Planning application at 32 Gurney St South Plympton

Kym Beard sent a message to Kris Hanna.

Kris Hanna
Kym Beard
Planning application at 32 Gurney St South Plympton
Sept. 1, 2016, 1:07 a.m.
Hi Kris,
I'm still perplexed as to how this subdivision went ahead when the Northern Policy Area 13 document implies that row dwellings need to meet a minimum of 250m2 and I have been advised/measured these blocks to be 242.8m2 each???
I hope that the buildings actually meet the minimum policy stipulations and don't cause any safety issues for neighbouring houses when reversing onto Chitral Tce.
I understand the State Development policies had changed a while back, but that doesn't mean the the governing council doesn't have the right to reject these land divisions that don't meet minimum sizes.

From Kym Beard to local councillor Kris Hanna


Kym Beard posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Kym Beard and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

Planning Application for 32 Gurney St South Plympton

Description: Land Division Residential Torrens Title - 1 into 3 allotments

Read more and see what others have to say here:

Best wishes,

Kris Hanna
Sept. 19, 2016, 6:44 a.m.
Dear Kym,

Thank you for your enquiry.

I appreciate that on face value, dwellings on land less than the minimum site area should not be supported.

The Development Plan, however, comprises only guidelines for development. I acknowledge there is a popular misconception that the DP is a set of rules. On the contrary, State legislation guides planning authorities toward approving proposals, even those falling short of quite specific "requirements" of the DP so long as they are not at significant variance from the Plan. Thus each guiding principle of the DP is not a 'hard and fast' rule; rather, for most applications, if the weight of the complying features outweigh the deficient features, the application will gain Planning Consent!

This regime leads to many disappointed residents, but there you have it - we are bound by State law.

I have been advised that in this particular case the shortfall in site area was considered relatively minor, and the design of the dwellings met a majority of applicable design criteria. In this regard, the merits of the proposal were such that Development Plan approval was warranted.

In terms of safety for reversing vehicles, I am advised that each dwelling now faces Chitral Terrace, which means it is highly likely the existing fencing along the Chitral Street frontage of the property will be removed. Combined with the removal of the galvanised shed which is adjacent to your property sightlines may improve looking north along Chitral Terrace when you are reversing out of your property. I have been advised that with respect to fencing between your properties, the location, height, length and costs are civil matters that are not the jurisdiction of Council (unless the fence exceeds 2.1 metres in height). You may wish to raise your concerns regarding safety with the property owner when the time comes to discussing any new/replacement fencing.
Tania Baldock
Executive Assistant to the CEO and the Mayor | City of Marion

P 08 8375 6878 | F 08 8375 6834
E | W

PO Box 21 Oaklands Park SA 5046
245 Sturt Road Sturt SA 5047

We acknowledge we are part of Kaurna land and recognise the Kaurna people as the traditional and continuing custodians of the land.

Cove Civic Centre – find out about our newest library, enterprise and community facility.