastructure Regulations the demolition of the whole of a building, other than in respect of a local heritage place or a building in relevant a Zone, Subzone or Overlay identified in the Code are except from the definition of development. How will Council be advised when existing buildings / structures have been demolished so that Council records may be updated, and accuracy of Section 7 property searches may be retained?

A notification process is created by which Council are advised that a building has been demolished.

Page 12 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

2. State Wide Policy Topic Issue 2.1 Water Tanks Rural and Peri-urban Zone classification tables ‘accept’ ancillary structures much larger than in residential Zones, for obvious (above ground) reasons. However, Water tanks (above ground) remain the same as Schedule 3. We suggest that the size of water tanks (above ground) be increased for rural areas. 2.2 Secondary The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone desired outcome (DO) 1 calls for low or very low-density housing that is consistent with the Street Setbacks existing local context and development pattern. In this Zone the DTS/DPF for secondary street setback is 900mm. We suggest that the existing context and development pattern in these areas is consistent with a 2 m secondary street set back. The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone DTS/DPF provision for secondary street setbacks be increased to 2 m at least. 2.3 Underutilisation The ‘Environmental Performance’ general development policies are not referred to for any development in Neighbourhood Zones of or any other classification table. Environmental With the effects of climate change becoming increasingly apparent, it is important that development is sustainable and employs Performance these principles. policy Design in Urban Areas PO 4.1, PO 4.2 and PO 4.3 are referred to in development, especially dwellings in Neighbourhood Zones. 2.4 Temporary The rise in popularity of services such as Air bnb have DPTI given consideration of assessing the impacts and, tightening up the Holiday policy around the use of dwelling for these uses? The Bed and Breakfast definitions and requirements are outdated and there is a Accommodation serious lack of moderation and control over these types of accommodation.

Tourism Accommodation in residential areas (Airbnbs etc.) are assessed against provisions that mitigate impacts of such development. 2.5 Unnecessary There are several instances identified where unnecessary notification will occur, whereby, development of activities that are Notification envisaged for the Zone will go on notice. A thorough review of the classification tables is executed to ensure envisaged development is listed. 2.6 Caravan and Accepted Development requirements in the classification table for this Zone are not reflect development that is likely to occur in Tourist Park this Zone. For example: in order for a carport to be ‘accepted’ the side boundary setbacks need to be at least 900mm from the Zone boundary of the allotment. It is more likely that a carport structure would be situated next to a cabin.

Page 13 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

We acknowledge that this is consistent with Schedule 1A of the Development Regulations, however given the Code framework’s ability to customise these provisions based on Zone we encourage the provisions to be more meaningful and relevant.

Accepted Development Classification Criteria be reconsidered in the context of likely development to occur in Caravan and Tourist Parks. 2.7 Exclusions from Often sundry minor operations such as carports and garden sheds are erected in caravan parks between cabins causing fire the definition of separation issues. development Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations is altered to exclude certain sundry minor operations in Caravan and Tourist Park Zones. This is in response to the fire separation issues faced by parks and Building Fire Safety Committees. 2.8 Rural and Peri- There are many instances where hazard Overlays are not being assessed against certain development when they are for either Urban deemed to satisfy or in another Zone. For example: a cidery in a Rural Zone requires assessment against the Bushfire Overlays Classification but not in the Peri-Urban Zone. In the City of Victor Harbor, Peri-Urban can be more remote and at risk of fire than Rural. Tables A thorough review of the classification tables is executed to ensure that both peri-urban and rural require the same amount of hazard assessment as peri-urban can have a higher BAL rating. 2.9 Open Space The classification tables for the Open Space Zone in the Code contradict its intent. The envisaged use listed in DTS/DPF 1.1 is: Zone Open space, Outdoor Sports Courts, Recreation Area, Sporting Ovals and Fields where the tables reflect seemingly residential type ancillary structures and the performance assessed table lists: Advertisement, Verandah Outbuilding (not garage) and Shop only.

This results in everything on the DTS/DPF list requiring public notice and to be all Code assessed. Why are shops and offices not all Code assessed and require notice when they are not explicitly an envisaged use? 2.10 Urban and DPTI tweak the policy though for clarity as to what sub-clause applies & also to remove the ambiguity of the 'other Major Urban obstructions'. Refer email from Kylie Weymouth dated 11 February 2020 and associated email trail. Transport Routes Overlay 2.11 Classification A significant inherent risk exists where policy and intent may not be referenced in the Classification Table framework and therefore Tables it is unable to be assessed against.

DPTI need to allow time and resources to ensure final Code policy is applied correctly in the Classification Tables.

Page 14 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

3. City of Victor Harbor Specific Policy Topic Issue 3.1 Residential The Zones change and TNV’s are applied to retain current density standards as detailed below. See detail section Density 3.2 Hammerhead In 2006 the City of Victor Harbor undertook a Joint Residential Review PAR with . This review provided Allotments considered recommendations as to which residential areas should include or exclude hammerhead style land divisions. These recommendations form part of Council’s Development Plan, Zone Section, Residential Zone, From and Character, Principle 12. The Planning and Design Code allows Hammerhead style land divisions in both General Neighbourhood and Suburban Neighbourhood Zones. The intention of Council’s Joint Residential Review conducted in 2006 be carried over into the Code by restricting hammerhead style land division in all City of Victor Harbor ‘neighbourhood’ areas except the following Development Plan Policy Areas: Bay Road Policy Area 12; Hindmarsh River Policy Area 17; Town Centre Policy Area 22; Waterfront Policy Area 24; and Yilki Residential Policy Area 25 3.3 Retaining walls Retaining walls are currently not mentioned in General Neighbourhood or Suburban Neighbourhood Classification Tables. This results in all retaining walls being all Code assessed and subsequently put on public notice. As an indication of impact, the City of Victor Harbor assessed 20 applications for retaining walls in 2019 only 3 of which required public notice. In 2018, 38 application were assessed, only 11 went on notice.

Council also notes the lack of policy guidance around retaining walls in all of the General, Zone or Overlay provisions.

Retaining Wall DTS/DPF added to applicable General, Zone and Overlay policies and include ‘Retaining Wall’ to the performance assessed tables for Neighbourhood Zones (to avoid unnecessary public notice). 3.4 Lakeside Council’s existing Residential Zone – Lakeside Policy Area 19 consists of 836 dwellings and 33 vacant allotments. A substantial pontoons, jetties number of the properties/allotments front Encounter Lakes / Franklin Island areas. These lakeside properties are envisioned to & structures have pontoons, jetties, landings or similar structures erected across their land and into the lake, for which Council receives approximately 8 development applications a year.

In the Code, development of this nature would require notice, becoming resource intensive and causes undue stress and delay for the applicant/owner.

Page 15 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Jetties/Pontoons/Landings be added to the Classification Tables for this Zone; or An alternative solution is recommended to ensure these types of development do not require undue process given that they are envisaged uses.

(Note: that the Coorong Keys development on Hindmarsh Island and Westlakes in the City of Charles Sturt would be in the same situation.) 3.5 Waterfront Council’s current Residential Waterfront Policy Area 24 allows for a wide range of residential housing types and tourism Policy Area 24 – accommodation of up to three storeys high or 10.5 metres. This area has been transitioned to the General Neighbourhood Zone Building heights in the new Code which is in conflict with the intent of the Zone. The new Zone envisages development of up to 2 storeys (9 metres) and does not envisage Tourist Accommodation.

Whilst it could be argued that approval could still be granted for development up to 3 storeys in height if there is a precedent set by nearby development, the assessment application for such development would require notification and the owners and prospective owners of these properties have less assurance that development of this type could be supported which has impacts on perceived value.

Waterfront Policy Area 24 be transitioned to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone with a TNV applied allowing dwelling height to be three storeys (10.5 metres). 3.6 Kleinig’s Hill The view to Granite Island, the historic causeway, (The Bluff) and from Kleinig’s Hill is of regional strategic importance. This iconic view has been enjoyed by millions of people as they approach Victor Harbor and needs to be retained, recognised and protected by Code policy.

There is existing policy in Hayborough Policy Area 14 that advocates for the protection of the existing public views and for development to be cognisant of retaining these significant views. The application of the General Neighbourhood Zone over this area is inappropriate as these important policies have been lost.

The area (specified in the detailed section) be included in the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone with the view to apply a TNV to limit building heights to 1 storey.

On 31 May 2019, Council lodged the Residential Development Plan Amendment (DPA) Statement of Intent (SoI) with the Minister. The DPA intended to enhance Council’s Development Plan provisions relating to residential character and design elements and, to protect Victor Harbor’s iconic entry approach into the regional town centre. Page 16 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Council recommends the following as it relates to the Planning and Design Code and the Victor Harbor Residential Development Plan Amendment (DPA) Statement of Intent (SoI), lodged with the Minister on 31 May 2019:  That Council requires assurance that the intended and desired Residential DPA policies are called up by the relevant development type and within the relevant Zones (including if/where appropriate, the General Neighbourhood and Suburban Neighbourhood Zones) and;  Regarding the protection of views from Kleinig’s Lookout – there is existing Development Plan policy that advocates for the protection of the existing public views, in particular the township ‘approach’ from the lookout and, for future development to be cognisant of retaining these significant views. Council requests for this iconic area to be recognised and protected within the Code, as per the intentions of the Residential DPA.

3.7 Waitpinga Cliff The City of Victor Harbor hosts a vast section of the Heysen Trail and the scenic Waitpinga Cliffs. The existing ‘Coastal Policy lines and Area 6’ recognises and protects the visual qualities of such significant landscape areas as well as Parsons/Waitpinga Beach, Heysen trail Petrel Cove and Rosetta Head (The Bluff). In 2019 the South Australian Government announced a $6 million investment towards the enhancement and connection of the Great Southern Ocean Walk, which encompasses the coast line between and Granite Island (and all the features mentioned above).

Significant Landscape Protection Overlay be applied to, and the area surrounding, the Heysen Trail, Waitpinga Cliff line, Rosetta Head (the Bluff), Parsons/Waitpinga Beach and Petrel Cove. 3.8 Granite Island Granite Island has significant natural, scenic and cultural qualities which are protected through existing Development Plan policy.

Significant Landscape Overlay be applied to Granite Island.

Council’s existing Development Plan Policy with Granite Island Precinct 1 of the Coastal Conservation Zone provides for the following development types as merit (rather than non-complying as in the parent zone): • tourist development • shop • advertising • education facility in association with a tourist development

As part of the planning reforms, all areas subject to the National Parks & Wildlife Act are proposed to be zoned Conservation which includes Granite Island. This will mean that: • Advertising will be Deemed to Satisfy (subject to meeting the policy) Page 17 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

• Tourist Accommodation (where ‘contemplated by the management plan’), tourist development, shop & education facility will be Performance Assessed.

The details of Granite Island’s management plan are not known at the time of this submission and therefore the impact of such a transition are not known.

DPTI engage with Council and relevant state agencies in regards to the Management Plan of Granite Island and relay the significance of the Plan on Development Assessment to those responsible for its creation/amendment.

3.9 Open Space vs The City of Victor Harbor’s existing Open Space and Coastal Space Zones have both been transitioned into the Code’s Open Conservation for Space Zone. Certain development is discouraged with the addition of the Coastal Areas Overlay, however, consideration should our coast line be given to the application of the Conservation Zone to our shore line, to be consistent with Alexandrina Council and aligned with the intent of the area.

3.10 Victor Harbor The Victor Harbor Golf Course has been transitioned to the Code’s Recreation Zone. Given the Overlays that apply to this golf Golf Course course, all forms of development are all Code performance assessed (with the exception of solar panels and internal building work). This results in all forms of development, excluding solar panels and internal building work, needing to go on Notice.

In Council’s existing Development Plan the Victor Harbor Golf Course has its own policy area which envisages tourist accommodation, tourism development and shops associated with and ancillary to a recreation us up to 450m2 of gross leasable area. These envisaged uses are not present in the Code’s Recreation Zone.

It is noted that development of these type would be performance assessed and could be considered as Development associated with or ancillary to the provision of structured, unstructured, active and / or passive recreational facilities (PO 1.1). Page 18 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

The clear intent of the existing Policy area be transitioned to the Code.

An option is the expansion of the Visitor Experience Subzone to include Recreation Zones. This Subzone discusses the compatibility of development with the natural environment which is consistent with the intent of the existing policy area. 3.11 Regional Centre The existing 5 Regional Centre Zone Policy Areas have been transitioned into 4 different Code Zones, Council requests an Zone Transition opportunity to discuss this transition as there is further work to occur to determine best fit Code Zones.

The existing Shopping policy area 10 is the most aligned with the Urban Activity Centre Zone (however not ideal policy or terminology). However, the application of this Zone to Council’s Business Policy Area 8 is inappropriate given the scale envisaged for that Zone.

The Tourism Development Zone is also an inappropriate zone for the City of Victor Harbor existing Development Plan Visitor Experiences Policy Area.

DPTI work with the City of Victor Harbor to determine a suitable zone transition for the City of Victor Harbor Regional Centre. 3.12 Mainstreet The application of the Code’s Suburban Mainstreet Zone from the existing Town Centre Character Policy area 28 is not appropriate. The area does not cover the Mainstreet, as the use and scale intended for that Code Zone is medium to low and, not aligned with the current policy. Suburban Mainstreet is present in places like Murray Bridge, Mt Barker and Goodwood, all of which have a much larger scale than that envisaged at Victor Harbor, especially the area designated as Town Centre Character Policy area 28.

The remainder of the Mainstreet has been transitioned to either ‘Tourism Development’ (Visitor Facilities Policy Area 11) or ‘Urban Activity Centre’ (Business Policy Area 8) both of which are inappropriate. Tourism development Zone doesn’t envisage the range of uses consistent with a Main Street and Urban Activity Centre. As mentioned above, it is of a scale that is completely inconsistent with the current streetscape and policy intent.

DPTI work with the City of Victor Harbor to determine a suitable zone transition for the City of Victor Harbor Regional Centre. 3.13 Local Centres The City of Victor Harbor Local Centre Zone has been be transitioned to Suburban Activity Centre which is inappropriate. The intent of the Zone has changed to an extreme degree. Further work is required.

Page 19 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

No existing Code Zone is appropriate and therefore the Council seeks consultation with the Department in regards to this matter. An option that could be explored is the existing Local Centre Zone be transitioned ‘Business Neighbourhood Zone’ but with the application of a Subzone/Overlay to restrict residential development that is not ancillary to a commercial use.

DPTI engage with the City of Victor Harbor in regards to a solution for the City of Victor Harbor Local Centre Zones. 3.14 Terminology The City of Victor Harbor is proposed to have Zones with urban and suburban names, some of which are abutting. I.e. DPTI are proposing a urban activity centre, and suburban Mainstreet for our Regional Cente. In previous tables we have requested that this zoning be reviewed as the scale is inappropriate however despite this, the terminology is confusing and not reflective of the area.

Incorporate terminology that reflects regional areas. 3.15 Regional Centre The existing City of Victor Harbor Development Plan recognises ‘Landmark Development Sites’ in both the Regional Centre Zone Zone Landmark policy and Concept Plan Map ViH/6. The existing policy speaks to these sites’ respective development potential regarding Sites setbacks, height, access and desired land use. Retain this policy in the Code. 3.16 Ocean Street & The Development Plan’s existing ‘Regional Centre’ Zone Principle 6 provides localised guidance regarding veranda setbacks Coral Street within the town centre’s Mainstreet Precinct, in particular Ocean Street and Coral Street. This Principle was derived as a result of Verandah completing the urban design investigations from the Mainstreet Precinct Master Plan in 2014 and subsequently included into Setbacks policy within Council’s Development Plan in 2017, via the ‘Better Development Plan (BDP) & General Development Plan Amendment (DPA)’. This policy remains very useful and relevant when guiding desirable future urban design outcomes, in particular, creating practical and conforming pedestrian amenity along the town centre’s streetscape (shade and shelter). Retain this policy in the Code. 3.17 Concept Plans The Concept Plan Maps have an active policy role in the future staging of development and the provision of infrastructure in predicted growth areas. Some of these plans are not to be used in isolation and therefore their retention wouldn’t be a complete or workable solution. In order for some of them to provide relevance, they need to be accompanied with policy from our Development Plan. Has consideration being given to amending Concept Plan Maps to include additional information from the Development Plan so maintain their intent? 3.18 Concept Plan This Concept Plan Map be transitioned to the Code (or its intent) Map ViH3 – Regional Centre

Page 20 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

3.19 Deferred Urban Council’s existing Deferred Urban Zone has transitioned to the Code’s Deferred Urban Zone, without the Concept Plan Map ViH/5 and Concept and associated explanatory policy. Plan Map ViH/5 This Concept Plan Map has an active policy role to play in the future staging of development and the provision of infrastructure in this predicted growth area. We therefore request that Concept Plan Map ViH/5, and the associated prescriptive policy be retained in the Code. t Is e'lvIsaged that e area mar ed Proposed Convnurnty Developmec, · on Concept F'tan Map ViH/5 - Deferrnd Urban wI be developed for commun facl bes 1ncludmg social h a • w fare eoucabon and rec.reabon fac1I & where tney a con ·enIenlly accessible to the pop ellon they serve following the 'OVlSIOO of appropnaie frastructure end the rezOf\lllg of the land

t Is envisaged that he area rkad Proposed Res en a Development on Concept F'tan Map ViH/5 - Deferrnd Ufban W1 be deve- oped ,n a similar manner ID the adjacent HindmBl'Sh Valley Policy Area 18 fol he provision of appropnate Infras:ructur and the rezol'\lllg of land.

C]Propmec!Commo.nty~ N 1c1~.ooo Ao,... ~1~~300-4:SOC007!l0~==----= - □IZ?J -­-'-""-' - Oef9rr9d~ Z-~

Concept Plan Map ViH/5 DEFERRED URBAN YICTOOl-COUOCll. ~-20 ...... 2011

Page 21 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

3.20 Concept Plan Such existing sites and their identified development potential should be recognised and included within the Code. The Map ViH/6 – Development Plan contains extensive information relating to this Concept Plan Map. See pages 174 – 199. Landmark Concept Plan Map ViH/6, and the associated prescriptive policy be transitioned to the Code and applied to this area. Development Sites 3.21 Concept Plan Concept Plan Map ViH/7 District Hospital Helipad Flight Path & Height Restrictions applies to Council’s Residential Zone Policy Map ViH/7 Areas 12 and 19.

11:11 -He,ghllfflb; D Ais;lt Path BoJndary 0 ,,_ Concept Plan Map ViH/7 Propoud Land Oivlalon DISTRICT HOSPITAL HELIPAD FLIGHT PATH & HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS

The purpose of the Concept Plan Map ViH/7 is to restrict development height from the South Coast District Hospital Helipad’s flight path boundary. Page 22 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Both of these policy areas have been transitioned to General Neighbourhood Zone where height is limited to 9 metres (2 storeys). The flight path boundary is not mentioned and no other restrictions on height are present in Code policy. One option for rectification is that Concept Plan Map ViH7 be transferred into the new Code. Concept Plans/TNV’s can’t be applied to the General Neighbourhood Zone, therefore a change of Zone could be required.

Alternatively, an existing height restriction Overlay could be expanded to include hospital and associated flight path boundaries.

DPTI consult directly with South Coast District Hospital / SA Health in regards to the impacts of the Code on their flight path. 3.22 Concept Plan Existing Encounter Bay Policy Area 13 stipulates the following policy: Map ViH/8  Land division located wholly or partly above the 22 metre AHD level as shown on Concept Plan Map ViH/8 - Bacchus Road (Encounter Bay) should only be divided in accordance with the concept plan to maintain an open rural setting entering into the Victor Harbor township. Concept Plan Map ViH/8, and the associated prescriptive policy be transitioned to the Code and applied to this area. 3.23 Concept Plan Concept Plan Map ViH/10, and the associated prescriptive policy be transitioned to the Code and applied to this area. Map ViH/10 3.24 Concept Plan The Mixed use Zone has transitioned to the Code’s Suburban Business and Innovation Zone. The Concept Plan Map associated Map ViH/11 – with this Zone has not transitioned over. This Plan has an active policy role in the future staging of development and the provision Mixed Use of infrastructure in this predicted growth area. Neighbourhood Centre

Page 23 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

u .ooo N - Mb

Request that Concept Plan Map ViH/11 be transitioned to the Code and applied to this area. 3.25 Car Parking The City of Victor Harbor Development Plan‘s existing General Section, Transportation and Access Vehicle Parking provisions Fund read as follows: Vehicle Parking 32 Development shouid pl'011ide off-street vehicle parking and spacifical ma~ed dlS!lbled car pa · g pl.aces o meet anticipated demand ., BCCOrdanoe with Table 'vlH/2 - Off Street Vehicle Parlgng unless one or more of the following conditions are me =;ww:===

Page 24 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

(a) an agreement is reached between the Council and the applicant for a reduced number of parking spaces

(b) 1 1s located v,,th1n the Regional Centre Zone, eighbourhood Centre Zon or Local Centre Zone and the car par!< shortfa is pro1t1ded on an !email te whoch a ;e es al of he fOHo'lnJlQ .

(1 ) lhe a emat1 e si1e s located on land adiacent to the J>n ry site

(11 ) the a. ematrve s e s e access ble and available for veh1cie parking when re Ul'ed

( i) a shared or rectprocal pa g agreement tis secured 1th a regrstered and bind g agreement by way of nghts of way and/or easements Iha are reg ered on the respective certifica.es ofll:le for a of e associated nd parcels

(c) an agree nl has been reached Council that a financial contnbunon a• U,e sp ied rate per car park. II be p 'd to the Counc· Car Par Fund for any under-provision of on-Sl1e car pa g, measured ag st rate of pa sllpul.lted 111 Table Vil-l/2 - OR Stre Vehicle Psrl

(1 l Loe Centre Zone

{i} eighbourhood Centre Zone

I 11}

(d) The developm l nvof s the adapuve use o a henlage place Iden Hentage Places ot n Table ViH/4 - Lacs/ Heritage Places.

The City of Victor Harbor have particular concerns about the retention of item (c) above, which impacts Council’s ability to work strategically in relation to the regional centre’s car parking.

Car Parking Fund Area policy be incorporated into the Code. 3.26 Rural Zone In the Rural Zone, the Hazard (Acid Sulphate Soils) Overlay excludes development from accepted development pathways but Classification then the provisions are not referred to in DTS or PA pathways. Table – Hazard Sulphate Soils Hazard (Acid Sulfate Soils) Overlay provisions be added to DTS and PA pathways in the rural Zone. 3.27 Character Area The Code’s Character Area Overlay applies to the existing Business Neighbourhood Zone. This Overlay does not exclude Overlay development from the Accepted Development Pathway. Such development includes Carports, Garages etc. all of which would impact on the character of the Zone. Please note that ‘Historic Area Overlay’ does exclude Accepted Development.

Page 25 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

Character Area Overlay is listed as an exclusion to the Accepted Development Pathway in the Business Neighbourhood Zone Classification Tables. 3.28 Building Table ViH/1 – Building Setbacks from Road Boundaries prescribes the following: Setbacks from Road Portion of Road AffKt9d P,-cribed Diatanc. 1..-..1 Road I VIC!Or Ha,bor to Noarlunga Road From intersection v, rth Pon Ellool 10 Boundaries and GCJC>lwa Road ID boundary with the Primary Production Zone, both&ldes.

Port El Klt and Goolwa Ma.n Road From Inlersection of Victor Harbor 10 to Noarlunga Road to Coi.tc:11 boundary, both sides.

Hindmarsh Road From Intersection of Port Elliot 10 Road to 11 ersectlon of Grantley Avenue. both sdas.

VJCtoria Street Between Cmver Road and w, • 3 Street solllhem s,de and Crozlef Road and Burke Street northern side. and between Island Street and ewland Stre southern side.

Bay Road From YVa1tponga Road UlteCllon 10 o Main Street. both sides.

Greenhills Road From Seav,ew Road lo the 10 boundary of the Primary Production Zone boeh sides.

Ring Road Bo sides 10

Allotments fronting Victor Harbor to Noarlunga Road (Adelaide Rd), Port Elliot Rd, Hindmarsh Road and Victoria Street all either have the Code’s Major Urban Transport Route or Urban Transport Routes Overlay applied. It is unclear at this point what bearing these will have on building setbacks. TNV’s be applied to land bordering these roads which reflect the setbacks specified in the table above. 3.29 Bay Road, Mill Land bordering Bay Road have the Urban Transport Route Overlay and Transport Generating Overlay applied. Rd and Waitpinga Road 3.30 Ring Road / The Ring Road is a high-capacity road that handles the bulk of the freight and passenger vehicle movement across Victor Harbor. Armstrong Road In the interest of reducing congestion and maintaining productivity of the road. Properties bordering Armstrong Road i.e. the Ring Road have the Urban Transport Route Overlay and Transport Generating Overlay applied.

Page 26 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

3.31 Flooding Council’s existing Development Plan makes several references to a 1-in-100 year average return interval flood event and a 1-in- 10 year average return interval flood. Extensive flood mapping is incorporated into the ePlanning solution. 3.32 Armstrong Road Council’s existing Development Plan states that Land division should result in allotments that are capable of providing a 10 metre (Ring Road) wide landscaped buffer along the Ring Road property boundary, except in places where a sufficient landscaping buffer already Landscape exists or where the natural features of the land alleviate the need for a landscape buffer. Buffer This policy be retained in the Code. 3.33 Landscaping Note concerns that the Code lacks provisions around landscaping in general, particularly its application in the interface protection between different land uses. 3.34 Open Hills Face Council’s existing Development Plan makes the following reference to finished floor levels: Character 8 D elopment south west of I n Valley Road and North West of ill Road should not be E!fecied 1th fin shed floor I vels abow e44.5 tre AHO con our. to retain lhe opoo h face character of the /Finished Floor backdrop to Victor Harbor. Levels The area described is part of the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone in the Code.

TNV’s be expanded to include AHD level requirements or an alternative solution is created to retain this policy in the Code. 3.35 Water The Water Resources Overlay has been applied to man-made salt water lakes which were created as part of a residential Resources development, see below. Overlay

Page 27 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

i ~ . '

1counterBay '

y

'

,

. This Overlay be removed, as the provisions are not applicable. 3.36 Building Heights In cases where existing Development Plan policy includes numerical height limits, that these heights are introduced through TNV’s (As proposed in the Ministers Update) 3.37 Foreshore Council requests further consideration for this area as the transition doesn’t reflect existing use of Development Plan Precinct Policy. 3.38 Suburban The existing Development Plan’s Light Industry Zone has been transferred to the Code’s Suburban Employment Zone. This Code Employment Zone lists Community Centre, Consulting Room, Hotel, Office, Shop and Tourist Accommodation all as performance assessed Zone where the existing Development Plan policy lists them as non-complying. 3.39 Home Industry In consistencies with non-complying development being listed as envisaged or performance assessed development or, increase the scale of activities. 3.40 Mainstreet and The Mainstreet and Activity Centre zones require review with issues identified such as: tourism accommodation envisaged in all Activity Centre zones however no provisions are listed in township Mainstreet or suburban activity centre nor listed in performance assessed Zones tables. Concept plan provisions are missing from township activity centre and suburban and township mainstreet zones. Land division provisions are missing from township mainstreet zone. Township mainstreet advertising 5.1 doesn’t have DTS criteria when other similar zones do. Suburban and township activity centres don’t have parking, traffic or access provisions.

Page 28 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

All Mainstreet and activity centre zone are essentially the same respectively with the exception of building height. So if we were to select the ‘zone’ based on this alone township is the most aligned with the current Development Plan policy, with the exception of landmark sites which are mentioned elsewhere in this table. 3.41 Supported Existing Development Plan policy (refer Residential Zone Principle 11 & general ‘Supported Accommodation, Housing for Aged Accommodation, Persons and People with Disabilities’ section) was created as a result of Council’s ‘Joint Residential Review’ PAR in 2006 (with Housing for Alexandrina Council) and ‘Better Development Plan (BDP) and General DPA’ in 2016. This policy was designed to recognise Aged Persons Council’s ageing demographic and is critical to be retained on the new Code. This is also supported by DPTI’s ‘People and and People with Neighbourhoods’ Background Paper (pages 14-17) and encouraging the application of ‘Universal Design’ principles. Disabilities 3.42 AHD levels – Crozier Hill Rural Living – referring to existing ‘Crozier Hill Policy Area 27’, there is some specific AHD policy in the non-complying Rural Living table that should be included in the new Code Zone 3.43 State Certain aspects of the draft Code applying to Victor Harbor also effects regional/state wide objectives. Relevant State Government Government agencies also need to also pay particular attention to tourism and/or conservation priorities as it relates to the Interest following:

• Granite Island • Heysen Trail and Waitpinga Cliff line • South Coastal District Hospital site and the associated helipad Concept Plan • Iconic public views enjoyed from the approach into Victor Harbor along Hindmarsh Road (near Kleinig’s Hill Lookout)

DPTI engage directly with these agencies in regards to impacts on sites of state significance.

Page 29 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.1 Caravan & Tourist Park Caravan & Tourist - The floor area for shops and restaurant increased from 150m² to 300m² compared to current Zone Park non-complying list however the Deemed to Satisfy (DTS) provisions still limit to 150m² - Provisions now include a floor area of 50m² for the office in caravan park - Site areas in a caravan park increased from 81m² to 100m² per site. - A section of provisions has been added for advertisements – basically covering the park logo/pylon sign - Specific notification requirements have been added for restaurant and shop components that are on a residential zone boundary - Industry is currently deemed to be non-complying, in the new policy light industry is excluded from restricted development classification however provisions in the zone don’t give any support to industry.

4.2 Coastal Conservation Conservation Local policies are considered critical for the future protection of Granite Island’s environmental, Zone tourism and biological values and should be retained. Precinct 1 Granite Island Tourist Facilities 4.3 Coastal Open Space Open Space Objective 4 and Concept Plan should be retained for the future protection of Warland Reserve. Zone 4.4 Commercial Zone Suburban - The floor area for shops and restaurant increased from 250m² to 1000m² compared to current Employment non-complying list however the Deemed to Satisfy provisions limit to 500m². - Hotel and tourist accommodation specifically listed as Performance Assessed Development – this is not an envisaged use in the current commercial zone. - The floor size limit of 500m² for bulky goods development has been removed. - The 10m setback to Adelaide Road frontages as reflected in Table ViH/1 has been removed, DTS 3.1 reduces setback from Adelaide Road from 10m to 3m. - Provisions now include policy with minimum lot size and frontage for land divisions.

Page 30 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.5 Deferred Urban Zone Deferred Urban Concept Plan ViH/5 should be retained, and PDC 7 be included by way of the inclusion of the ring road (Armstrong/Welch Road) as an Urban Transport Routes Overlay.

Concept Plan 5 should be retained – residential infill south of ring road, commercial centre PDC 7 needs consideration – vehicle access only via Waggon Road, not direct access to Ring Road – 100kmh speed section (could an overlay remedy this concern?) 4.6 Light Industry Zone Suburban - Consulting Rooms are currently non-complying development and will become Deemed-to-satisfy Employment - Office is currently non-complying except where ancillary to and in association with industrial development which will change to a Performance Assessed Development. - Community Centre, hotel, shop up to 1000m², tourist accommodation, currently non-complying and will become Performance assessed development. - Maximum site coverage provisions have been removed. - The specific landscaping requirements for development along Waterport Road have been removed and replaced with non location specific landscaping provisions. - Provisions now include policy with minimum lot size and frontage for land divisions.

DPTI want to encourage greater employment opportunities across all zones – reasoning behind including such an expanded list of envisaged uses

Page 31 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.7 Home Industry Policy Home Industry - Consulting Rooms, shops, office currently non-complying and will become Deemed-to-satisfy Area 1 - Shops of a small scale (<250m²) added as Performance assessed development. - Motor repair station is currently non-complying but will become an envisaged use. - Office was limited to in conjunction currently but will go to own use in new zone. - The number of allowed employees not residing at a home industry has increased from 2 to 3 persons. - The area that a potential home activity can utilise on a site has increased from area from 90m² to 200m² depending on lot size and imposes car parking requirement for each non-resident employee. - Secondary street setback increased from 2m to 3m – 2m. - Provisions now include policy with minimum lot size and frontage for land divisions.

4.8 Local Centre Zone Suburban Activity Local policy referring to specific streets be retained. Centre Performance Assessed: Bulky goods outlet, dwelling and residential flat building currently non complying – unless in association with an envisaged land use, retail fuel outlet, store (was non complying), public transport terminal. Need TNV for Hayborough east building heights, setbacks Need TNV for Yilki setbacks and heights, dwelling position and location restrictions Hayborough East policy area PDC 2,3,4 lost restricting building height, setbacks Yilki Policy Area PDC 6 building heights and setbacks lost Suburban Activity Centre is too broad – more suitable zone may be required if the current policy is to be maintained 4.9 Mixed Use Zone Suburban Business Specific policies regarding the Inman River, flooding and stormwater be retained. and Innovation DTS – dwelling, semi-detached dwelling (Dense accommodation envisaged) consistent with existing policy Performance assessed:

Page 32 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct Includes light industry, warehouse, store, motor repair, service trade premises which are not non complying but are not necessarily envisaged Shop less than 1000m2 (was 250m2 otherwise cat 2) PDC 7 regarding advertising restrictions is lost. Need inclusion of concept plan 11. Provides area for emergency services depot, as well as retaining area adjacent Inman River for open space purposes

Page 33 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.10 Neighbourhood Centre Suburban Activity - Dwelling and residential flat building are currently listed as non-complying development unless in Zone Centre conjunction with a non-residential use, now added as a performance assessed development with provision requirements for conjunction with non-residential uses – above or behind. - The Hayborough and McCracken specific requirements for residential development have been removed. - Hotel and tourist accommodation added as performance assessed development but does not exclude gaming or public bar facilities. - Public transport terminal added as Performance Assessed Development, currently major public service depot and road transport terminal listed as non-complying. - Industry is listed as a restricted development with the exclusion of Light industry, currently all industry is non-complying. - New height limits added by a height TNV but no details provided, zone currently allows 3 storeys and 12m. - New Zone has a section on Concept Plans which could allow for current Concept plans being ViH/12 and ViH/13 to be retained. - Emergency services facility, hospital and public transport terminal added as Performance Assessed Development - Freestanding advert signs have a face area of 6m² added, currently no size nominated.

Page 34 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.11 Open Space Zone Open Space Retention of existing policy regarding existing educational campuses. Protection of the open backdrop to the township would be addressed by the inclusion of the Code’s Significant Landscape Protection Overlay.

DTS – advertisements (currently non complying unless associated) Should open space have a max size and height – Table 1 – Maximum size and height requirements (general development policies) Advertisements and Advertising Hoardings – Open Space not listed? Performance assessed: Shop max 50m2 (was non complying if > 450m2) – DTS/DPF 1.3 No restricted development therefore everything defaults to performance assessed Significant Landscape Overlay – to incorporate the retention of open space and limit development Educational establishment needs inclusion? Tourism accommodation envisaged with golf course 4.12 Golf Course Policy Area Recreation Recreation not considered on table 1 (as per above reference to advertising table within General development policies) – Advertisement max size and height – should be included Shop max area 80m2 – was 450m2 – DTS/DPF 1.2 No restricted development Envisaged uses are lost – all become performance assessed All other code assessed development (table 3 – performance assessed) requires public notification 4.13 Primary Production Rural Application of the Code’s Significant Landscape Protection Overlay to the south coast.

Significant landscapes overlay required for development on hill side face and coastal development to assist with retaining natural landscape and visual amenity Coastal areas overlay doesn’t consider visual amenity

Page 35 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.14 Regional Centre Zone Business - Shops with a floor area over 500m² become restricted development. Burke Street Policy Area 7 Neighbourhood - Building height in zone is increased to three levels and 12m when not on residential zone boundary, current emphasis on single storey buildings has been removed. - Land division context has changed to reflect demand as opposed to current traditional pattern. 4.15 Regional Centre Zone Urban Activity - Current policy in PDC’s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 relating to Landmark development sites have been Business Policy Area 8 Centre removed and associated Concept Plan ViH/6. - The specific verandah requirements in PDC 10 regarding specific streets has been removed.

