News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Nathan]

That is looking really really good. I hope that there is enough foresight to develop an API for the public accessible version as well - Just imagine if a tourism site for instance could use the model as a map (much like one would use the Google Maps API).

[Brando]

That is great, very detailded. Even the half completed refurb of the GHD building is well depicted..

[skyliner]

A long awaited result -fantastic! The model caught me immediately with itr's accuracy and detail - even colour. Quality great! It made the CBD look so much bigger from the air. So glad it wasn't just scaled boxes. Multitudes of uses - I wonder how height limits fits fit in with a fuller understanding of what is where from a physical expression of what was till now imagined.

Makes me wonder whether this should be a sticky file.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[david]

Councillor's Notes - Issue 31
- A look at the 30 year Plan for Greater Adelaide
- A searching question!
- Harris Scarfe - an alternative design approach.
- Recent council decisions
David

NOTES FROM COUNCILLOR Issue 31.pdf

(502.04 KiB) Downloaded 216 times

[Howie]

Thanks again for your newsletter David.

[Wayno]

Councillor's Notes - Issue 31
- A look at the 30 year Plan for Greater Adelaide
- A searching question!
- Harris Scarfe - an alternative design approach.
- Recent council decisions
David

NOTES FROM COUNCILLOR Issue 31.pdf

david, thanks for paraphrasing the impact of the 30 year plan on the CBD in your above newsletter - much appreciated.

[deano91]

I wish the ACC's DAP (or is it DAC?? ) would get over themselves and accept that just because they don't like Adelaide moving ahead into the 21st century, that most people do actually want us to move on.

Call to strengthen city planning rules

Article from: The Advertiser

DANIEL WILLS

August 04, 2009 12:01am

AN ADELAIDE City Council panel has called for tighter development regulations after a string of recent controversial decisions were over-ruled by the state's peak planning body.

In the past two months, the council's Development Assessment Panel has opposed plans for a 13-storey building on Light Square, the Grote St Freedom Apartments complex and a four-floor Rundle St hotel.

All were later approved by the Development Assessment Commission, which has the ultimate power over city projects valued at more than $10 million.

Speaking at a DAP meeting last night, councillor David Plumridge called for a report detailing possible changes to planning regulations that would stop the panel being over-ruled in the future.

Amendments to the city's development plan must be endorsed by a meeting of the full council and approved by the State Government.

Mr Plumridge said he was particularly upset by criticism over the panel's rejection of the Light Square development and the the DAC's subsequent decision to grant approval.

"I find it very, very hard to understand how they come to those conclusions given the very clear statements that are in our development plan about particular areas and desired character," he said.

"Clearly this panel was of the view this application does not meet the requirements of the development plan and yet another body, in its wisdom, has said it does.

"We have to get to the bottom of this issue.

"I want to be sure that that kind of thing doesn't happen again."

Members of the DAP have been privately concerned for months over growing tensions with the DAC but last night was the first time any spoke publicly.

Under a code of conduct imposed by state law, DAP members are forbidden from speaking about specific development proposals or decisions outside of the fortnightly meetings.

Mr Plumridge also said it was "totally wrong" the council was not consulted on changes made to the Freedom Apartments plans after they were debated by the panel.

"There are those who would prefer we didn't speak out, but I don't think it's fair that we be stopped," he said.

"We get this continual hammering and part of that is not being dealt a fair hand by the DAC.

"That may be for political reasons or whatever, I don't know, but that's how it appears to me."

Councillor Sandy Wilkinson said the DAC had simply "rubber stamped" the Light Square plans and ignored council regulations demanding the existing character of the precinct be maintained.

Councillor Anne Moran said the two planning bodies were completely "out of step" with each other despite working from the same documents.

"The relationship between the two planning bodies is uncomfortable and hard to understand, so I think we really need to investigate that," she said.

"While we might have private quite strong opinions about what's happening with planning in this state, I think this is not the place to say that."

Specialist member Rob Cheesman said it was impossible for regulations to be re-written in a way that prohibited subjective readings.

"Even if it were black and white, each of us would have a different interpretation of aspects of planning. We live in a democracy," he said.

"It's a game of footy, there are some rules and we know where the goalposts are, roughly, but we have to be very careful that the outside world understands that this panel is charged with the job of assessing applications without fear or favour.

"If there's a problem with the plan or an application is refused by this panel, it's not the panel necessarily that's refusing it, it's to do with the plan."

The council's DAP is comprised of four elected councillors and five specialist members with training in planning and development.

The DAC is an independent statutory body comprised of seven commissioners, one of which is selected from a list provided by the Local Government Association.

[Just build it]

Cried wolf too many times and nobodies listening anymore. They claim the Light Square development is 'out of character' but it's site is bordered by a shocking 70s box on Waymouth and multiple 80s/90s buildings on the Sq. If anything, the old building that's there currently is 'out of character' with it's neighbours. The western side of the Sq I'd accept their argument. The eastern side? No way!

I personally have nothing against the current building because it's pretty bland and inoffensive and I generally really like heritage architecture but nobody will ever spend money on what's there because it's.........bland........bland even for a cafe let alone a multi-million dollar tower base. So what then, it just sits there as is for eternity as a low rent, lifeless firetrap? Is that the Adelaide 'character' the DAP waffle on about?

The ACC's own planners recommended the new project right? So that would make it ACC Planning, DAC, SA Govt, Heritage Branch and overwhelming public support for with solely the DAP against and yet they still see themselves as the righteous victim. I find it hard to feel sorry for them. They certainly seem to have zero chance of retrieving any power under the present Govt.

[Wayno]

Call to strengthen city planning rules
...
Speaking at a DAP meeting last night, councillor David Plumridge called for a report detailing possible changes to planning regulations that would stop the panel being over-ruled in the future.
...

Hi David, can you please expand on your comment above. I'm hoping it means you want the ACC development guidelines documentation to be enhanced to better align with SA govt direction and greater SA community needs?

I presume the ACC approves/rejects development based on the documented rules (with little wiggle room), so if this is causing the over-rulings (and the ill-feeling towards the council) then please work to remedy asap. After all, it's just a document - right?

Also, can you please provide an update on the Aug 2008 Dev Plan review - it's been nearly 12months...

[david]

In response to recent postings from Just Build It , deano91 and Wayno let me just say that with regard to the Light Square project I really am constrained from comment on that project because of the Code of Conduct which effectively 'gags' DAP members. Can I just suggest that if you want to understand where I am coming from, just read the Adelaide City Development Plan 2006 and make your own assessment.

As to the Council (a.k.a DAP) being against development have a look at the track record of approvals since this Council was elected. Millions of dollars worth of development has been approved and is waiting for a better development climate I presume. Approvals should not only be about 'quantity' - there is such a thing as 'quality' which should be taken into account in my opinion.

My remarks about changes to the plan were made with my Councillor's hat on and simply mean that if two separate planning bodies can read the same plan and come up with opposing outcomes there must be something wrong with the plan and it should be reviewed to remove discrepencies and ambiguities. When we lost plot ratios in CBA/MU Zones it was supposed to be 'in favour of design-based controls' and 'improved design qualities of development across the city' (quotes from ACC 2006 leaflet on the Aim of the Development Plan)

IMO the plan as being interpreted by the planners is not living up to those expectations - that is what I think should be addressed. If the Council determines that it really wanted the Plan to deliver unfettered development, and if that is what the community wants then let's change the Plan to actually say that!

David

[Omicron]

The quality vs. quantity debate is certainly a relevant one, David; I'd sooner see one good development than ten bad ones. I have no doubt that it is very, very difficult to codify design quality into development plans and guidelines - almost any architectural style can be brilliant if done properly, but how on earth does one objectively issue a set of regulations that establishes how to 'do it properly'? It would be ideal for each application to be assessed entirely on its own merits, free of the burden of approving underwhelming developments simply because they have sneakily crossed every T and dotted every I of the development code, but that allows for a subjectiveness that I assume would not at all be defensible in a court of law if challenged.

With that said, I think many people find themselves frustrated by the apparent prevalence of arbitrary reasoning in development analysis - height, for example, seems to play far too significant a role in the assessment of development applications. It is certainly important to ensure that dreadful monoliths do not suddenly spring up in entirely inappropriate areas of the CBD, but it is entirely possible that the very clearly-defined and particularly limiting height restrictions placed upon the Adelaide CBD result in buildings of a lower quality - that the limited floorspace available to the developer prevents them from using more apartments or a greater GLA (gross leasing area) to pay for improvements to the external appearance, fixtures and fittings. Similarly, the need to include a minimum number of carpark spaces in a development, combined with the significant cost of underground excavations, means that an architect has fewer habitable floors or land area to devote to habitable floors in order to devise an desirable and profitable design - even less so if they elect to include the parking spaces above ground level.

