THE once-rejected Dock One residential development at Port Adelaide is back on the agenda after a change of position by the Environment Protection Authority. At least one other project looks set to benefit from the change of advice relating to air pollution – a three-storey 10 apartment mixed use development of the old wool stores across the road from Dock One in the heart of Port Adelaide.
The wool stores have been vacant for more than 30 years.
Developer Anthony Schmidt wants to turn the three storey warehouse into a bowling alley, restaurant and art studio with 10 apartments on the top level.
A previous attempt to build residential development in the area was stymied by the EPA’s concerns about pollution from nearby industrial sites, including a fertiliser factory.
The area in question is near the recently proposed State Government and Port Adelaide Enfield Council’s joint $7.9 million project for a temporary beach at Cruickshank’s Corner, markets at Hart’s Mill and a walking and bike path around the inner harbour.
Properties and businesses within the air-pollution exclusion zone are expected to become more valuable under changed EPA advice relating to the conflict between residential developments and nearby chemical manufacturing at Incitec Pivot.
The EPA refuses to confirm or deny its changed position on air quality in the area. However, the council and developers say the EPA has changed its mind, and RenewalSA says that concerns about air quality in the area have eased.
The changed position emerged after Indaily queried the removal of a development application from the Port Adelaide Enfield Council’s website late last month.
It is understood the application for change in the use of land to accommodate a mixed use development was set to be rejected by the council’s Development Assessment Panel after a recommendation from council officers that it be refused after what council documents referred to as “informal advice from the Industry Services Division of the EPA”.
That advice, given in an email dated 13 November 2012 from Shengfu Fang in the EPA’s Industry Service divisionstates “this DA is similar to Dock One development” and referred council staff to the EPA’s previous advice on Dock One.
Council documents summarised the discussions with the EPA as:
“The EPA advice…contained in a letter dated 15 July 2010, brought attention to the proposal’s non-compliance with the 500 metre recommended separation distance between chemical storage development and residential development.”
In its conclusion, the council’s development application assessment document states; ‘The proposal’s incorporation of 10 residential, units at the 2nd level is problematic given the site’s proximity 240 metres south of the Incitec Pivot fertiliser facility…”
“Recommendation; refusal,” it said.
The council’s concerns had earlier been challenged by the developer of the wool stores site, hotelier Anthony Schmidt.
In a letter dated 26 November 2012, Schmidt’s town planning consultant Phillip Brunning told council’s senior planning officer Tim Hicks he had obtained data from the EPA’s Air Quality Strategy Pilot Project.
“I have obtained and reviewed data associated with this program for the last 16 months period, as recorded at Birkenhead, which demonstrates that (particle levels) only exceeded the EPA’s Air Quality Index measure on one occasion.”
Brunning said the tests showed air quality to be little different to that at other locations in Metropolitan Adelaide.
Both Brunning and Hicks confirmed to Indailythat the withdrawn development application was now being reviewed and would most likely reappear on the council’s DAP agenda for the meeting scheduled for February 27.
Asked if the EPA advice on residential development in the area had changed, Hicks said; “Yes, it has…and we have asked the developer if they want to resubmit the application.”
Brunning said he expected it to be re-posted on the council’s agenda and website by February 25.
It follows what Indaily has been told were “high level meetings” between the State Government and fertiliser manufacturer Incitec Pivot in recent weeks.
The State Government, Indaily understands, has paid at least $125,000 towards a study being conducted by consultants Connor Holmes to re-assess the issues relating to the Port precinct around Incitec Pivot’s fertiliser facility.
The office of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Ian Hunter, has not responded to our requests for confirmation of the meetings nor the funding of a study.
RenewalSA, the former Land Management Corporation, however, did confirm the study and a shift in the official view of air pollution around the area.
“All the issues about air quality have pretty much been debunked,” Renewal SA project director Andrew Crust said.
“The issues with air quality that used to exist don’t at all now. So it’s largely a perception issue.”
His CEO Fred Hansen then confirmed the study and how he sees the area’s potential.
“7 Santo Parade (the wool stores) is a private development that is currently under consideration by council,” he said.
“In general terms, Renewal SA supports mixed use development applications of this type where there is re-use of an existing building and the result will contribute to the revitalisation of the Port.
