Sensational-Adelaide.com

Mt Barker - it's a bit of a red herring specifically in relation to Kent Town, but my point was that the intended occupants of the housing at Mt Barker are not tree changers - they are low income wage earners who require basic housing. If there were a choice, would offer them housing on productive land far from jobs, increasing the load on local facilities such as schools and hospitals, requiring financially (and ecologically) expensive extensions of publicly-funded transport infrastructure in a community that has been consistently against the move, or would you look for a square mile or inner urban solution?

Ironically, the 30 year plan under which the Mt Barker resub is proposed is billed as 'Planning the Adelaide We All Want: The 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide'. One thing the plan is very vague about is how (and whether) the limited community consultation it describes will feed in sat all to decision making. If Mt Barker is any guide, where both official feedback and packed local meetings of farmers and town residents are being ignored, the answer is that the 'community consultation' and the fancy title are just spin.

No-one's talking about desolate 'housing commission' tenements, but good quality development such as the Balfours redevelopment, where many residents (not just students) won't even need cars. Adding 15,000 people who are keen for any housing to the city would seem to tick every box except the ones next to the broadacre developers who lobbied hard for the development. The square mile particularly is crying out for more residents. Good quality higher density housing there has proved very successful both socially, commercially and in maintenance of value on resale. As a spinoff, the presence of 15K extra people will give their 'backyard - the Park Lands - more use. As discussed, the square mile is historically chronically under-developed.

Back to Mt Barker for a moment - and I apologise for the thread drift but it's relevant: Planning Minister Holloway wrote to Ann Ferguson, the Mayor of the District Council of Mount Barker, on 19 May 2009, stating that there was a consortium of five property developers who had asked him to commence a development plan amendment for the Mt Barker area. The Minister named the developers as Urban Pacific, Fairmont Group, Walker Corporation, Land Services Proprietary Limited and DayCorp Proprietary Limited, with the consortium represented by Connor Holmes. Connor Holmes, which also advises the Minister, had spent 2009 trying to lock in options to purchase the subject land around Mt Barker at prices reflecting the pre-DPA rezoning.

But regardless of that, the main game here is the economical and socially workable vitalisation of the city. Here is an opportunity that the government is throwing away with both hands.

monotonehell wrote:What is the difference between a 5 and 6 star hotel?

crawf wrote:Most travel ratings systems only go up to five stars. So those hotels are calling themselves six stars. It means nothing. It's like that Dubai hotel who have decided that they are a seven star hotel.

Wikipedia puts it like this:

'Six' and 'seven star' hotels
Some members of the hospitality industry have claimed a six or seven-star rating for their operation. As no organization or formal body awards or recognizes any rating over five star deluxe, such claims are meaningless and predominantly used for advertising purposes. For some time the Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai was said to be a 'seven star' property, but this was never the case.[citation needed]

I predict that as this fact becomes more widely known, a consortium of luxury hotel owners will start an organization which does award six and seven star ratings. You heard it here first!

At the Burj al Arab in Dubai there's a helipad, a submarine restaurant and a flunkey with a Bentley at your 24 hour service.

On the other hand, the Kent Town site is only two minutes from Bunnings, open early 7 days a week.

Update:

The Park Central project is now 15 levels.

I spoke to Minister Hollloway's office this morning and asked whether they could tell me the justification for Major Project status under s 46 of the Development Act. After a bit of to and fro-ing, I was told that that information was confidential.

It's no wonder people get suspicious.

stumpjumper wrote:Update:

The Park Central project is now 15 levels.

I spoke to Minister Hollloway's office this morning and asked whether they could tell me the justification for Major Project status under s 46 of the Development Act. After a bit of to and fro-ing, I was told that that information was confidential.

It's no wonder people get suspicious.

Major Project Status was granted because our current planning regulations are out of date and do not reflect future needs or the aspirations of the people of Adelaide.

With respect Will, Major Project status is not necessary for this project to get up. The Minister's approval is enough.

Major Project status cannot be applied to 'update' existing legislation. Here the relevant part of the Development Act 1993:

"The Minister may, if of the opinion that a declaration under this section is appropriate or necessary for the proper assessment of development or a project of major environmental, social or economic importance... (declare a project to be a Major Project)."

Given the long history of the project (ie its consistent failure to gain approval from council, the Development Assessment Commission or by appeal to the Environment Resources and Development Court) I'd suggest that MP status is not necessary for the proper assessment of the project. It is also hard to see why is should be a project of major environmental, social or economic importance to the state.

I'm not arguing about the merits of the proposal here, WIll, just the process.

Development legislation is not something to be played with. If the planning system is as you say inadequate, then it should be changed by the proper process. It is no solution to use inappropriate legislation to try to patch over flaws. All that does is undermine the development regime, to the immediate advantage of one developer and landowner perhaps, but to the longer term disadvantage of everyone else.

quick question...planning powers were removed from the ACC for projects over $10m.
does this apply to all metropolitan councils?

