News & Discussion: Height Limits

[Ben]

anything from a golf course or nature reserve to a major mixed use development, reduce urban sprawl

or heres another idea! reallocate the parklands (or soccer ovals) depending on how you look at it, to where the airport is

Just as I thought...

? what would you suggest then

an airport.

[skyliner]

Once again South Australia makes a balls up - should have shifted the airport to parafield and bulldozed the old one!

I don't think so... Yes it would be nice to have taller buildings but do we really want a skyline like Perth's... 2 big buildings and no density. That is what would've happened. Increasing height limits will not effect the amount of buildings going up on the size of them. If Adelaide needs 100,000sqm of office space instead of 5 x 20,000 sqm ones we'll get 1 x 100,000 like Perth.

Density is better then height. Now that Adelaide has density we can start looking at height although there are still some areas which needs more density.

I would rather have our skyline, then Perth's anyday and on top of this we have the closest airport to any CBD in the country this is a positive not a negative.

Good point Ben. Now we can go for both - a more impressive skyline seems to add impact about a city straight away, but....

Perth always looked sparse to me - jump over Hay St (I think) and there is nothing there. Density gives a better 'city' feel at ground level.

ADELAIDE -TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[raulduke]

touche :p

[Shuz]

Also Adelaide is only 40m AHD that might make a difference?

Google Earth Terrain mode indicates a variability between 55m-70m across the CBD. Although I'd assume they're majorly wrong. I should search around for a contour map over the CBD, and maybe compile some data together to see whats acheivable.

Edit: Just checked my PM, and a map was waiting! Cheers mono.

[Shuz]

So, I took some time to work out the information. As the PAN-OPS map is quite literally useless (I can only read the 100m/200m markings) I have applied the (small) data onto a map of the CBD. Then I overlaid the map with a contour diagram to work out the difference so I can indicate areas of maximum building height.

Adelaides tallest building, if approved by AAL and maxed out to PAN-OPS would be 160m tall, nestled in the far NE corner of the CBD.
To add to the confusion, AALs OLS markings contradict some of the PAN-OPS regulations. It's a bloody mess of work.

[Omicron]

So, I took some time to work out the information. As the PAN-OPS map is quite literally useless (I can only read the 100m/200m markings) I have applied the (small) data onto a map of the CBD. Then I overlaid the map with a contour diagram to work out the difference so I can indicate areas of maximum building height.

Adelaides tallest building, if approved by AAL and maxed out to PAN-OPS would be 160m tall, nestled in the far NE corner of the CBD.
To add to the confusion, AALs OLS markings contradict some of the PAN-OPS regulations. It's a bloody mess of work.

Were that to be the case, I'd much rather the 103m limit extended over a wider area rather than end up with an awkward building stuck all the way out over there.

[magicalno4]

Hi Guys - Long time reader first time poster.

I stumbled upon this pdf (link below) which is guide to city development that penetrate the OLS , on the second page is a city map that has the OLS height data laid out over the top in a clearer to understand manner.


http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... ations.pdf

[Shuz]

Hi Guys - Long time reader first time poster.

I stumbled upon this pdf (link below) which is guide to city development that penetrate the OLS , on the second page is a city map that has the OLS height data laid out over the top in a clearer to understand manner.


http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... ations.pdf

Hey, welcome to the forums.
Thanks for the information, we've already come across it though - we're trying to find out PAN-OPS limitations. That's a bitch to get to.

[Wayno]

Thanks for the information, we've already come across it though - we're trying to find out PAN-OPS limitations. That's a bitch to get to.

Bingo! Truer words have never been uttered

I recently spent a few weeks endevouring to get clarity around the PANS-OPS limitations (yes it's PANS-OPS, not PAN-OPS). My goal was to determine the PANS-OPS height at each major city intersection. It was a painful experience involving many phone calls and emails to AAL, DOTARS, CASA, and the ACC. I spoke with Senior Directors, Engineers, Bureaucrats, Council staff, and a couple of others...

The ACC would love this info to be clarified and made public, but AAL, DOTARS, CASA, etc are simply not interested (or are perhaps insufficiently motivated?). The only time everyone works together is when a Developer already own a block of CBD land, has spent $$$ having an architect design a building, have already formally approached the ACC seeking approval to build it, and are willing to pay for a single datapoint of PANS-OPS information - and even then i don't believe they actually get to see the info, instead just get a yes/no response!

Here's some more of what i learned:

• * The ACC advised me that approval for "taller" buildings east of Westpac House would most likley be granted by all necessary bodies - but only if a Developer seriously came forward with plans. And of course they did not advise how much higher (it's obviously case by case), but unofficially they believe the scope for adding many extra stories beyond Westpac House height is not be out of the question....certainly interesting.
  
  * The PANS-OPS ceiling is an amalgam of several air-space policies, all operating at different heights and distances from the airport. There are also apparently "line of site" radar concerns across to Receivers on the Adelaide Hills. In summary, the lowest point intersection of all these policies is the PANS-OPS ceiling profile. The PANS-OPS ceiling has spikes/dips/troughs/peaks at many points around the CBD, and the cost to interpret is quite high as it involves many experts to collaborate for every building request that exceeds the OLS surface (radar specialists, flight-path specialists, AAL management, CASA).
  
  * The PANS-OPS ceiling occasionally changes as limitations are increased/decreased due to various reasons. This happens without any public notice, hence the need for AAL, CASA, DOTARS, etc to be involved with every new tall building proposal.
  
  * The ACC also believes there is insufficient information available to Developers and the general public on the maximum theoretical building heights, but not surprisingly cite problems with getting clear information from AAL, CASA, DOTARS, etc. Basically the ACC would love this info but have given up in frustration. We've really got bugger all chance of clearing this up...

[Shuz]

So not even the ACC have full accessibility to this information? What a joke the planning system has become, that even a city council is restricted accessibility, which - ultimately jeopardises their ability to an extent for adequate revisions of their development plan in relation to height limits.

I think the step that needs to be taken - a very bold, and gutsy step by the ACC - is to declare 'open skies' for development (akin to BCC) which will inevitably force the AAL and CASA regulatory bodies to take action in clearing this information up for once and for all. Can't see that happening in our lifetimes however, but I think its the hurdle that would get over the issue.

[AtD]

I think the step that needs to be taken - a very bold, and gutsy step by the ACC - is to declare 'open skies' for development (akin to BCC) which will inevitably force the AAL and CASA regulatory bodies to take action in clearing this information up for once and for all. Can't see that happening in our lifetimes however, but I think its the hurdle that would get over the issue.

The ACC would have no legal authority in the matter. I would expect that CASA would be able to use the Civil Aviation Act, or failing that, the federal minister.

[Shuz]

I think the step that needs to be taken - a very bold, and gutsy step by the ACC - is to declare 'open skies' for development (akin to BCC) which will inevitably force the AAL and CASA regulatory bodies to take action in clearing this information up for once and for all. Can't see that happening in our lifetimes however, but I think its the hurdle that would get over the issue.

The ACC would have no legal authority in the matter. I would expect that CASA would be able to use the Civil Aviation Act, or failing that, the federal minister.

So how come Brisbane has been able to declare 'open skies' towards its development policies without interference from CASA? Because as a result of that, I am aware that one of the developments proposed, actually does interfere with the flight regulations.

[AtD]

I find that hard to believe.

[urban]

In SA all development plan changes must be approved by the Minister for Planning. Therefore if ACC declared open skies there is a good chance that the Minister would knock it back.

[Omicron]

I think the step that needs to be taken - a very bold, and gutsy step by the ACC - is to declare 'open skies' for development (akin to BCC) which will inevitably force the AAL and CASA regulatory bodies to take action in clearing this information up for once and for all. Can't see that happening in our lifetimes however, but I think its the hurdle that would get over the issue.

The ACC would have no legal authority in the matter. I would expect that CASA would be able to use the Civil Aviation Act, or failing that, the federal minister.

So how come Brisbane has been able to declare 'open skies' towards its development policies without interference from CASA? Because as a result of that, I am aware that one of the developments proposed, actually does interfere with the flight regulations.

I suspect that you're referring to Brisbane's Vision development - about which the CASA had this to say:

Austcorp, the company behind the Vision project in Brisbane's CBD, have Brisbane City Council approval to build up to a height of 250 metres, however the developer wants the final building to stretch 87 metres taller.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has warned a skyscraper that high could pose a danger to aircrafts and throw airport services into chaos.

"We have a view that a 287m tall building would interfere with Brisbane Airport's radar services and cause air traffic congestion on the southern approach to the airport," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

The building could also cause a shadow on airport radars and reduce the effectiveness of communications technology, Mr Gibson said.

"Basically the radar would just bounce off the building and interfere with the pattern of the radar beyond Vision," he said.

If the building went ahead at 287 metres, the airport would be forced to reconfigure its radars and change its flight paths, but Mr Gibson said that was not a desirable outcome.

Safety concerns have also been raised in the event a plane experienced an "engine-out" scenario during take off.

"If an aircraft was taking off and it lost an engine, it would have difficulty climbing as fast as it normally would (and) the height of the building would be a danger if the aircraft was lower than its normal attitude."

Brisbane Airport Corporation spokeswoman Rebecca McConochie said planning issues and CBD building heights were of concern to the airport.

While she would not comment specifically on the Vision project, Ms McConochie said inappropriate developments had the potential to compromise the safety and operational integrity of the airport.

"We are working closely with (the relevant authorities), who act on the behalf of the industry, to enforce planning powers over (Council) and State Government-approved developments which compromise the safety or efficiency of existing or future airport operations," Ms McConochie said.

Austcorp is required to apply to the federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport to build higher than the approved 250 metres. However, it is understood the department has received no formal submission from the developer.

CASA has lodged a submission with the department formally opposing an increase beyond 250 metres.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/bu ... 18994.html

and more specifically, to this letter:



Other members better informed than I will be able to tell us if Vision's 287m height exceeds existing height guidelines set out by CASA and Brisbane Airport. It appears that, in this instance, CASA saw fit to make a submission to the Federal Department of Transport and Infrastructure in the hope that the building's height could be reduced (which appears not to have been successful), but without its own direct legislatory and executive powers, could ultimately only advise on the addition of red safety lighting to improve a building over which it has no planning control.

Therefore, in the context of building heights, it seems to me that CASA can present its opinion to both the relevant Council and to the Federal DTI, but neither bodies are obliged to follow such advice. It would seem unusual to me for the DTI to ignore the recommendations of CASA, but who knows?

Do stop me if I'm wrong, please. There's only so much egg on my face I can take.