Walkerville Council criticised for approving enormous shed at Vale Park without consultation
Imagine getting home one day to find this giant shed looming over your back fence. An upset couple can’t believe Walkerville Council let it be built with no notice, no consultation and no right of appeal.
City
Don't miss out on the headlines from City. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Urban infill claims 12,000 houses in six years
- How to get the most out of your Advertiser digital subscription
A suburban council has been criticised for approving a gigantic shed without public consultation — and then refusing to help pay for screening trees.
Vale Park couple Brett and Karen Murphy complained to the State Ombudsman after learning the 278sqm structure was approved by a Walkerville Council planning manager.
Mr and Mrs Murphy first learnt about the shed in January when a crane turned up to erect a huge metal frame.
The shed is part of an extensive redevelopment of an adjacent property, which also includes the construction of a new house and swimming pool.
In correspondence with Walkerville Council, Mr and Mrs Murphy determined the shed had been approved by a planning manager who since has left the council.
The manager decided to make it a Category One application, meaning public notification was not required and did not refer it to the council’s planning committee.
His replacement, Carly Walker, told Mr and Mrs Murphy that while the structure was “on the larger side” it was “justified given the separation distance to the existing adjoining dwellings and the concentration of sheds in the same location”.
“It was slightly larger than what is desired under the Development Plan but whilst borderline was considered supportable on balance under the Development Plan,” she said in an email.
Ms Walker said the application was not deemed by her predecessor “to be marginal, controversial or setting a precedent that required the determination of the Council Assessment Panel having regard to the height, bulk, scale or mass”.
“If he had, he would have needed to notify the CEO and then directed to the assessing officer that the application be taken up to Panel,” she wrote.
“The shed itself has a similar bulk, height and scale as the existing single-storey dwelling on the site and some of the older single storey dwellings within the locality, in fact the shed has a lower roof pitch and less roof mass.”
Ms Walker said the building was “not considered to be a store as it is associated with an existing dwelling on the same site”.
“Therefore (it) satisfies the Oxford dictionary test of an outbuilding, which defines such a building as a smaller building to the main dwelling on the same site,” she said.
Mr and Mrs Murphy referred Ms Walker’s emails to the State Ombudsman, which found the council had correctly followed procedures under existing planning laws.
It suggested the council should help pay for screening trees planted by Mr and Mrs Murphy to block the shed but the request had been refused.
Mr Murphy said the “whole situation has been appalling”.
“We now have to live with this monstrosity as a permanent reminder of a failed planning system,” he said.
“How can we have a process that allows something that big and ugly to be built right on your boundary with the approval of just a single council administrator.
“How can it be okay that there is no advance notice to neighbours, no opportunity to object before approval is granted, no reasonable avenue of appeal before it’s too late.”
Mr Murphy said he and his wife had decided to make their situation public to expose flaws in the planning system.
“Our only hope is that highlighting this issue leads to change so others don’t have to suffer the same fate,” he said.
MORE NEWS
Planning Code identifies urban infill challenges
LGA: Planning reforms will make councils weaker
Marion Council fears high-rise developments in works
In a statement, Walkerville Council said while the “shed component of the application was at odds with the outbuilding provision relating to the area and wall height it was supported on balance against the remaining provisions in the Development Plan”.
“The application was finely balanced and was supported as it did not contravene the Objectives and Desired Character for the Residential Zone and Vale Park Policy Area in light of the size of the site, the lack of habitable room windows immediately adjoining the structure and the prevalence of sheds immediately adjoining the structure,” it said.
The council said the State Ombudsman did not find council liable for the cost of screening trees.
“Given that Council was found to have processed the application correctly (by the State Ombudsman) we will not be providing financial assistance of this kind.”
The council said Mr and Mrs Murphy had been advised of the decision.