“Renewal SA and Port Adelaide Enfield Council are jointly funding a range of early activation projects to a total of $7.95m to support the State Government’s vision to have more people working, living, investing and spending time in the Port.
“Renewal SA have recently awarded a consultancy to Connor Holmes to undertake the preparation of a Precinct Plan for the project area (within which 7 Santo Parade falls) and it is expected that this will be completed by the end of June 2013.
“The Precinct Plan will, among other things identify the constraints that exist, consider their current relevance and identify mechanisms for addressing those that remain. The outputs from the Precinct Plan process would inform any Development Plan Amendment process that might follow in the future.”
While the EPA and State Government remain silent on what has led to their change of heart about air pollution and residential developments in the area, it resurrects the plans first announced in March 2010 and later rejected by the EPA.
“A waterfront park and a 9.5m wide promenade form the centrepiece of a $110 million Newport Quays residential development of Port Adelaide’s Dock One,” media reported at the time.
“With 275 two and three storey townhouses planned, the Dock One precinct is expected to bring 500 new residents to the Port town centre. The 3.5ha site bounded by the southern edge of Dock One and Wauwa Rd, St Vincent and Jubilee streets will become the third stage of the $2.1 billion waterfront revitalisation project when work starts later this year.
“Newport Quays Consortium spokesman Todd Brown said the decision to build on the Port Adelaide side of the Port River reflected difficulties in sourcing finance for larger precincts and a desire to speed up revitalisation of the town centre.”
But that plan was about to go pear-shaped.
In October 2010, the EPA said it did not support the next stage of the Newport Quays development because of a range of issues, including unacceptably high levels of dangerous micro particles from nearby industries.
The EPA said residential development in the heart of the port was risky because it was too close to the fuel storage depot, the Incitec Pivot chemical plant and the Adelaide Brighton Cement factory.
It said air pollution exceeded safety guidelines at a nearby monitoring station and any future residents would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of particles.
It also claimed that despite the fact that companies have been reducing emissions there are limits to the improvements industry can make.
The EPA’s position was a major factor in the struggle Urban Construct had in advancing its Newport Quays project.
By November 2011, the State Government had found a solution. It paid $5.9 million to buy Urban Construct out of the Newport Quays development agreement and promised to draw up a new masterplan for the port.
Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said at the time the consortium was disappointed by the decision.
"The majority of the issues that have stalled the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment – such as the global economic downturn and local environmental problems – have been outside the control of the consortium," he said.
As Indaily reported in September this year, Incitec Pivot has no plans to move out of the port.
So what’s changed? For their part, the EPA is staying quiet. After refusing to answer specific questions put to the agency by Indaily, it then accused us of an “aggressive email”.
For the record, here’s the text of what we asked the EPA;
- Does the EPA acknowledge that it no longer opposes residential development in the area?
Can the EPA advise what discussions – formal or informal – have been held with Port Adelaide Council staff regarding the proposal?
Has the EPA been involved in recent discussions with Incitec Pivot regarding chemicals used and stored at the site?
Has the chairwoman of the EPA, Mia Handshin, been involved in any discussions relating to this proposal?
When the EPA sent a non-committal response that didn’t answer any of the questions, we replied:
The response doesn’t answer any of the questions posed; frankly, it’s an insulting non-response to a genuine query that has an impact on the residents and property owners of Port Adelaide.
And we repeated the questions.
The EPA refused to add anything further.
Meanwhile, a property right in the middle of the old 500 metre development exclusion zone is the ALP owned Colac Hotel. It has languished on the market since its closure in 2011.
We asked real estate agents if any change of land use would impact on the still unsold hotel.
“Any change to land use in that area will make the property more attractive,” one of the hotel’s several listed real estate agents said.
The ALP’s Port Adelaide branch bought the pub in the 1970s to generate income.
When poker machines came online in pubs in 1994, it became a cash cow – recent Australian Electoral Commission returns show the party received $339,961 in rent from the pub between 2005/06 and 2009/10.
In 2009 the pub’s ownership was transferred from the Port branch to the State Executive.
In 2011 the pub was shut and put up for sale after the ALP’s State Executive terminated the lease after its tenant Goldedge Holdings had failed to pay rent.
There is no suggestion that the Colac Hotel is the reason for the change of land use or the revised approach by the EPA.
