[PRO] 133 Franklin Street | 101m | 30 Levels | Student accom

[HiTouch]

Cool, another suicide shoebox.

It's actually quite the opposite. There's no windows to jump out of

[Smithy84]

Looks like the Western wall of Kodo apartments.

[Ben]

Height is 101m. Height Limit is 53m. They have serious concerns with excessive height, excessive occupants, insufficient bike parks and lack of communal facilities. However being recommended for approval....

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... r-2024.pdf

CONCLUSION
The development would result in a substantial built form addition to the Adelaide CBD that would exceed the
height anticipated in this portion of the Capital City Zone, which the GA considers to be a significant issue.
The proposed building’s scale and configuration is believed to be a consequence of the proponent’s design
brief to accommodate 515 students relying on the use of communal facilities which are likely to be placed
under strain given the intensity and concentration of the intended use.

Having considered feedback from referral agencies the applicant has chosen to persist with the extent of
student accommodation proposed in the development, although a reduction in accommodation yield could
result in a more orderly and functional development outcome compared to the current proposal.

Despite these concerns, the proposal is fundamentally supportable for the following key reasons:
• the proposed student accommodation use is anticipated in this location, noting expectations of increasing
demand for tertiary education in the Adelaide CBD in the future;
• the proposal is considered eligible for additional building height as it would incorporate measures that
provide for a substantial additional gain in sustainability and achieve a series of outcomes related to
pedestrian access, on-site car parking provision, active streetscape frontages and interface conditions
advocated for by Code policy;
• the proposed building would incorporate a modelled facade exhibiting a vertical composition and
consistent detailing along street frontages, and be constructed to the Franklin Street boundary as desired
along a city boulevard;
• the development would include sufficient communal offerings and a corresponding level of amenity
needed to address typical requirements of student life;
• intended public realm offerings are generally considered positive, and the proposed pathway along the
eastern site boundary would provide a universally accessible thoroughfare contributing to convenient
pedestrian movement within the locality;
• the development would respond appropriately to policy expectations surrounding passive environmental
performance and demand for energy consumption; and
• waste management arrangements would be convenient and functional for building occupants, facility
management representatives and contractors.

While the proposed development would introduce a significant built form in this portion of the Flinders Street
precinct, the locality has evolved over recent years through the construction and authorisation of
contemporary, multi-level developments used for and intended to serve various purposes.

Although the development would introduce an intensity of use that may be considered excessive, the Capital
City Zone expressly anticipates high-intensity, large-scale forms of development and on balance the proposal
is considered to fall within the tolerances established by Code policy for a development of this nature. The
development would fail to satisfy the Code’s policy recommendations related to provision of on-site bicycle
parking, but this is not believed to be fatal to the performance of the application overall.

In summary the proposed development is considered to adequately respond to main objectives and
performance outcomes encouraged by the relevant Code Overlays, Capital City Zone and General
Development policies related to building height, design and appearance, interface impacts and environmental
matters. Unresolved technical matters (including stormwater management, wind conditions, external
materials and site contamination) are expected to be addressed through the assignment of reserve matters
and conditions of any planning consent granted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the State Planning Commission resolve that:
1. The proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with the relevant Desired
Outcomes and Performance Outcomes of the Planning and Design Code pursuant to section
107(2)(c) of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.
2. Development Application Number 24005386, by Augira Investments Pty Ltd is granted Planning

[Mpol02]

I can't believe this is being considered those blank walls are atrocious. These blank walls are not it.

[Algernon]

Double sided Kodo. Eh...

[[Shuz]]

What's the point of having planning regulations if they're just going to be blatantly disregarded. I'm very concerned about the free-for-all state of affairs at SAPC.

[rev]

What's the point of having planning regulations if they're just going to be blatantly disregarded. I'm very concerned about the free-for-all state of affairs at SAPC.

Are our planning regs different to other capitals in regards to this sort of thing?
Perhaps the regulations should be modelled after a city that doesn't have this sort of rubbish with 100m of concrete walls straight up.

Also, what's the chances of something going up next door any time soon that will block out the view of the concrete wall?

[Ben]

The tenants are moving out today.

The problems were with internal configuration. They actually thought externally it was of high quality

[Honey of a City]

Height is 101m. Height Limit is 53m. They have serious concerns with excessive height, excessive occupants, insufficient bike parks and lack of communal facilities. However being recommended for approval....

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... r-2024.pdf

CONCLUSION
The development would result in a substantial built form addition to the Adelaide CBD that would exceed the
height anticipated in this portion of the Capital City Zone, which the GA considers to be a significant issue.
The proposed building’s scale and configuration is believed to be a consequence of the proponent’s design
brief to accommodate 515 students relying on the use of communal facilities which are likely to be placed
under strain given the intensity and concentration of the intended use.

Having considered feedback from referral agencies the applicant has chosen to persist with the extent of
student accommodation proposed in the development, although a reduction in accommodation yield could
result in a more orderly and functional development outcome compared to the current proposal.

Despite these concerns, the proposal is fundamentally supportable for the following key reasons:
• the proposed student accommodation use is anticipated in this location, noting expectations of increasing
demand for tertiary education in the Adelaide CBD in the future;
• the proposal is considered eligible for additional building height as it would incorporate measures that
provide for a substantial additional gain in sustainability and achieve a series of outcomes related to
pedestrian access, on-site car parking provision, active streetscape frontages and interface conditions
advocated for by Code policy;
• the proposed building would incorporate a modelled facade exhibiting a vertical composition and
consistent detailing along street frontages, and be constructed to the Franklin Street boundary as desired
along a city boulevard;
• the development would include sufficient communal offerings and a corresponding level of amenity
needed to address typical requirements of student life;
• intended public realm offerings are generally considered positive, and the proposed pathway along the
eastern site boundary would provide a universally accessible thoroughfare contributing to convenient
pedestrian movement within the locality;
• the development would respond appropriately to policy expectations surrounding passive environmental
performance and demand for energy consumption; and
• waste management arrangements would be convenient and functional for building occupants, facility
management representatives and contractors.

While the proposed development would introduce a significant built form in this portion of the Flinders Street
precinct, the locality has evolved over recent years through the construction and authorisation of
contemporary, multi-level developments used for and intended to serve various purposes.

Although the development would introduce an intensity of use that may be considered excessive, the Capital
City Zone expressly anticipates high-intensity, large-scale forms of development and on balance the proposal
is considered to fall within the tolerances established by Code policy for a development of this nature. The
development would fail to satisfy the Code’s policy recommendations related to provision of on-site bicycle
parking, but this is not believed to be fatal to the performance of the application overall.

In summary the proposed development is considered to adequately respond to main objectives and
performance outcomes encouraged by the relevant Code Overlays, Capital City Zone and General
Development policies related to building height, design and appearance, interface impacts and environmental
matters. Unresolved technical matters (including stormwater management, wind conditions, external
materials and site contamination) are expected to be addressed through the assignment of reserve matters
and conditions of any planning consent granted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the State Planning Commission resolve that:
1. The proposed development is not considered seriously at variance with the relevant Desired
Outcomes and Performance Outcomes of the Planning and Design Code pursuant to section
107(2)(c) of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.
2. Development Application Number 24005386, by Augira Investments Pty Ltd is granted Planning

Interesting that either SCAP or the GA mentions this as a “portion of the Flinders St precinct” … this application is for 133 Franklin, not Flinders St. (see above) Is this maybe copy/paste error? Regardless it’s a big dent in their credibility if they can’t get that bit right.

[gnrc_louis]

More about it here: https://www.indailysa.com.au/citymag/de ... estern-cbd

[Mpol02]

Those spaces are tiny. Dam.

[Algernon]

Those spaces are tiny. Dam.

I've lived in one a little smaller than the studios in that plan. Yeah they're small, but they're dorms. That's just what they are. You fit a desk and single bed in there with just enough room to stub your toe. Every. Time.

You "live" outside of the place.

The common areas would need to be up to scratch though.

[rhino]

The common areas would need to be up to scratch though.

Seeing as they are student housing, are there study areas included in the common areas? Or are the common areas just for cooking, eating and socialising?

[Listy]

What's the point of having planning regulations if they're just going to be blatantly disregarded. I'm very concerned about the free-for-all state of affairs at SAPC.

Are our planning regs different to other capitals in regards to this sort of thing?
Perhaps the regulations should be modelled after a city that doesn't have this sort of rubbish with 100m of concrete walls straight up.

Also, what's the chances of something going up next door any time soon that will block out the view of the concrete wall?

There are Polites buildings that were built in the 60's with bare walls that are still completely exposed, so not a chance this will ever get covered. Have just spent a week on the Gold Coast and while there are lots of skinny buildings on narrow blocks, I did not see a single building with the bare concrete wall treatment, so it clearly is a planning failure that these Kruschevkas are being approved.

[Llessur2002]

Those spaces are tiny. Dam.

I've lived in one a little smaller than the studios in that plan. Yeah they're small, but they're dorms. That's just what they are. You fit a desk and single bed in there with just enough room to stub your toe. Every. Time.

You "live" outside of the place.

The common areas would need to be up to scratch though.

Likewise. My room in university halls was smaller than those in this development - single bed, small desk, wardrobe, no ensuite and just enough floor space to maneuver. The common areas weren't really up to much either. It didn't bother me, it was only a temporary arrangement and I didn't spend much time in my room anyway.

Room size really isn't a big deal with student accommodation - think of it more as a budget hotel room than an apartment.