Sensational-Adelaide.com

pushbutton, there's a loophole as the airport is federal land, so the development needs neither council nor state approval.

Well i am one for Ikea, a new supermarket and Harbourtown - but do agree that the airport space was the worst choice. For one, the traffic in and out of Harbourtown and Ikea is shocking, annoying and frustrating...

What i never got was; how can harbourtown be called harbourtown when it is not near a harbour or water????

AtD wrote:pushbutton, there's a loophole as the airport is federal land, so the development needs neither council nor state approval.

Thanks, but I was talking about a 'loophole' if you like, that gives the airport the ability to demolish these buildings, not one that allows them to be built in the first place!

While our planning legislation gives the owners fo Adelaide Airport a degree fo freedom in how the airpiort land is developed, have a look at the West Torrens Development Plan. The Council still has quite a lot of control - although some of it is on subjective matters.

Here are some choice excerpts from the West Torrens DP re the Adelaide Airport Zone (look on pages 223 and following at

http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/edp/pdf/weto.pdf

Perhaps the WTC isn't being tough enough with the development applicants.

11 Shopping facilities should not be developed unless they are necessary to serve the needs of
employees of, and visitors to, the Zone and do not detract from the functions of any other
designated Shopping or Centre Zone.

12 Development, and in particular buildings, which will be visible from arterial roads, should be of a
high architectural standard and visual appearance, and present an attractive facade to adjacent
public roads and any internal roads.

13 Development should incorporate native vegetation species for landscaping purposes between
and around buildings, throughout car parking areas and along road frontages.

14 Development should have regard to the scale and bulk of development in surrounding areas,
particularly residential areas, and incorporate building design elements, set-backs (from roads
frontages and between individual buildings) and landscape treatments which promote visual
articulation and relief.

15 Service and storage areas associated with buildings should be suitably located, designed, and
screened from public view.

Well WTC and AAL only recently came out of a long running court battle. AAL has been refusing to pay rates, because after all, they maintain their own roads and collect their own garbage, and its federal land. I believe the court found in favour of the WTC.

Its quite obvious the land is being leased to pay back the huge amounts of money borrowed to upgrade the Airport. Long term leases would have given them a stable source of revenue and probably gotten them a better interest rate with there loan ( I am just PRESUMING this by the way, I am be completely wrong)


I think if the Airport were to upgrade again it would be moved entirely. The land would slow down the suburban crawl for YEARS, and we would be able to build an airport with unlimited land (I suggest the Saltlakes personally near ML).

Did you realise that they ARE extending the airport soon? This was announced in the Advertiser in early December I think.

The proposed 'expansion' you speak of is just an expansion of the domestic terminal for two more gates to be built to meet the demand in increased regional services. The argument I put forth was directed to an expansion of air traffic in and out of Adelaide Airport and the need for a third runway (parallel to 05/23) to cater for these increased movements. Harbortown directly affects any chance of this happening as it is built in the middle of its designated reservation - and if anyone has an old street directory - pre Tapley's Hill Road re-alignment for the extension of Runway 05/23, you will notice the reservations in place to do such. The Burbridge Park Industrial Estate also inhibits the possibility of an extension of Runway 12/30.

Some time ago now I played around with a vision of what Adelaide Airport would look like come 2050.

By 2050 the airport will be long gone, probably somewhere out north.

Though I think its just plain crazy to sell of land such as for Harbourtown & Burbridge Business Park. Though if they kept the land we would probably have a downgraded version of our state of the art terminal and it does increases the chance of the airport being relocated in the future because of the lack of land to expand.

I really hope by 2030, the airport will be shifted elsewhere. Not only would it lift those ridiculous height restrictions but imagine the huge development possibilities with the site. Though that is a long way off...

crawf wrote:By 2050 the airport will be long gone, probably somewhere out north.

Gillman? Just north of the port expressway?

Something makes me feel we've had this conversation before...

Something makes me feel like we have this conversation every fortnight...

pushbutton wrote:I totally agree. I cannot understand why Harbourtown, Ikea or the new business park were ever allowed to be built on airport land. I like all these developments, but the airport is not the right place for them. As you said, airports always need to expand, and by building more and more commercial buildings on the land they are severely limiting the opportunities to do so. Seems very short sighted. I wonder if there is some sort of contract between Adelaide airport and these businesses that gives the airport the right to evict them and demolish their buildings when the time comes to expand the airport / runways? I would imagine there is, but enforcing it anytime in the next 20 years or so would be next to impossible given the scale of these developments.

I wonder whether maybe there is some greater vision at work here and in 20 yrs when it comes time to expand the airport, they just plan to relocate it and turn the current land into suburbia? That'd be great then we'd have an hours drive just to get to the airport like they do in melbourne :wank: But then again, it makes all the recent retail/commercial development more viable...

Well for contrast, Canberra is building several 10+ story office buildings around its airport.

A couple of points to come out of this discussion;

Planning approval for any major development at the airport must be outlined in the Adelaide Airport Master Plan.
Development must be approved by the Federal Transport Minister
The Airport is operated by Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL) under lease from the Federal Government
Construction of a parralell 05/23 runway seems less likley due to the increasing in size of the Harbour Town precinct
Extension of the 12/30 runway is still possible as there is a remaining parkland consession for this purpose to the NW of the airport
The Burbridge Business Park will have no impact on the use of the 12/30 runway
Aircraft are becoming quieter with every new model / engine development & overtime this means a decreasing impact on residents in the vicinity of the airport
New passenger jets have more powerful thrust to weight ratio's, this means that aircraft like the A380 can take off and land in a shorter distance than a 747 and negates the need to further extend the 05/23 runway