Sensational-Adelaide.com

CDJ wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:01 pm

Just to clear up what may be a point of confusion here:

- Aviation surfaces/heights are measured above height datum, not above ground (stating the obvious).
- The limits on building height in Adelaide CBD are effectively set by aviation. The lowest aviation surface (which is governing building height for the east half of the city) is the RTCC which matches the top of the tallest antenna on Westpac.
- The antennae are about 3m high which explains the discrepancy between the Westpac roof height and the RTCC.
- So a building next to Westpac (e.g. 74 King William) could in theory have roof height 3m taller than Westpac's roof, without change to aviation surfaces.
- Of course this ignores the challenges of how to actually build the roof and upper levels if the crane isn't permitted to temporarily pass through the RTCC.

It is absurd for a developer to be told they have no option to pursue a permit for cranes to temporarily pass through the RTCC or PANS-OPS. Westpac was constructed with two luffing cranes which penetrated about 50m into the RTCC and PANS-OPS. There are numerous recent interstate precedents for temporary permits to penetrate airspace.

Reading a lot between the lines here about a certain dominating development.

Ben wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:35 pm

Theres more info here, sounds like temporary approvals up to three months are allowed.

https://www.adelaideairport.com.au/corp ... approvals/

Ben hi, it appears to me that there are 3 different surfaces to be considered the OLS which is being penetrated by both REALM and Adelaide there is also the PANS-OPS level which is not being penetrated as it is up at 218.7m and permits are available for these. Then there is the RTCC surface which Adelaide seems to have a low value on as it rates a special mention in a few documents that I have read, another is Newcastle and about 4 others which I don't recall.

the Adelaide airport permits only apply to OLS (Obstacle Limitation Surface) and PANS-OPS (Procedures for Air Navigation – Aircraft Operations).

I understand it is odd to have PANS-OPS included which is higher than the RTCC (Radar Terrain Clearance Chart). I'm no expert here, just reading stuff and trying to make sense of it all. I'm just wondering if the RTCC is because of the Adelaide Hills because if a plane on approach from the NE were to drop below the line of the top of the hills it would/might appear to disappear from the airport radar due to the hills as the back drop?

From the Adelaidean airspace document https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/asset ... JUL_17.PDF

"Will not infringe the Adelaide PANS-OPS lowest surface estimated at 218.7 m AHD, and the RTCC lowest surface of 182.9 m AHD;"

cheers

To my eyes the tower appears to be topped out as I can see the half final floor has gone up. Anyone confirm this??

Photo of the CBD skyline taken by a real estate agent - for an apartment for sale @ Bowden.

This was lodged yesterday. How could they do this at this late stage?

020/A033/16 V5

Variation to DA 020/A033/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-level mixed use development comprising retail and commercial uses; hotel; student accommodation; residential and serviced apartments, including car parking, landscaping and site works. Variation: penthouse reconfiguration and increase in building height to the residential tower.

Ben wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:57 am

This was lodged yesterday. How could they do this at this late stage?

020/A033/16 V5

Variation to DA 020/A033/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-level mixed use development comprising retail and commercial uses; hotel; student accommodation; residential and serviced apartments, including car parking, landscaping and site works. Variation: penthouse reconfiguration and increase in building height to the residential tower.

Interesting, considering the cramped working spaces they are dealing with height wise... I wonder what the revised height will be?

Pikey wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:05 am

Interesting, considering the cramped working spaces they are dealing with height wise... I wonder what the revised height will be?

I'm presuming 135.1m.

Yeah if they're re-configuring the penthouse it's probably just a slightly raised ceiling or something.

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:44 am

Yeah if they're re-configuring the penthouse it's probably just a slightly raised ceiling or something.

Or the surveyors have been out with their theodolites and realised that every floor has been built an inch thicker than it should be, so they need permission to be a metre taller to complete the top floor?

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:59 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:44 am

Yeah if they're re-configuring the penthouse it's probably just a slightly raised ceiling or something.

Or the surveyors have been out with their theodolites and realised that every floor has been built an inch thicker than it should be, so they need permission to be a metre taller to complete the top floor?

That would be a pretty major stuff up that would have shown up in the glazing and other elements not fitting I'd think.

Why do people make such strange (negative) assumptions? Simply put, the buyer of an apartment which is significant % of our total build cost asks for something, yeah you try to do it!

Algernon wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:33 pm

...yeah you try to do it!

Do you mean money talks?

Cheers

CDJ wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:01 pm

[...]
- The antennae are about 3m high which explains the discrepancy between the Westpac roof height and the RTCC.
[...]

So in a kind of way I was right Westpac House with the aerials is 135 metres in height from ground level. Mmmh. Thanks CDJ.

Cheers

Rundle Street evening view

The view from the corner of Frome and Rundle is impressive

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk