Lot 11 & Lot 603 & Lot 604 Mavis Avenue, South Plympton & 3 - 15 & 17 - 37 Monash Street, South Plympton & 6 & 8 Scott Street, South Plympton., SA

Three storey apartment building comprising 20 dwellings with covered at grade car parking, 30 two storey and 10 three storey townhouses, site works, tree removal, landscaping and associated land division (Remainder of works not covered under Stage 1)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 19 days ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: South Australia Planning Portal, reference 100/F286/21 )

17 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Matthew wright commented

    This is clearly not in keeping of the areas character status and should not be allowed. It would be a high density eyesore in an otherwise unmolested suburb of single storey medium density dwellings.

  2. Kate Blue commented

    I struggle to see how this is appropriate to built a multi apartment dwelling in a prime real estate area and not even on a main arterial road. There is already a lot of road congestion in Glandore with limited places to exit onto major roads.
    There is a primary school very nearby with students walking to and from every day.
    THis is totally inappropriate use of this land in this suburb.

  3. Jane Citizen commented

    This street already struggles with traffic and parking congestion to the point where garbage trucks can barely get through half of the time. I don't see this doing anything except making it worse. Plus it will just look weird amongst all the other homes in the area. It will also block out most of the sky for the houses in the surrounding streets.

  4. Deb commented

    This plan is ridiculous. These streets are extremely small already for the foot & vehicle traffic especially during school terms with Black Forest Primary School families using both streets to park in the morning & afternoons. Some residents park on the street also making travelling on the streets difficult. Adding this huge apartment block will make access access impossible. Nor will the complex be in keeping with the character of our zone? Will the new tunnel affect this property too? This area is for homes not apartments!

  5. Matthew wright commented

    Well done Planning SA. You have the wrong address. Its 134A Pleasant Ave in South Plympton. How about fixing it in your alerts please so as not to worry local residents.

  6. Pauline Alcock commented

    Can you confirm that it is 134A and not 14 A which is not for sale and which would be a totally inappropriate place for that development.which would surely not fit on the block
    Pauline Alcock

  7. Laura commented

    This is so out of character for the area and in particular the street. I fail to see how this is in keeping with character zoning for Glandore.

  8. Kate Blue commented

    What is the a tubal address of this build? It does not match the pinned map address. Can you please clarify to put us all at ease!

  9. Gerald commented

    If this is 1a Pleasant Ave (the church site) this would be completely out of keeping with the area. I would be opposed to multi-storey on that site.
    The proposal to fit 20 dwellings on that site would have to have extremely small footprint dwellings - you would struggle to fit 10 dwellings on the site - so it is likely a clerical error

  10. Liz hahn commented

    Should never be allowed.. totally out of character for the area

  11. Cathy Chua commented

    I walk past the present buildings regularly with my partner and we've often said to each other how much improved it would be by a lot of buildings squashed into a big concrete slab, preferably without any trees. It's like the planning people have read our minds.

  12. Cathy Chua commented

    I got a response to my question above, and I wondered if others got the same reply.

  13. Cathy Chua commented

    This is the response I got, which is extraordinarily depressing. Key takeaway point is that this is supposed to be an improvement for the area and that overcrowding blocks, chopping down trees and installing more concrete and large heat islands, will, to quote: 'justify the improvement of infrastructure and other services.'

    'This proposal was approved by the State Coordinator-General for the purposes of the ‘Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs’ Stimulus Program in accordance with Schedule 10 (17) (1) of the Development Regulations 2008.

    This means that subject to the proposal satisfying the planning and design criteria established for the program, no development plan consent is required. Once building rules consent is obtained, the State Planning Commission is obliged to grant development approval and in this regard, the Commission granted development approval on 5 February 2021.

    It should be noted that the subject land is zoned Residential – Regeneration Policy Area 16 within the Marion Council Development Plan. This Policy Area has been identified for regeneration because many of the existing dwellings and infrastructure within the Area are nearing the end of their economic life.

    New development is anticipated at densities greater than the current density of housing to increase the number of dwellings and residential population within the policy area, and in doing so justify the improvement of infrastructure and other services.

    The Development Plan anticipates the area will be characterised by residential development at low-medium and medium densities, with a variety of architectural styles and a wide range of dwelling types to meet a variety of accommodation needs.'

  14. YiZhong Zhuang commented

    This is terrible. The urban heat island and traffic will be near unbearable. If it's going to be approved, they need to pay to underground power lines in the entire suburb so that trees can be planted to provide shade, and they also need storm water harvesting provisions.

  15. Cathy Chua commented

    YiZhong, if the answer I got above has any substance, it seems to be that it is only by chopping down the trees and putting up a lot more concrete, that 'amenities' can be economically justified. All very ironic, if not intentional. Shove people into tiny areas too small to have a shred of green and by doing that, it will be economically viable to redress the urban heat island effect of that. Rolling my eyes.

  16. Josh commented

    I think underground powerlines is a good point. Councils are often opt for easy way out by choosing those ‘suitable’ trees for under power line where they provide near to none canopy. They also need to reinforce the compliance of replanting trees and ensure survival as I have noticed far too many developer who just plants those plants as required by council to meet requirement but do not provide after care which most of them eventually died due to lack of watering and care. I do not agreed chop one mature healthy tree equal to planting one young tree as they rarely survive extreme Adelaide heat in summer without extra care.

  17. Susan Millar commented

    This is not good. Why does our council think in money terms all the time???
    The awefull development on Anzac Highway across from Beckman st is going to be a nightmare for all concerned in living there and trying to get past on the side road.
    Someone needs to be accountable for this distressing development that is happening in this area.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts