PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. How on earth does this encourage or promote tourism to our Port !! This has the potential to create 'exclusive zones...limited access to the public space of the wharf !! the shed is also loaded with asbestos, high consideration must be given to protect the river from contamination !! It is a dolphin sanctuary !! Clearly no respect for our maritime heritage. What reason will people have to visit nothing more than a future concrete jungle !! One man will become rich, and the public will lose access. The shed could have been looked after, instead it has been allowed to deteriorate. It should have at least a local heritage listing !! I do not see any public consultation , why not ?? Now we will see the concrete box of the Quest, next door to another concrete box ! The shed has historical importance, and people visiting the market , eat in the local pubs, visit the galleries and shops....what reason will they have to visit. Not to mention that possible demolition will kill the business of small local vendors..we have already seen this happen in the city ie The Edinburgh Hotel.

2. I think the plan for a multi story building on the site of the Fishermans wharf will do nothing for the area. It should be utilized to attract tourists and benefit existing community not blight the landscape. Time and time again not being sympathetic to the history of the area and just doing the dollar grab for redevelopers has proven to be a mistake. I hope the council put a stop to this particular development and that they think of their community more before allowing a multi story building takes a great community space away from everyone else.

3. This proposed development flies in the face of both economic and cultural reason. I was under the impression that community consultation and planning guidelines have made it abundantly clear that 8 stories is out of the question in the inner harbour. So why is it even being any consideration?
   The last remaining shed should be retained and restored to maintain the unique character of Port Adelaide. The prominence of the site and the height of the proposed building are both cause for concern in terms of visual impact and access. The waterfront is being progressively privatized and this proposal will advance this trend.
   Other significant maritime cities throughout the world which have retained their maritime and industrial character are proving that preservation and sensitive development pay off in terms of amenity for locals as well as for tourists while supporting a thriving business sector. The restored and re-purposed sheds on the wharf at Cairns in Queensland are just one, glowing, example.

4. Consideration must be given to the wider community who use the area along and around the wharf. Too often public areas become out of bounds to the general public due to developments that only benefit the wealthier in our communities. The wealthy, by default, already have more options for where they live and holiday. Most people in the community are not wealthy and it is the ordinary majority who will lose out if such a development as this goes ahead.
   Eight stories high right on the wharf? A. It breaches the 5 storey limit in the area, B. It would damage the heritage ambience of this much loved corner of Pt Adelaide. C. It would destroy the view of the area, a huge high modern building would destroy the great views that you get looking across towards the wharf and Hart’s Mill. The scale of the proposed building is all wrong for placement in this area. This development would benefit a relatively small number of people and have a negative effect on many locals and also on the wider Adelaide community.

5. This area although in a local council area, is of significant State importance being the birthplace of South Australia.

   Regardless of all the relevant government departments involved in this and the avoidance of regulatory compliance, one thing needs to be considered first and foremost, and that was the systematic changes to the wharf shed on Queens Wharf following its sale to the current owner and developer. The sale itself was questionable because the shed at that time was complete and in its original condition and suitable for Heritage Listing, but small development applications by the current owner to shorten the shed by 40 meters, install mezzanine floors and escalators supposedly to install second storey retail premises made it no longer applicable for State Heritage Listing and the State Heritage Commission suggested it be put on the Local Heritage Register instead. That option was ignored by the PAEC because it was the PAEC that was complicit in causing the problem in the first place by not enforcing compliance.

   The rampant proliferation of housing developments far outweigh housing demand. This is evident due to the New Port development having 24 vacant units listed for sale only a few weeks ago.
   These new developments of 1000s of homes and apartments will flood the local housing market and reduce house prices of nearby houses, houses on the peninsula and in another council area, namely Charles Sturt Council area which is my council area, resulting in loss of rates and with the proposed rate capping advocated by State Parliament will result in reduced services and user pays options to address the shortfall. My point being its not just about Port Adelaide PAEC who are silent as they will recoup rates from the new developments and Charles Sturt will not, even though the new developments created a financial rates loss due to falling house prices.
   .
   These Port Adelaide 'developments' are enabling the few, to own apartments on land what is owned already by 'the people' such as crown and heritage land etc and questionable rezoning will no doubt be known as the Strata Title War Zones that became the ghetto's of the unemployed if it continues, (not being negative but as such places exist and they too, started off as 'new developments' and ended up as ghetto's somehow) so tourism will be history too.
   
   The building of this assisted living Retirement Apartment block, if approved should have assurances that those who buy an apartment and who are 'retired' aren't forced to live next to a normal family with noisy kids because the supply outstrips demand and the owner developer changes the rules to sell to anyone, as already demonstrated by being untrustworthy by not developing the shed to the approvals already granted (to cater for restaurants, coffee, cafe's etc) with fine dining overlooking the river which is why there is a huge balcony, never used..

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Port Adelaide Enfield. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment