Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote:Because this development is worth over $10 million, the final say rests with the state government DAC.

At their upcoming meeting this Monday, the DAC is expected to grant planning approval to this proposal.

This is an excellent outcome, and a repudiation of the ACC's ridiculous and backward decision to reject this proposal.

The excuses made to reject the proposal rested with the notion that the building exceeded the height limit by 14m. Although technically true, the ACC has in past approved buildings which have exceeded the height limits. Furthermore, in this locality with the 132m Westpac House and the 99m ANZ house practically next to it, it makes such an arguement strange. The ACC also objected based on this building not blending in with neighbouring heritage structures. Not only did the ACC's own planners disagree, the state government DAC sought comment from Heritage SA. Heritage SA has no issue with this proposal. Furthermore, the final reason used to reject the proposal was that it was not sufficiently environmentally friendly. This arguement is strange considering this building is aiming for a 4.5 star green rating, not to mention it has 0 carparks! Call me cyncial, but I suspect that the councillors making such a decision were just showing off how backwards they can be to appease the large NIMBY vote for the upcoming ACC elections.


In addition, the proposal presented to the state government DAC, has been ammended. The proposal will now include an active street frontage to Waymouth Place, as well as 18 basement bicycle parks.

Adelaide's 25-storey city office tower now set to be approved

* DANIEL WILLS, POLITICAL REPORTER
* From: The Advertiser
* July 11, 2010 11:23PM

PLANS for a 25-storey King William St office tower rejected by Adelaide City Council as too tall are set to be approved by the state's top development authority.

The proposed $17 million, 86m tower would be constructed next to the Pirie St tram stop and would become the city's sixth-tallest building.

It has been recommended for approval in a report to be tabled at a Development Assessment Commission meeting today. The council's Development Assessment Panel and the state DAC previously clashed over the Grote St Freedom Apartments and a 13-storey Light Square office block. DAC meetings are closed to the public and a council code of conduct bars sitting DAP members from speaking about developments outside of meetings.

Councillor and former DAP member Sandy Wilkinson told The Advertiser the DAC seldom denied a development application.

"It makes a mockery of the planning process," he said.

"The State Government is confusing a good environment for development with an ad-hoc, anarchistic free-for-all.

"It's going to result in a discordant-looking streetscape."

The State Government stripped the council of approval powers for developments valued over $10 million following a spat over the Tower 8 proposal.

The council can give advice on major developments but the DAC has the ultimate authority.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Nathan Paine said that constant clashes between DAP recommendations and DAC rulings caused "confusion" among potential investors.

"There's a valid question in whether there is a need for applications that are ultimately going to be assessed by the DAC to be presented to the DAP," he said.

"Members of the DAP could very well use their position in those circumstances to grandstand for political outcomes without repercussions from an assessment perspective."

The DAC report states that amendments have been made to the plans since they were viewed by the council, including energy-efficiency measures.

Mr Paine said the proposal was evidence investor confidence in the Adelaide market remained high.

"It's going to result in a discordant-looking streetscape."

omada wrote:

"It's going to result in a discordant-looking streetscape."

Just W.T.F is that meant to mean? All buildings have to be the same height? What is this, Rome? Thank god for the DAC (in this instance).

phenom wrote:Must... stop... reading... AdelaideNow... comments... section... [aaarrgh]

Even after all these years, I can't get over the nature of many of the comments on this story in today's news:

- it's too tall, everything in Paris is 6 stories high (huh? La Defence district anyone... and Adelaide is not Paris for better or worse)
- it will be our sixth tallest, therefore it must be really, really tall.. in fact, too tall (yeah because Adelaide's other 'tallest' are sooo tall... but what we do have surrounds this one anyway)
- it will add too much office space, what about old empty buildings! (never mind this is on a tiny plot, and old office space costs a lot to bring up to high green star levels)
- it will add too many shadows! (yeah because its not like they haven't addressed that issue in the planning documents).
- they can't possibly build it for $17m! (again, investigate the plot size... not that difficult).

It's not the fact I disagree with them so much as the fact there's so much factual ignorance and if they are on the internet, they could google as easily as I could to clarify reality.

Benski81 wrote:I do have to ask though, can this project really be completed to an acceptable standard at just $17M? We all know that in life you get what you pay for, how is it they've managed to keep the cost so low?