A single tree has blocked Courtney Grose and her husband Daniel Smith’s redevelopment plans on their Elizabeth Vale property. Picture: Adelaide Arb Consultants.
A single, unassuming gum tree on a council footpath is frustrating an Adelaide couple’s attempt to knockdown their home and rebuild.
For the past decade, Courtney Grose and her husband Daniel Smith have been planning to demolish the modest Elizabeth Vale investment home they purchased at the corner of Lockerly St and Longleat Rd and replace it with three new three-bedroom dwellings.
However, when the couple were last year finally in a financial position to realise their dream, they discovered changes to South Australian planning laws meant a red flowering gum at the front of their property was now classified as “significant’’ and a driveway to one of the new residences would encroach upon the tree’s required 6.46m protection zone.
Courtney Grose and her husband Daniel Smith bought the property a decade ago. Picture: Supplied by Courtney Grose.
Ms Grose said it was unfathomable that the tree – which an arborist’s report has found is not indigenous to SA, did not represent important habitat for native fauna and was only in fair health – could not make way for additional homes to be built during a national housing crisis.
She said the couple had been willing to replace the tree with two others that were indigenous to the area and more suitably located along the street verge but Playford Council had made it clear their subdivision and rebuild plans would not be approved if the tree did not remain.
“I know a lot of people don’t want to get rid of trees and I know we have to consider the shade it provides … but I am surprised, in an age where we are desperate for (more) homes, that this (getting development approval) is so difficult,’’ Ms Grose said.
“We are putting up some pretty nice houses.
“They’re going to be three-bedroom, two-bathroom and two living areas – they’re quite nice homes so I’m surprised this is the reaction.’’
Ms Grose said had the couple been able to afford to redevelop two years ago – when laws required trees to have a circumference of 3m rather than the current 2m to be classified as significant – there would have been no impediment to removing the tree.
Changes to South Australian planning laws mean a red flowering gum at the front of their property is now classified as “significant’’ and a driveway to one of the new residences would encroach upon the tree’s required 6.46m protection zone. Picture: Adelaide Arb Consultants.
She said the couple had so far spent nearly $5000 on arborists and surveyors, and to submit development applications for the project to the council.
Had she not studied interior architecture at university, Ms Grose said there would have been significant further costs to create concept plans for the redevelopment, which she instead completed herself.
Initially, the project was anticipated to cost $1.2m – excluding the initial purchase of the property – but Ms Grose feared soaring building costs, amid ongoing delays to get the subdivision and new dwellings approved, could push the price higher.
She said it was unlikely the redevelopment would be financially feasible if the couple had purchased the property at current market value or had to fork out for professionally drawn concept plans.
To minimise further delays and cost blowouts, the couple have now amended the plans so that the houses face onto Longleat Rd – a less desirable option given Lockerly St had a nicer outlook, Ms Grose said.
“These things (development projects) are incredibly expensive.
“We’re just a normal husband and wife duo – we’re not made of money so it’s taken us 10 years to make this feasible,’’ she said.
The house is on a corner block. Picture: Adelaide Arb Consultants.
“We’ve done everything we can to try and make this work.’’
Playford Council has approved the amended proposal, subject to conditions, including a further redesign of House 3.
Playford Council mayor Glenn Docherty said the council was obligated to abide by state government tree protection laws, and Ms Grose and Mr Smith must demonstrate how they would proceed with the redevelopment without adversely impacting the tree.
“The street tree is of good health and is expected to live for at least another 20 years,’’ Mr Docherty said.
“It contributes to the amenity and tree canopy of this established suburb.’’
A SA Government spokesperson said the redevelopment was a matter for Playford Council, given the council was “the owner of the tree and the relevant authority for decisions on the land division application.’’
– by Lauren Ahwan
English (US) · 