[U/C] Cremorne Plaza, 246 Unley Road | 25m | 7 Levels | Mixed

[stumpjumper]

DAC has approved a 150 apartment development for an amalgamated site opposite the Cremorne Hotel.

The proposal, which went to DAC with pre-lodgement agreements from the Government Architect and DPTI, exceeds the 5 storey limit under the Inner Metropolitan Growth DPA by 2 storeys, and breaches other requirements of the DPA. There is considerable community opposition to the development, with DAC receiving over 100 written objections to the proposal.

However, the new regulations do not allow for any community consultation, and there has not and will not be any. None of the objections needs to be considered. Unley council has expressed concerns about the development and the integrity of the process which has procured it, but the new regulations exclude the council from the approval process with the exception of landscaping, encroachments and traffic issues, with the exception of limited input to DAC under terms of strict confidentiality.

At 150 units, the land value per unit appears to be a record low for a suburban multi-level development.

Read about it here:

http://www.unley.sa.gov.au/webdata/reso ... 202015.pdf

[Ben]

I read the Hysteria on Adelaide now about the new "Slum" that was proposed. I don't know how apartments between $400k and $1.5m could be classed as a slum, but some people are so anti development they will throw around anything to get attention. truth is this area has been screaming out for development. I personally do not find the design sympathetic and already looks dated, but it will increase density in a inner city area and hopefully encourage greater investment along this road.

[phenom]

I have mixed feelings about this. Unfortunately Unley Council is very much like Adelaide City Council in that it just won't cop change, any change, rather than seek to compromise unless 'compromise' is defined as doing nothing. We have to be honest and say very little of what has changed in Adelaide in the last few years would have been allowed had the ACC continued to have carriage over approvals and I'm not just referring to height limits. Unley is very much 'inner-metropolitan' and as such the Council needs to better think through how to balance residents concerns with the bigger picture.

I well appreciate that people living very close to the city on their large blocks don't like the idea of the rustic village feel being altered (albeit a rustic village with four lanes of near perma-gridlocked main road running through it) and I think there is a real need not to overdevelop specific sites. However this is what you get when the resistance to increased general density is so entrenched... instead of getting lots of medium density spread throughout we end up with the reality of only major developers having the resources to persist and push through much bigger projects.

As I've said before, in regards to the Hackney proposal, the cliched NIMBYism needs to stop. It's offensive and pathetic to imply anyone who might move into 'their' areas is somehow lesser especially when none of these places will be cheap. It's always a mixed feeling when your surroundings change (I'm speaking from experience living in the CBD) but ultimately if you want to live very close to a major city you simply cannot expect to maintain a 'rural feel' forever.

[Wayno]

The SA 2014 state election resulted in labor (who wrote the DAC rules years earlier) being voted back into power. I don't recall it being raised as a concern during the election campaign? Nor do i recall Liberals proposing to dismantle DAC powers as an election promise.

The DAC exists so government can get on with delivering benefit to the majority, avoid pandering to the few. Are we suggesting democracy doesn't work? Should government really need to carry every individual along for the full ride?

We're seeing the same with the O'Bahn proposal. One of the main protester concerns is whether it'll be safe to picnic on the northern side of the Rymill Park lake with a bus tunnel only 20 metres away! Unbelievable.

[[Shuz]]

I'm pro development just as the most of you one these forums are, but in regards to this development, 7 stories is a bit much.

It violates the regulations, its not in sync with the character for the area, and it's just pissed too many people off. I don't see why it couldn't have been kept to a more modest 5 level proposal, which complies with the regulations, balances a compromise between infilling inner city development sites, whilst not overpowering the existing cultural fabric of the area, and most importantly, has the backing of the community.

[Waewick]

so at 7 levels, land value is pretty irrelevant.

I used to live in Unley/parkside and loved it. However this location is perfect for this kind of development. all the talk about extra trucks etc is utter crap.

What annoys me and continues to annoy me from both sides of politics in this state is that there is no improvement to PT linked to this development.

Their should be an agreement to improve unley rd by reducing the amount of cars going down it, which could be achieved with trams or buses...o bahn anyone

[Dvious]

Any building over three stories in any Eastern Suburb is going to cause a fuss, i think even at 5 levels you would have had bitching and moaning till the cows came home.

I do feel it is "a bit" large for the area BUT Adelaide needs to encourage more of this development, we cannot keep going further and further out. People are so far up their own a!@e they always fail to see the potential economic benefits a development like that can have for the area, an extra 500-1000 residents living in Unley is great for business, been down King William Road lately?...

[Nathan]

It's also worth pointing out that those extra two levels are significantly set back.

[Brucetiki]

What the City of Unley need to realise is that there's a very good reason they've been excluded from the consultation process, and they brought it on themselves. You only have to look at their ridiculous campaign against the Sturt Football Club over a picket fence, and one of their councillors openly admitting to being a 'grumpy old man' to see why they can't be trusted with anything other than rubbish collection.

[stumpjumper]

There's always going to be nimblyism with any change of use of land. That's not the issue.

Nor is the main issue the attitude of the local council.

There are other issues here. For example:

- Cremorne Plaza is the first major test if the integrity and robustness of the new legislation. To agree to a 46% overrun on height, as well as a significant overrun on overlooking by a strip of townhouses at the rear if the development, shows the legislation to be weak. Indeed, another proposal currently being worked up for Unley Road is 8 stories tall, and breaches several other parameters as well as not providing the required car parking. That project has received the same 'pre-lodgement agreement from the Government Architect and from DPTI that the Cremorne Plaza project received. Again, there will be no consultation with the public or the council which represents them. The public must rely on the government as legislating and approving body to protect their interests by legislating limits. The problem is that those limits are not being respected.

- reaching the same goals by other means. Was there any analysis of the effect towards the goal of increasing inner urban populations of the gradual increase in density due to ongoing replacement of lower quality urban stock with smaller homes? The rate of replacement is now about 7% of stock per year, outside heritage areas. Usually, a 3 bed roomed house is replace by two new 3 bedroomed dwellings. This process is currently happening without much objection, and according to my calculations, will provide the additional population within around 20 years. However, the process I'm describing does not suit the large project builders and investors who lobbied the government directly and through the Property Council.

- loss of small, incubator business premises as small leasable spaces are replaced by much larger, more expensive premises.

- loss of value for adjoining landowners. Overlooking, overshadowing and noise issues, as well as simple proximity to carparks or multi storey structures will lower the value of adjacent properties. Landowners are statute barred from suing for loss of value resulting from rezoning of adjacent land.

- windfall profits and insider trading. There has been no investigation of whether those in the know regarding the outcome of the Inner Urban Growth proposals took advantage of their knowledge to speculatively buy properties in areas about to be rezoned. Certainly one member of the advisory committee bought significant strips of real estate on Unley and Prospect Roads and has seen the value of the properties skyrocket.

On top of all this is the huge strucutral problem of the councils in SA being a Labor playground. The councils didn't object to being cut out of the development approval business because the CEO of teh Local Government Association, Wendy Campana, is a Labor trusty. She has left for a very sweet government appointment and been replaced by David O'Loughlin, who is not impartial either. In fact he was the Labor candidate for the seat of Adelaide at the last election. VIewed in this light, we only have two levels of government in SA. We have a Labor state government and a Labor local government system. Labor intends to control development in the interests of raising money and in the interests of its mates in the development industry. The Liberals as usual are too compromised and hopeless to do anything about it. So who is left to bat for the people oif SA? No-one. But they are paying for the whole corrupt circus.





Before arguing about this, you should read the development application and the council's response. They are both on the net as PDFs.

[stumpjumper]

So, brucetiki, approval of the Cremorne Plaza development is a punishment delivered to Unley residents for daring to oppose a proposal by a local land user. The punishment for that act of insubordination is to permanently deprive Unley Council of meaningful input into the planning process.

What textbook on urban design would begin by saying, first, deprive the community and its local representatives of input to urban planning? Then, legislate at state level, but allow breaches of the legislation at the developer's discretion. Whatever happened to best practice?

Finally, offer 'pre-approvals' by the government's own planning department and its 'independent' urban design adviser to ensure automatic approval by the special Development Assessment Commission unique to Inner Urban Growth applications.

Close down objections from councils by ensuring that their representative organisation is in the government's pocket. In the present case, the CEO of the Local Government Association is an endorsed Labor candidate.

Then, conduct all deliberations and meetings in camera with no access to records.

Finally, if people complain, direct them to the responsible minister, a dead-eyed, humourless lawyer who will not attend public meetings, makes no statements, will not answer questions and requests that any complaints be put in writing, which he then ignores.

Welcome to inner urban design, SA style.

[Wayno]

Maybe coincidence but driving past tonight it appeared the majority of shops in this block are vacant.

A sign of imminent action?

[SouthAussie94]

This isn't dead...

[Dondude]

It is going to alive?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... c0552aaa5e

[Ben]

Plans are now on DAC.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... y_Road.pdf