Sensational-Adelaide.com

Burger wrote:At the risk of being the subject of much ire, how about we all target the real problem here, which is not the ACC as such - it's the Development Plan.

If the plan said the height limit was 100m (for arguments sake), then on what real and factual basis could they oppose it? Don't ask the umpire to ignore the rules, change them to achieve a more desired outcome. It's a bit simplistic..well okay, really simplistic, but if you want to prevent good development being hindered by stupid rules, change the rules.

100% agree. It's the crux of the whole height issue. Yarwood put forward a motion to increase building heights in certain precincts in 2008 (when he was a councillor), but the proposal got knocked back by full council.

This needs to urgently be put on the agenda again, and if council knock it back, the state govt should step in and take control and force through increased building heights. The state govt has a mandate to act in the best interests of the state, and I believe such a move would also have strong community support.

It wouldn't require a drastic re-writing of the Development Plan, just relaxation on height restrictions in the Central Business Area and Mixed Use zones (ie CBD area north of Gouger/Angas St thru to North Tce). Residpential zoning (south of Gouger/Angas) can remain as is.

Also, as its pointless in getting the DAP to make a recommendation to the DAC on buildings greater than $10M, why not replace them with an appointed Design Panel (under the IDC) on these major projects? They will without doubt have more useful suggestions to ensure a high quality design than the DAP. Such Design Panels are used successfully in many cities throughout the world.

At the DAP meeting, Yarwood actually said the development plan was failing Adelaide because he liked the proposal.

I doubt very much he'd support a judicial review.

Jatza wrote:At the DAP meeting, Yarwood actually said the development plan was failing Adelaide because he liked the proposal.

I doubt very much he'd support a judicial review.

The sad thing is that Yarwood in only 1 person. If the rest of the council contains councillors who want to retain Adelaide in their 1950s fantasy, things will never change.

To Wayno and all the people who contributed in the 2008 height submission document,
Could it be possible to do a small edit and email it to yarwood and ask to get it forwarded to Weatherill. who knows if them two are really commited to making the city better they could take it into concideration.

mickmat wrote:To Wayno and all the people who contributed in the 2008 height submission document,
Could it be possible to do a small edit and email it to yarwood and ask to get it forwarded to Weatherill. who knows if them two are really commited to making the city better they could take it into consideration.

It's interesting the State Govt has asked suburban councils to promptly update their dev plans to cater for increased density & permit taller buildings in corridors (or risk having the rules imposed on them). Nothing similar has been requested (AFAIK) re. Adelaide Council's dev plan.

Mickmat, I'll chat with the VIP team about your idea.

Wayno wrote:

mickmat wrote:To Wayno and all the people who contributed in the 2008 height submission document,
Could it be possible to do a small edit and email it to yarwood and ask to get it forwarded to Weatherill. who knows if them two are really commited to making the city better they could take it into consideration.

It's interesting the State Govt has asked suburban councils to promptly update their dev plans to cater for increased density & permit taller buildings in corridors (or risk having the rules imposed on them). Nothing similar has been requested (AFAIK) re. Adelaide Council's dev plan.

Mickmat, I'll chat with the VIP team about your idea.

Now that the Capital City Committee has started meeting again, that would be the perfect forum to get a revised Development Plan on the agenda. I believe that both Yarwood and Weatherill sit on this committee (can someone please verify) so at least ACC and State Govt are talking.

Does it also mean that the state govt has the legislative ability to wield the big stick st local councils?

ml69 wrote:Does it also mean that the state govt has the legislative ability to wield the big stick st local councils?

Nothing beyond the $10m 'major development' ruling i believe. It's just a matter of scaring councils into nominating areas (versus having Developers choose sites at random with dev costs of $10,000,001). So maybe their powers to act against the ACC are limited. Anyone know for sure?

mickmat wrote:
To Wayno and all the people who contributed in the 2008 height submission document,
Could it be possible to do a small edit and email it to yarwood and ask to get it forwarded to Weatherill. who knows if them two are really commited to making the city better they could take it into concideration.

tadum! look here. thanks mickmat for the nudge.

Next meeting for the DAC is January 19, I'd imagine this will be on the agenda. I almost can't wait to see what they rule regarding this one, it'll be like a second Christmas if they approve it.

Did the DAC end up approving this one?

It hasn't gone before them yet.

Ben wrote:It hasn't gone before them yet.

Thanks Ben. I assume they will assess it at their next meeting then.

Hopefully

That's the most horrid looking building I have ever seen! I hope it is rejected!

fkj wrote:That's the most horrid looking building I have ever seen! I hope it is rejected!

It's the most creatively-designed building yet proposed in Adelaide. What would you prefer? Another box?