I for one do not want to see a rubber-stamp approach to applications - the dreadful Rundle St hotel proposal, the uninspired Freedom Apartments, and the dubious 199-200 North Tce situation all come to mind as unfortunate results of both an inherently flawed development application process and a embarrassingly self-serving, insular and juvenile approach to design from Adelaide architects (who, incidentally, escape public criticism far too often than they deserve). There does, however, need to be the provision for designs that support the intent of the development plan (that of design quality, relevance to streetscape, consideration of heritage buildings etc.) without necessarily satisfying the absolute letter of the law.

[joshzxzx]

More crap from the council...

Spin doctors to quell heritage backlash

ADELAIDE City Council has enlisted a team of professional spin doctors as it braces for a backlash over plans to heritage list hundreds of homes and businesses in the CBD.

The Advertiser understands media firm Ball PR held a confidential briefing at Town Hall last night to coach councillors on strategies to sell the plan to the public.

The company is headed by ex-journalist and State Government adviser Rob Ball and employs a former media strategist for Lord Mayor Michael Harbison.

Last week, the council signed off on a secret list that demands local heritage status for what is understood to be around 300 city buildings.

The list was compiled without the knowledge or consent of property owners and has now been sent to the State Government for approval.

Details are expected to be released in around two months after temporary orders banning demolition of the sites are issued and public consultation begins.

Speaking ahead of last night's briefing, Mr Harbison said the council expected fierce public debate once the list was released.

"I think it will provoke a great deal of discussion," he said.

"Feelings generally run pretty high for and against heritage."

Mr Harbison has unsuccessfully voted to make the list public but said he expected his colleagues would "respect" the majority decision to keep it secret.

But veteran councillor Richard Hayward yesterday condemned the process for lacking "openness and transparency".

"It should be totally open, because it's people's biggest assets we're talking about," he said.

"They deserve the right to know openly, from day one, what the council intends to do with their property."

The council last revised its heritage register during an audit of North Adelaide in 2004. Early publication of the list led to the demolition of a several historic homes.

Councillor Sandy Wilkinson said Adelaide had already lost many irreplaceable buildings and compulsory heritage listing was critical to maintaining the city's unique character.

"Some people get in a tizz because they think some colour Nazi is going to come and tell them what colour to paint their house," he said.

"People get upset needlessly and for the wrong reasons.

"It (heritage protection) is mainly interested in about what someone walking past in the street can see."

ACC chief executive Peter Smith was unavailable for comment.

The cost of the council's new media training has not been released.

[Wayno]

Spin doctors to quell heritage backlash
...

Benefit of the doubt here please. Retaining our heritage is good, and being proficient at selling the reasons why to an ignorant (not stupid - just unknowing and unappreciating) populus should not be underestimated.

My only complaint is why it's taken so long to complete the heritage register. But that's an aside...

[david]

In answer to a question by Wayno I am able to advise that the Section 30 Development Plan review has been finalised which has resulted in a list of priorities being set for amendments to the development plan. (DPA's) These have been approved by the Minister in general principle and have been locked into the budget and associated time lines set.

After the two Heritage DPA 's which are now awaiting Minister's approval for release to public consultation, there will be a Sustainability DPA (underway) and then a Population DPA - which will look at building heights and setting minimum building heights to ensure land is not underdeveloped.

David

[Wayno]

In answer to a question by Wayno I am able to advise that the Section 30 Development Plan review has been finalised which has resulted in a list of priorities being set for amendments to the development plan. (DPA's) These have been approved by the Minister in general principle and have been locked into the budget and associated time lines set.

After the two Heritage DPA 's which are now awaiting Minister's approval for release to public consultation, there will be a Sustainability DPA (underway) and then a Population DPA - which will look at building heights and setting minimum building heights to ensure land is not underdeveloped.

David

thanks David

Another question: when will all the DPAs be made public? there will obviously be some interest here in the Population DPA outcome...