Page 36 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.16 Regional Centre Zone Suburban Main - Dwelling and residential flat building are currently listed as non-complying development unless in Town Centre Character Street conjunction with a non-residential use, now added as a performance assessed development with Policy Area 9 provision requirements for conjunction with non-residential uses – above or behind. - Bulky goods outlet, dwelling, residential flat buildings, place of worship, pre-school identified as a Performance Assessed Development. - Bulky goods outlets with gross leasable area of 500m² located on periphery of zone – this is not currently an identified use in either the policy area or zone. - Building height to be via TNVs – this will need to reflect the various heights which will be lost. Need to consider PDC 7, - References to historic transportation facilities and general heritage are in the policy area have been removed. - PDC 5 about tourist accommodation form has been removed. - PDC 6 about blocking views to state heritage places across Warland Reserve has been removed. - PDC’s 8, 9 and 10 which give specific setbacks, heights and development form for Flinders Parade, Coral Street and Railway Terrace are all watered down and lose the area specific outcomes especially of a heritage context. - PDC 14 regarding the large fig trees is removed.

- Regional Centre Zone provisions are also being removed as this zone does not specifically rollover given the policy areas. PDC 5, 13 and 15 along with Concept Plan Map ViH/3 and 6 are removed. PDC 6 which provides verandah widths is removed, best replacement is “PO 1.2 Where zero or minor setbacks are desirable, development provides shelter over footpaths to positively contribute to the walkability and comfort of the public realm.” This does not provide any width parameters.

Page 37 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.17 Regional Centre Zone Urban Activity - Dwelling and residential flat building are currently listed as non-complying development unless in Shopping Policy Area 10 Centre conjunction with a non-residential use, now added as a performance assessed development with provision requirements for conjunction with non-residential uses – above or behind. - Bulky goods outlets with gross leasable area of 500m² or more to be located on periphery of zone – this is not currently an identified use in either the policy area or zone. Building height to be via TNVs (does speak to 6 storeys) this will need to reflect the various heights with PDC6 to be removed. - Bulky goods outlet, store, dwelling, residential flat buildings, place of worship, education establishment, public transport terminal, recreation area, retail fuel outlet, emergency services facility, hospital, pre-school identified as a Performance Assessed Development.

4.18 Regional Centre Zone Tourism - Changes the emphasis of the zone from regional centre to a tourism zone. Visitor Facilities Policy Development - Shops above 500m² become restricted development. Area 11 - This is the incorrect zone and needs to be changed

4.19 Residential Zone General Dwelling types consistent with Development Plan, however minimum site area and frontage are Bay Road Policy Area 12 Neighbourhood not.

Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Concept Plan Map ViH/7-District Hospital Helipad Flight Path and Height Restrictions as referred in PDC 3 is not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current minimum site area and frontages.

Page 38 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.20 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling type and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan Encounter Bay Policy Neighbourhood Area 13 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Concept Plan Map ViH/8-Bacchus Road (Encounter Bay) as referred in PDC 2 and PDC 10 is not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Local policy in PDC 8 which specifically refers to a maximum finished floor level in AHD to retain the open hills character to the backdrop of Victor Harbor is not carried over in the Planning and Design Code.

4.21 Residential Zone General Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area not consistent with Development Plan. Hayborough Policy Area Neighbourhood 14 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in both PDC’s 7 and 8 that deal with development on the southern side of Hindmarsh Road and views/vistas gained from public lookouts and private property are not carried over in the Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current dwelling types and minimum site area and frontages.

4.22 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan. Hayborough North Policy Neighbourhood Area 15 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC 4 to restrict vehicle access to Waterport Road not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Page 39 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.23 Residential Zone General Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area not consistent with Development Plan. Canterbury West Policy Neighbourhood Area 16 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC’s 5, 6, 7 to guide development of land and restrict vehicle access to Armstrong Road not carried over in the Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current dwelling types and minimum site area and frontages.

4.24 Residential Zone General Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area not consistent with Development Plan. Hindmarsh River Policy Neighbourhood Area 17 Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current dwelling types and minimum site area and frontages

4.25 Residential Zone Suburban Concept Plan Map ViH/10-Hindmarsh Valley not carried over in Planning and Design Code. Need Hindmarsh Valley Policy Neighbourhood to retain in order to guide infrastructure, the development of the neighbourhood activity centre and Area 18 location of dwelling densities.

4.26 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan. Hindmarsh Valley Policy Neighbourhood Area 18 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Precinct 2 Adelaide – Local policy in PDCs 22, 23, 24 and 25 should be retained to ensure the appropriate future Victor Harbor Road development of this land.

Page 40 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.27 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan. Hindmarsh Valley Policy Neighbourhood Area 18 Dwelling height partially consistent with Development Plan.

Precinct 3 Strawberry Hill Local policy in PDC’s 27, 29 and 30 not carried over in the Planning and Design Code. Road

4.28 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan. Hindmarsh Valley Policy Neighbourhood Area 18 Dwelling height partially consistent with Development Plan.

Precinct 4 Waggon Road Local policy in PDC’s 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 to should be retained to ensure appropriate future North development of this land.

4.29 Residential Zone Suburban Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area consistent with Development Plan. Hindmarsh Valley Policy Neighbourhood Area 18 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Precinct 5 Waggon Road Local policy in PDCs 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 should be retained particularly those which guide South where denser types of dwellings should be located.

Page 41 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.30 Residential Zone General Dwelling types consistent with Development Plan, however minimum site area and frontage are Lakeside Policy Area 19 Neighbourhood not.

Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in Concept Plan Map ViH/7-Distric Hospital Helipad Flight Path & Height Restrictions as referred in PDC 3 not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Local policy in PDC 6, 10, and in particular PDC 11 and 12 which guide development of pontoon structures is not carried over in the Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current minimum site area and frontages.

4.31 Residential Zone General Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area not consistent with Development Plan. McCracken Golf Course Neighbourhood Policy Area 20 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC 1 and 3 which reflects envisaged golf course facilities and PDC 4, 6 and 7 which guide location of dwelling densities, access and amenity are not carried over into Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current dwelling types and minimum site area and frontages.

Page 42 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.32 Residential Zone General Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area not consistent with Development Plan. Mount Breckan Policy Neighbourhood Area 21 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current dwelling types and minimum site area and frontages.

4.33 Residential Zone General Dwelling types consistent with Development Plan, however minimum site area and frontage are Town Centre Policy Area Neighbourhood not. 22 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC 5 that deals with the flood prone nature of the land in Kullaroo Road and Almond Avenue not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current minimum site area and frontages.

4.34 Residential Zone Residential Dwelling types and minimum frontage and site area TNV’s consistent with Development Plan. Waitpinga Policy Area 23 Neighbourhood Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC 5 and 8 that deals with access and landscape buffer to Waitpinga Road not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

Page 43 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.35 Residential Zone General Dwelling types consistent with Development Plan, however minimum site area and frontage are Waterfront Policy Area 24 Neighbourhood not.

Dwelling height not consistent with Development Plan.

Local policy in PDC 3 and 4 which specifies maximum building height and minimum side setbacks not carried over into the Planning and Design Code.

Local policy in PDC 7 which reflects envisaged types of tourist accommodation facilities not carried over into Planning and Design Code.

And local policy in PDC’s 8, 9 and 10 that deal with parking and amenity are not carried over into the Planning and Design Code

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current maximum dwelling height.

4.36 Residential Zone General Dwelling types consistent with Development Plan, however minimum site area and frontage are Yilki Residential Policy Neighbourhood not. Area 25 Dwelling height consistent with Development Plan.

Change to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to include a TNV that reflects current minimum site area and frontages.

Page 44 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.37 Residential Zone General Office (greater than 100m2) and Shop (greater than 250m2) are non-complying land uses which Neighbourhood, area now envisaged in the Planning and Design Code General Neighbourhood, Suburban Suburban Neighbourhood and Residential Neighbourhood Zones. Neighbourhood and Residential Planning and Design Code General Neighbourhood Zone and Suburban Neighbourhood Zone Neighbourhood only Table 4 Restricted Development type is a Shop with a gross leasable floor area greater than 1000m2. Currently non-complying where the gross leasable floor area is greater than 250m2 in the Residential Zone.