Mants wrote:quick question...planning powers were removed from the ACC for projects over $10m.
does this apply to all metropolitan councils?

No, it only applies to the ACC.

I reckon the state government should take the next step and strip all councils from approving development above $10 million.

Or just merge all the central councils into one

Will wrote:

Mants wrote:quick question...planning powers were removed from the ACC for projects over $10m.
does this apply to all metropolitan councils?

No, it only applies to the ACC.

I reckon the state government should take the next step and strip all councils from approving development above $10 million.

agreed...should extend to all councils irrespectively....would be the fair thing to do. i guess there isn't much precedent though...it is uncommon to see a proposal of this nature outside of the city council boundaries.

A lot of broadacre developments top $10 million. It depends on your accounting - if you are selling new allotments, do you count the value added by builders?

A fundamental issue is local representation (presently via councils, in theory at least). Is local representation of value? Should it continue as a democratic right, especially where a development is proposed from outside the community, eg by government or interstate developers? What level of communication should there be with locals, or any communication at all if the communities view has little value?

Where are the boundaries - would it be a good idea to centralise all major planning approvals in Canberra, for example?

One would wonder what do the staff at Urban Construct actually do?

From The Messenger.

Kent Town hotel plans in limbo

Council18 Jan 12 @ 08:15am by Emma Altschwager

PLANS for a $120 million hotel and apartment complex in Kent Town are in limbo, more than a year after being granted major project status by the State Government.

Urban Construct CEO Todd Brown said the company was yet to draw up detailed designs for the complex, at the corner of Dequetteville Tce and Rundle St.

Mr Brown previously told the Eastern Courier Messenger said construction would start in mid-2012, but last week would not be drawn on a start date.

He would not elaborate on the reasons for the delay.

“We just haven’t got to it yet,” he said. “It’s on our radar this year, at some point.”

Mr Todd said the company’s plans for the year, including the hotel development, would be discussed in February.

The 15-storey hotel is expected to become Adelaide’s first six-star hotel and include penthouse apartments, roof-top recreation areas, shops and cafes.

The complex was first mooted in 2002, but rejected by Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Development Assessment Panel.

At the time, the plan was rejected by Norwood, Payneham and St Peters’ Development Assessment Panel because of concerns about its height and lack of car parking.

Preserve Kent Town Association secretary Susan Sheridan said the group would not form a position on the development until it saw detailed plans.

“We are in limbo - we’re waiting to see what the proposal is going to be,” Dr Sheridan said.

She said the group would make a submission to the Planning Department once plans were open for public consultation.

Planning Minister John Rau would not say when the Government expected to see new plans for the site, adding that was a matter for Urban Construct.

Preserve Kent Town Association?. What is there to preserve?

No Surprise - nail in the coffin for UC?

Kent Town six-star hotel proposal loses major project status

by: Jessica Haynes, Eastern Courier Messenger

A PLAN to build Adelaide's first ever six-star hotel has suffered a setback with the development losing its major project status.

Urban Construct's planned $120 million hotel and apartment complex in Kent Town would become Adelaide's first six-star hotel including a mix of penthouse apartments, shops and cafes.

The complex would join hotel's like Gold Coast's Palazzo Versace (pictured) as one of Australia's few six-star venues.

The Kent Town project had its major project status revoked on June 27 after failing to convince the State Government it still warranted the special planning status.

Currently only two hotels in Adelaide - the Rendezvous Hotel on Waymouth St, and the Sebel Playford on North Tce - have a five-star rating and tourism leaders have called for more luxury accommodation to lure people to the state.

Despite being stripped of major project status, Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said the Kent Town project would go ahead.

"I can inform you that Urban Construct Group along with Marshall and Brougham will be going ahead with the development at the corner of Dequetteville Tce and Rundle St despite the loss of major project status," Mr Brown said in response to the Eastern Courier Messenger's questions.

In January, the Eastern Courier Messenger reported Urban Construct was yet to draw up detailed designs for the complex.

It was previously reported construction would start in mid-2012 and would become Adelaide's first six-star hotel.

Also losing major project status was a planned $300m hotel development in Wayville. Developer, Sam Sgherza Group, did not respond to the Eastern Courier Messenger's requests for comment.

Planning Minister John Rau wrote to both businesses in March to request information on why the major project status should not be revoked.

"I am mindful that in cases where these project approvals have been sitting there for some time not being progressed, they have a potential dampening effect on other development prospects in the vicinity," Mr Rau said.

"I wrote to proponents and, after giving them an opportunity to put any information before me for my consideration, I have decided that major project status in these cases should be revoked."

Ben wrote:No Surprise - nail in the coffin for UC?

Yep.

Currently only two hotels in Adelaide - the Rendezvous Hotel on Waymouth St, and the Sebel Playford on North Tce - have a five-star rating and tourism leaders have called for more luxury accommodation to lure people to the state.

Idiots. There is at least eight 5-star hotels in Adelaide.