Family forced to seek Adelaide City Council approval for cubby house

AN Adelaide family has been forced to lodge an application with their local council for a cubby house, even though it is already built.

City Council has a problem with this cubby

• Dad forced to apply to Mitcham Council for approval for cubby house

A NORTH Adelaide family has been forced to lodge an application for a cubby house, even though it is already built.

Adelaide City Council staff requested an application be lodged after a councillor reported it was installed without consent.

The application cost a total of $413.50.

The family did not know development approval was required for the cubby house on their Lefevre Tce property.

However, because part of the property is State Heritage-listed, development approval was needed, the council said.

The property includes a single-storey historic building and the application was also referred to the Environment, Water and Natural Resources Department.

Cr Anne Moran said she understood neighbours’ concerns, but the cubby was not going to have a significant impact on the area.

According to a letter to the council by BB Architects, on behalf of the owners, the family was in the process of renovating the property and demolishing part of another building to turn it into a family home.

“The only logical location for the cubby house for its three or four year life is away from that part of the site, as there will be construction going on for a while,” the report stated.

“The single small child that this was built for will grow out of it in a relatively short period of time, and it will be removed.

It said the two parts of the cubby house were smaller than required in usual development circumstances.

Under the council’s development policy, a cubby house less than 10sq m does not need approval, unless it relates to a State Heritage Place.

The cubby includes two parts — a 6.82sq m castle with a climbing bridge and 4.16sq m fort with a slide and fireman’s pole.

“Hence the advice to the owners from the installers was the approval was not required,” the letter read.

Three people told the council they were against the cubby and two people supported it. One person labelled it an “eyesore” and said it would devalue their property, while another said it was an “elevated ugly timber shed” that was out of character for North Adelaide.

But one resident said they were “amazed” the cubby needed approval.

“We should encourage activities in front gardens as it adds life and vibrancy to the community,” the person wrote.

The council referred the cubby to the Environment, Water and Natural Resources Department because it was built near the State Heritage Place.

Principal conservation architect Peter Wells said the development was “acceptable” as it was not attached to the heritage place.

“The cubby house constructed on the northern boundary has only minor impact on the significant views of the place,” Mr Wells said in a letter to the council.

At the council’s Development Assessment Panel meeting last week, it took members less than two minutes to unanimously approve the cubby house.

The owners of the property would not comment for privacy reasons.

Last February, a dad was forced to apply for approval from Mitcham Council to keep his kids’ cubby house and stop it being torn down.