Residential Neighbourhood Zone more closely reflects current Residential Zone for Table 4 – Restricted Development where a Shop is restricted where the gross leasable floor area is greater than 200m2, however Restaurant is excluded from Restricted Development which is currently non- complying in the Residential Zone.

All other non-complying development listed in Development Plan Residential Zone not carried over to Table 4 Restricted Development in Planning and Design Code.

General Neighbourhood Zone and Suburban Neighbourhood Zone have Table 3 - Performance Assessed criteria identified for a Consulting Room, Office, Preschool and Shop. However, DTS/DPF 1.5 and DTS/DPF 1.4 limits to 200m2 where located on an arterial road, collector road or adjacent a Main Street or Activity Centre Zone. This more closely reflects current Residential Zone policy in PDC 1 which identifies envisaged small-scale non-residential land uses that serves the local community which includes a Child Care Facility and a Consulting Room, Office and Shop with a gross leasable floor area of 250m2 or less.

No Performance Assessed criteria for Office, Shop or Consulting room in Residential Neighbourhood Zone. However, DTS/DPF1.1 does envisage Office, Shop and DTS/DPF 1.2 does envisage office, shop or consulting room to 50m2 in gross leasable floor area.

Page 45 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.38 Residential Park Zone Residential Park Shop is currently listed as non-complying except where ancillary to residential park and less than Zone 150m² which is changing to restricted development if over 1000m². - Provisions now include a floor area of 50m² for the office in caravan park - Site areas in a caravan park increased from 81m² to 100m² per site. - A section of provisions has been added for advertisements – basically covering the park logo/pylon sign - Specific notification requirements have been added for restaurant and shop components that are on a residential zone boundary - Industry is currently deemed to be non-complying, in the new policy light industry is excluded from restricted development classification however provisions in the zone don’t give any support to industry. 4.39 Rural Living Zone Rural Living Minimum allotment size TNV 20000m2 is consistent with Development Plan Policy Area PDC 10 Hills Policy Area 26 (b) 2 hectares. Introduction of a minimum frontage of 50m in DTS/DPF 3.1

Detached dwelling type consistent with Development Plan. Dwelling height two storey, however PDC 5 not carried over which envisages two storey to be low profile, sited below ridge lines and to avoid excessive cut and fill. . 4.40 Rural Living Zone Rural Living Minimum allotment size TNV 20000m2 which is consistent with Development Plan Policy Area Crozier Hill Policy Area 27 PDC 12 hectares. Introduction of a minimum frontage of 50m in DTS/DPF 3.1

Detached dwelling type consistent with Development Plan.

Concept Plan Map ViH/9-Rural Living (Crozier Hill) not carried over to Planning and Design Code.

And local policy in PDCs 8 and 9 that reference the Concept Plan Map ViH/9-Rural Living (Crozier Hill) not carried over to Planning and Design Code.

Page 46 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.41 Rural Living Zone Rural Living Minimum allotment size TNV 5000m2 consistent with Development Plan Policy Area PDC 13 0.5 Morgan Park Policy Area hectares. Introduction of a minimum frontage of 50m in DTS/DPF 3.1 28 Detached dwelling type consistent with Development Plan. Dwelling height two storey, however PDC 5 not carried over which envisages two storey to be low profile, sited below ridge lines and to avoid excessive cut and fill.

Local policy in PDC 7 to provide a 10m landscape buffer to Welch Road reserve not carried over in Planning and Design Code.

4.42 Rural Living Zone Rural Living Minimum allotment size TNV 10000m2 consistent with Development Plan Policy Area PDC 1 Rural Living North Policy hectare. Introduction of a minimum frontage of 50m in DTS/DPF 3.1 Area 29 Detached dwelling type consistent with Development Plan.

Page 47 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4.43 Rural Living Zone Rural Living Non-complying land uses now envisaged in the Planning and Design Code Rural Living Zone include Light Industry, Shop and Consulting Room.

Non-Residential land uses envisaged in Planning and Design Code PO 1.4 (ancillary to a dwelling on the same site and comprises small scale commercial uses including office, shop and consulting room and small scale light industry uses) which are not envisaged land uses in Development Plan Rural Living Zone PDC 1. And Hills Policy Area 26 PDC 3 and Rural Living North Policy Area 29 PDC 3 specifically identify industrial, commercial or business (including retail) development should not occur.

DTS/DPF 1.5 envisages these land uses (office, shop, consulting room and light industry) to not exceed 100m2 in total floor area.

Shop has Table 2 Deemed-To-Satisfy (DTS) criteria and Table 3 Performance Assessed criteria in DTS/DPF 1.5 and DTS/DPF 2.2. Shop is currently non-complying development except where it is in Morgan Park Policy Area 28 with a gross leasable floor area of 450m2 or less. Or the Shop is located in Crozier Hill Policy Area 27 with a gross leasable floor area of 50m2 or less. The DTS criteria will allow a Shop to be up to 100m2 across the entire Rural Living Zone however all Rural Living is within a Hazards (Bushfire-Medium Risk) Overlay or Hazards (Bushfire-High Risk) Overlay and therefore excludes Shop from DTS assessment but not Table 3 Performance Assessed.

Horse Keeping has Table 2 Deemed-To-Satisfy (DTS) and Table 3 Performance Assessed criteria however DTS/DPF 1.2 requires it to be ancillary to a dwelling on the same allotment and for the allotment area to be 1ha and not more than 2 horses per allotment. This is consistent with Development Plan Rural Living Zone PDC 5 and PDC 9 (b). Similarly, DTS/DPF 1.3 criteria requires horses to be accommodated within a stable with supplementary feeding to maintain pasture which is consistent with Development Plan Rural Living Zone PDC 6.

DTS/DPF 2.3 requires the location of stables/shelters and yards to be setback 25m from all allotment boundaries which is a greater distance than Development Plan Rural Living Zone PDC 10 (a) and (b).

Page 48 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct Currently horse keeping is publicly notifiable (Category 3) except in Crozier Hill Policy Area 27 where it is Category 1.

Table 4 Restricted Development only includes a Shop except where it has a gross leasable floor area less than 200m2 or a Restaurant.

Page 49 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.44 Suburban Neighbourhood Housing Diversity - Shop is currently an envisaged land use with no size restrictions which is changing to restricted Zone development if over 1000m². - Concept Plan ViH/14 is being lost and should be retained as it sets out the development rationale for the zone - side and rear setback requirements for dwellings are altered. 4.45 Tourist Accommodation Tourism - The Inman River Tourist Recreation Policy Area 30 should be split into Community Facilities Zone Development Zone and Open Space Zone to reflect actual land uses, the Tourism Development Zone does not reflect the locality. -Retention of local policy relating to reducing visibility, and the application of the Code’s Hazards (Flooding) Overlay to the Inman River - Industry is currently deemed to be non-complying, in the new policy light industry is excluded from restricted development classification however provisions in the zone don’t give any support to industry. - Building height restriction of 9m in the Whalers Inn Policy Area 31 has been removed.

Page 50 OIHO( Vic1or I Iurbor City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response

4. Zone Specific

Existing Zone, Policy Code Zone Changes between existing Development Plan and The Code (not an exhaustive list) Area, Precinct 4.46 Watershed Protection Peri-Urban Shop (on farm sale) was up to 50m2 – now DTS up to 100m2 (Mount Lofty Ranges) Shop currently with no height parameter but now specifies 9m Zone Tourist accommodation needed to be within or an extension to a dwelling otherwise would be non- complying – now DTS up to 100m2 and not necessarily part of an existing building - No height parameter previously, now 7m Horse keeping was previously non-complying is now DTS Performance Assessed: Brewery, Cidery, distillery (previously non-complying) – no impact as assessed similarly to a winery Function Centre – some size and setback restrictions apply PO 11.1, public notification required Office – DTS 7.1 < 100m2 but must be directly related to the primary production use or tourism use Shop 100-200m2 – public notification >200m2 Store (previously non-complying) – DTS 4.1 ancillary to use on the property, provides minimum site area and floor area; DTS 4.2 states setbacks and height parameters – public notification >250m2 Tourist accommodation – between 100-200m2 – public notification > 200m2 Workers accommodation – parameters set within DTS 9.1 for areas, building form, setbacks – required public notification Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment (Area 1) Overlay – needs removal from VH Council area (VH Council area no longer contains a Watershed protection zone – may now default zone to Rural) Procedural Matters – Notification (b) reads “all other code assessed development” in Rural (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone Table 3 Should read “all other code assessed development” in Peri Urban Zone Table 3 (c) “detached dwelling where located within” – obviously text missing after within?

Page 51 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Detail Section Residential Zone / Neighbourhood Zone Density Standards In 2006 both the City of Victor Harbor and Alexandrina Council jointly completed a ‘Joint Residential Review’ Development Plan Amendment (DPA). The outcomes were a result of including the following:

 Consistency with Good Residential Design Guidelines  Reviewing the very broad, existing and proposed residential areas and devising new, more specific policy areas within an overarching Residential Zone  An analysis of community preferences and attitudes for future residential development  A review of the infrastructure capacity of the existing and proposed residential areas  Providing the location and rationale for the desired future character of each new Policy Area  Ground level analysis of existing neighbourhood character, with emphasis on topography, historical development pattern, nature of residential dwelling stock, and capacity for infill development In conjunction with DPTI, analysis of the development opportunities provided under the existing Residential Zone provisions compared to the opportunities offered through the proposed policy changes, revealing the estimated theoretical development potential in terms of actual dwelling numbers and, the anticipated ‘practical’ development potential based on market forces (with an estimated site value/capital value factor of 1:1.5). The result of this DPA established 14 policy areas within a new Residential Zone, providing particular attention and guidance concerning future residential character, building design and desired / projected densities. It was created in partnership, as a result of conducting comprehensive, locally specific, detailed site analysis and GIS modelling (with Planning SA/DPTI). This comprehensive study has been ignored in the new Code, with no real justification provided for its proposed replacement. The following table details these changes:

Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Hayborough Policy Area General Neighbourhood Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 420 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 120 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- 300 m2 300 m2 Nil detached Frontage - Semi- 9 m 9 m Nil detached Site Area - Row Not supported 200 m2 New dwelling types introduced Frontage – Row Not supported 7 m increasing density Site Area – Group Not supported 300 m2 Frontage – Group Not supported 15m Site Area - Residential Not supported 300m2 Flat Frontage – Residential Not supported 15 m Flat Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Introduction of hammer head land divisions, changing density and street character.

Page 52 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Canterbury West Policy General Neighbourhood Area Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 420 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 120 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- Not supported 300 m2 New dwelling types introduced detached increasing density Frontage - Semi- Not supported 9 m detached Site Area - Row Not supported 200 m2 Frontage – Row Not supported 7 m Site Area – Group Not supported 300 m2 Frontage – Group Not supported 15m Site Area - Residential Not supported 300m2 Flat Frontage – Residential Not supported 15m Flat Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Introduction of hammer head land divisions, changing density and street character.

Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Hindmarsh River Policy General Neighbourhood Area Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 420 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 120 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- 300 m2 300 m2 Nil detached Frontage - Semi- 9 m 9 m Nil detached Site Area - Row Not supported 200 m2 New dwelling types introduced Frontage – Row Not supported 7 m increasing density Site Area – Group 300 m2 300 m2 Nil Frontage – Group 6 m 15 m Increased minimum frontage for group dwellings Site Area - Residential Not supported 300m2 New dwelling types introduced Flat increasing density Frontage – Residential Not supported 15 m Flat Hammerhead Accepted Accepted Nil

Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Lakeside Policy Area General Neighbourhood Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 390 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 90 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- 270 m2 300 m2 Site area for semi-detached detached dwellings increased by 30 m2 Frontage - Semi- 9 m 9 m Nil detached Site Area - Row 200 m2 200 m2 Nil Frontage – Row 7 m 7 m Nil Site Area – Group 275 m2 300 m2 Site area for group dwellings increased by 25 m2 Frontage – Group 6 m 15 m Frontage for group dwellings increased by 9 m Site Area - Residential 250 m2 300m2 Site area for residential flat Flat buildings increased by 50 m2 Frontage – Residential 6 m 15 m Frontage for residential flat Flat buildings increased by 9 m

Page 53 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Introduction of hammer head land divisions, changing density and street character.

~ - -- - - Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone McCracken Golf Course General Neighbourhood Policy Area Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 420 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 120 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- 300 m2 300 m2 Nil detached Frontage - Semi- 9 m 9 m Nil detached Site Area - Row Not supported 200 m2 New dwelling types introduced Frontage – Row Not supported 7 m increasing density Site Area – Group 300 m2 300 m2 Nil Frontage – Group 6 m 15 m Increased minimum frontage for group dwellings Site Area - Residential Not supported 300m2 New dwelling types introduced Flat increasing density Frontage – Residential Not supported 15 m Flat Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Introduction of hammer head land divisions, changing density and street character.

Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Mount Breckan Policy General Neighbourhood Area Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Nil Site Area - Detached 420 m2 300 m2 Minimum detached dwelling site area reduced by 120 m2 Frontage - Detached 12 m 9 m Minimum detached dwelling frontage reduced by 3 m Site Area - Semi- Not supported 300 m2 New dwelling types introduced detached increasing density Frontage - Semi- Not supported 9 m detached Site Area - Row Not supported 200 m2 Frontage – Row Not supported 7 m Site Area – Group Not supported 300 m2 Frontage – Group Not supported 15m Site Area - Residential Not supported 300m2 Flat Frontage – Residential Not supported 15m Flat Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Introduction of hammer head land divisions, changing density and street character.

Development Plan Planning and Design Code Change Policy Area / Zone Waterfront Policy Area General Neighbourhood Height 2 storey, 9 metres 2 storey, 9 metres Reduction in supported dwelling height Site Area - Detached 300 m2 300 m2 Nil Frontage - Detached 9 m 9 m Nil Site Area - Semi- 220 m2 300 m2 Site area for semi-detached detached dwellings increased by 80 m2 Frontage - Semi- 8 m 9 m Frontage for semi-detached detached dwellings increased by 1 m Site Area - Row 180 m2 200 m2 Site area for row dwellings increased by 20 m2 Frontage – Row 7 m 7 m Nil Site Area – Group 275 m2 300 m2 Site area for group dwellings increased by 25 m2

Page 54 City of Victor Harbor

Phase 3 – Draft Planning and Design Code Consultation Response Frontage – Group 6 m 15 m Frontage for group dwellings increased by 9 m Site Area - Residential 200 m2 300m2 Site area for residential flat Flat buildings increased by 100 m2 Frontage – Residential 6 m 15 m Frontage for residential flat Flat buildings increased by 9 m Hammerhead Not supported Accepted Nil

Page 55