PRO: [Kent Town] Park Central | 15lvls | $120m | Hotel

[jk1237]

I agree, I love Adelaides historic buildings, but that old house is out of place. I like the new proposal

[Wayno]

any news here - it's been quiet for tooo long...

I do hope Kent Town gets several high-rise apartments. It's the perfect place for it!

[Will]

It appears Urban Construct has not given up with this project:

Here is the latest version:

[Omicron]

Hello, that's not bad at all.

[Waewick]

you know what

its their money, let them spend it and lose it if its unviable.

it looks fine to me

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

Our first six-star hotel

SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD

From: The Advertiser October 29, 2010 12:01AM



Artists impression of a six-star hotel at Kent Town by Urban Construct Source: AAP

PLANS for a $120 million, 15-storey hotel with a boutique retail and cafe centre at Kent Town have been given major project status by the State Government.
The Urban Construct and Marshall & Brougham project is being dubbed Adelaide's first six-star hotel.

It is still in its early concept stage but plans show the project will include penthouse apartments, roof-top recreation facilities, tourist and conference rooms.

The developers first proposed the project, on the corner of Dequetteville Tce and Rundle St, in 2002 but plans were rejected by Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Development Assessment Panel.

The State Government has announced it will be given major project status, which means the proposal will bypass council planning authorities and instead be assessed by the government's independent Development Assessment Commission.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoveragePlanning gap: Mt Barker gridlock traffic fear
Grand plan: Trains to Flinders, roads revamp
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway said previous projects had been constrained by conflicting planning policies, which accommodated an existing 15-storey landmark building, but restricted the height of any adjoining development.

"This proposal raises a number of important issues in terms of planning policies that will require further detailed assessment," he said.

"These include the interface with Marshall House, the impact on adjoining residences and businesses, ecologically sustainable design elements, parking and traffic issues and the capacity to deliver a unique gateway to the Kent Town and Norwood precinct."

Mr Holloway said declaring the project a major development would ensure the proposal would be rigorously assessed with scope for extensive public consultation.

"If approved, this project would create 200 new jobs during the construction phase and 350 permanent jobs within Adelaide's eastern suburbs," he said.

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said the company welcomed the State Government's announcement.

"This is an exciting development that ... incorporates the latest ESD (environmentally sustainable design) design and technology alongside important heritage features from the existing Marshall House," he said.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said the Government move tied in "neatly with its earlier announcement of densification of the inner (metropolitan) rung and its commitment to cutting through local government red tape".

[Will]

I realise that the site for this project is the site for the former 'Park Central'' project. I decided not to paste this information in the Park Central thread, as this project is so radically different from the former Park Central project, that I think it warrants its own thread.

[stumpjumper]

A non-complying 'six star' hotel has finally been approved for the land on the north east corner of Dequetteville Tce and Rundle Road, Kent Town. The proposal (for a serviced and private apartment building of 11 levels above ground) was first proposed in 2002 and refused by Norwood Payneham St Peters council in 2003. An appeal to the ERD court failed later that year on the basis of unsuitable use and unsuitable massing. See: http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/envi ... rwood.html

The Development Plan description of the Zone Objectives in 2003 read:

"The Business Zone accommodates a range of existing business activities in premises of variable nature and quality, with opportunity for the development and consolidation of offices and consulting rooms with some retail showrooms as well as for the upgrading, expansion and consolidation of business activities. Progressive improvements should be made to the environmental and servicing aspects of business, and development in the zone should progressively upgrade existing business areas and main road frontages."

Apparently a visit to the office of Minister for Urban Development and Planning Paul Holloway has yielded results: Major Project Status for a six star 15 level hotel. (Remember Con Makris' 7 star hotel on O'Connell St?).

My argument here is not against the quality of the development but the method of approval. Following closely on the over-ruling of the Walkerville council and advice from Planning SA by Holloway and his staff in approving of the non-complying 10 storey Watersun development at Gilberton, this latest approval by Holloway must be a concern.

Major project status is granted under s 46 of the Development Act 1993 and was designed to facilitate large projects in the public interest, eg the Adelaide to Darwin railway, mine expansion at Roxby Downs etc.

The Minister is not required to consult outside his office in making his decision. I'm not questioning the expertise in urban planning of Paul Holloway, an electrical engineer, or his eager young staff, many with arts degrees in politics. But there is no appeal from the Minister's decision to approve a proposal, nor is he required to make public any reasoning or process behind it. The supposedly independent Development Assessment Commission is simply required to "...determine whether the major development or project will be subject to the processes and procedures prescribed by this Subdivision with respect to the preparation of an EIS, a PER or a DR"

What if the tables were turned, and the Minister could simply wade in and stop any development, regardless of council approval and development plan compliance?

The developers claim that the new 'six star' hotel will provide 350 permanent jobs. If this project were to be built in the CBD, the jobs close at hand would complement the drive for more people to live in the city.

But city land zoned for 15 storeys is expensive, much better for the developer at least to push for a non-complying use on relatively cheap city fringe land.

Nathan Paine of the Property Council as usual stands resolutely behind the builder/developer, bugger good planning or the integrity of the planning system:

"The Government move ties in neatly with its earlier announcement of densification of the inner (metropolitan) rung and its commitment to cutting through local government red tape".

Or, to put it another way, 'The Government move indicates victory by the development industry over the Development Act, the wishes of communities and councils. Tall buildings can now be built on cheaply purchased suburban land regardless of zoning. The methodology is simple - ignore the planning regulations and deal direct with Paul Holloway. Why should Paul Holloway help? The answer to that is commercial-in-confidence'.

[iTouch]

I find it funny that the ACC refused to approve a 10st building on Light Square, yet the N&SP council approves this

I do like the architecture though, its a good mix of traditional and modern.

[stumpjumper]

I like the architecture too (as far as you can tell from the render), but Kent Town is the wrong place for it, and the design does not suit the orientation.

From a practical point of view, the wall of glass facing west would mean constant air conditioning. The building would never pass the environmental efficiency audit (if one is conducted now that the development is a Major Project).

From an aesthetic point of view, there is a lot of void and not much solid, even compared with the Brewery Apartments down the road.

Note: NP&SP did not approve this - the Council, its Development Assessment Panel and public consultation have all been against the development more or less because of the zoning - which is for low level commercial/retail.

As has been said, the local Development Plan has pages of expertly worked out guidelines on such things as orientation, shading and solid to void ratios, but it seems that Major Project Approval direct from the Minister's office turns the Development Plan into mere scrap paper and dismissing all council, community and neighbour objections, as well as the opinion of the ERD court which turned down an appeal by the developers in this case.

In fact, why would a developer bother with councils at all? It seems far more effective to sit down with the Minister, explain the development and bingo - rezoning, Major Project Status and freedom from the design constraints and energy efficiency requirements that apply to everyone else. Perhaps the cost of doing it through the Minister's office is the problem, although it is very difficult to prove that a political donation is a bribe.

[crawf]

x10 better than the Park Central proposal, I love it

Hopefully these other developments get released soon...
http://www.urbanconstruct.com.au/#

It's been a really good week for a city that is meant to be crumbling

[stumpjumper]

Yeah, but a bad week for due process.

Both the Gilberton and Kent Town decisions have been made by Ministerial intervention, overturning council decisions, and from which there is no appeal.

In the Gilberton case, the Minister has awarded Major Project Status, for reasons which he is not obliged to reveal.

If the development approval system is in such a bad way that the Minister must constantly intervene, then there should be a major and urgent review.

If the state's planning regime is not in a bad way, then how many more developer-friendly approvals for projects the have been rejected by the council, the community, the planning profession and the planning appeal courts will it take before people start asking what is going on?

NOTE: I started a thread similar to this, unaware of this thread - I've mailed Howie to combine the two...

[AtD]

The minister made the right decision in approving this. This site is well suited to high density development.

[Waewick]

I wonder if this will impact the other hotel being planned on Currie Street?

[Will]

Yeah, but a bad week for due process.

Both the Gilberton and Kent Town decisions have been made by Ministerial intervention, overturning council decisions, and from which there is no appeal.

In the Gilberton case, the Minister has awarded Major Project Status, for reasons which he is not obliged to reveal.

If the development approval system is in such a bad way that the Minister must constantly intervene, then there should be a major and urgent review.

If the state's planning regime is not in a bad way, then how many more developer-friendly approvals for projects the have been rejected by the council, the community, the planning profession and the planning appeal courts will it take before people start asking what is going on?

NOTE: I started a thread similar to this, unaware of this thread - I've mailed Howie to combine the two...

But if the current rules are archaic and out of touch, is it not appropriate to challenge them?

This, along with the old channel 7 site are inner city locations along transport corridors. This is the type of development that is suited for such sites. Like it or not, our population is growing, and will continue to grow. We either build upwards or outwards. I'd rather upwards.