The South Australian Heritage Council welcomes the updated draft heritage guidelines for the Colonel Light Gardens State Heritage Area. The Council has reviewed the draft guidelines and has provided a submission to Heritage South Australia. The Council thanks Heritage SA for the opportunity to comment and for conducting this open and transparent consultation. (David Hanna, Executive Officer, SA Heritage Council).

My family (Storer) were the original sheep farmers that gave away or sold, very cheaply, the land that CLG now sits on and it's surrounding suburbs. When they envisioned what CLG would look like in the future they expected that those returning from the war, and their future families, would need to be able to have a decent veggie patch, fruit and nut trees, some chickens, and maybe a horse, in their backyards. The front yard was meant to be able to entertain guests. The bungalow design was Aunty Jill's idea for she considered that the houses would need to stay cool during the relentless summers and therefore would need high pitched roofs and verandahs. They did not expect that CLG would become heritage listed although they did hope that the properties would be able to support many generations of families and keep them from hardship. It is of my opinion that families still need a veggie patch, fruit trees and productive pets. The sideyards between houses were supposed to be lined with trees to create habitable microclimates. Rainwater collection was a necessity and is still a valid way of supporting the garden during times of drought. I am in favour of internal plastic lined steel rainwater tanks.
Multiple cars is not a sustainable option for the future, and will be phased out. Therefore they should not be able to be used as reason for changing the style of the area. Public transport corridors were included in the original plan.
The 6 x 3m corrugated iron shed was and still should be, a backyard necessity. A long gravel driveway in front of it can hold four or five visitors' cars if it is not blocked by a carport. This keeps the streets clear for access.
It was expected that if the houses were built and maintained well, they would survive for many generations. Their ancestors came from Scotland, where there are still many houses built hundreds of years ago. My Aunty Mag lived to be 99.5, she was the oldest resident of CLG for a long time. She lived in the same bungalow for 80 years (she lived at 22 Kingston Ave, Daw Park before that, if you are wondering where the original sheep farmers residence is).
Parklands for the children was also a necessity, as was a place for bigger trees. Plane trees could be replaced with less allergenic and messy varieties though, as they die off. The red gums are still viable though. My Uncle Dean was a carpenter and grew quite a few in the area to be harvested and replaced eventually.
My grandfather went to Mitcham Primary back in the 1920's, which was quite a hike. Our parents and my brother and I were pleased that we could go to CLG instead. It is a lovely school. I hope it's aesthetic can be preserved.
I hope that CLG can be preserved as much as possible, for as long as possible. There are very few hundred year old idealistic visions left in the world. As such CLG is precious and should be treated as such. I feel that we need this example of sustainable living in a suburban setting to show that there is a viable way to survive in the future.

CB, when the suburb was first designed multiple cars were not really considered, the guidelines currently allow for a carport. If there is too much kickback from the loud minority the government will stop listening and move forward anyway (which is effectively what has happened with the new planning and approval laws). It’s better that we conserve the old and embrace the new at the same time. It’s just not practical to leave the old houses standing alone, they weren’t meant to last 100+ years. It takes money to conserve them and if there are too many restrictions you won’t attract people who can afford to conserve them. Even if there are bigger setbacks it doesn’t guarantee that owners will plant a garden. I agree that access should remain from front to rear also which is why I believe open carports with through access is all that should be allowed.

I don’t agree with setback of 900mm from side boundaries for carport posts. There are many examples of sympathetic open carports with posts close to boundaries. If a boundary survey is completed prior to post install what is the issue?

"Section 2.1 What is of heritage significance" appears to have some most significant omissions. Can you advise as to why these heritage features were omitted?

Can you please detail why you chose to use only three reference documents (see1.4 of the Draft Guidelines)?
These seem particularly inadequate for the purpose. the Conservation Study does not appear to be available for review. The last time I looked at it I found around 30 statements which does not accord with the source documents.

The Conservation Management Plan is just riddled with errors, again based on the source documents.

1. Do the draft Guidelines accurately represent the known documentary material relating to Garden Suburb Planning, and in particular, to the original planning intent for Colonel Light Gardens?
2. Are the draft Guidelines limited to deal only with the Garden Suburb design principles known in 1917 where they were applied to Colonel Light Gardens?
3. Where the original documentation would indicate a different position to that set out in the draft Guidelines, what process is to take place to resolve that inconsistency?

My 2 main concerns for CLG is site coverage & the character of additions.
1. CLG is first & foremost a great example of Garden Suburb Town Planning with the emphasis on "Garden". Some recent new developments in CLG have shown lovely sympathetic architecture but have been built to the extent that almost no back garden remains. This is seriously at odds with Garden Suburb Town Planning Principles. There must be a significant front garden for the opportunity for show & to contribute to the streetscape. There MUST be a significant rear garden for recreation.
2. Some recent extensions have been done that at odds with the original structure to the point that is constitutes a "jarring point". This is seriously at odds with Garden Suburb Town Planning principles too. The policy of making extensions look different must be abandoned in favour of something that looks aesthetically acceptable & doesn't detract from the character of the original.
Heritage value of CLG lies in its design town planning principles first & it's architecture second.

3.5.1(c) "Vehicular access to properties off laneways is not appropriate".

Is this a new addition to the development plan?
Is this referring to carport/garages off the rear laneway?

This concerns me as an owner of a property which makes use of the rear laneway for vehicle access (albeit infrequent use). Walking around the neighbourhood, I see many other properties which have made use of the rear laneway for this purpose too. What is going to be the impact of this change? Can this pre-existing structures be replaced with this purpose in mind?

Prior to development or ground works in heritage areas, or within the lot or tenement of a state or locally listed heritage site, archaeological works must be undertaken to ensure that no harm is done to intact archaeological contexts.

1. Footpaths and driveways - Generally, bitumen footpaths are recommended. Segmental concrete pavers are not appropriate. This is not best practice from a house structural perspective (structural cracking) and environmental health point of view (maintaining streetscape tree health). Bitumen does not allow rainwater to permiate into the soil and provide moisture to the roadside trees - furthermore stormwater runoff would increase causing serious flooding impacts.
2. Compacted gravel surfaces are encouraged in some cases for footpaths. This is currently a serious dust issues for residents. Promoting this type of footpath finish would only exasperate the issue. Furthermore gravel footpaths would be a maintanence issue for Council resulting in hazardous potholes posing serious tripping hazard the Council does not want to be responsible for.
3. Exterior painting - Colours common to Interwar period – crèmes and greens, ‘ochre’ based colours - no white colours. I'm all for heritage (hence the reason why I live in CLG) however to restrict the colour palette to 3 colours is not justifiable given whites and greys are also heritage colours for bungalows. A three colour suburb would make CLG the most boring, monocoloured suburb to live in and would be detrimental in encouraging young, enthusiastic and vibrant families from coming into CLG. I have lived in CLG for the the past 15 years and have seen the transformation of CLG from a retirment village to a vibrant suburb full of young families who are revitalising CLG.
4. Services and infrastructure - Utility infrastructure and services should be installed within the utility laneways - Power lines and stobie poles are not acceptable. I agree and all powerlines should be installed underground in the laneways.