Recent comments on applications from City of Port Adelaide Enfield, SA

  1. In Peterhead SA on “Torrens title land division...” at 10 Phillis Tce Peterhead SA 5016:

    Maureen Jones commented

    Meanwhile 1 minute down the road people aren't permitted to subdivide due to heavy pollution in that area. I am pretty sure the pollution stretches to Phillis street from the top of Hargrave Street. Turning 2 houses into 6 doesn't sound like a great outcome for anyone except those making money from such a deal. More little boxes with no more open space for residence. SHAME!!!!

  2. In Peterhead SA on “Torrens title land division...” at 10 Phillis Tce Peterhead SA 5016:

    Catherine McMahon commented

    While State Govt changes to planning laws allow multiple subdivisions in local areas, there remains a chronic lack of open space between Centre St and Semaphore Rd (east of Fletcher Rd) and the stormwater system will need to carry greater loads.
    These impact on both new and existing residents.

  3. In Klemzig SA on “Demolition of dwelling and...” at 34-36 Cole St Klemzig SA 5087:

    Geoff Cann commented

    This address notified does not seem to exist, so which properties does this refer to?

  4. In Enfield SA on “Demolition of dwelling and...” at 3 Central Ave Enfield SA 5085:

    Jody commented

    Your complaining about 2 being built i have 4 being built next to me and 5 being built behind me and not even a hello from the council of what is going on

  5. In Enfield SA on “Demolition of dwelling and...” at 3 Central Ave Enfield SA 5085:

    Ben commented

    One house should not be demolished with two houses to replace it. The owner will sub divide which the council will approve & my privacy will be compromised.

  6. In Croydon Park SA on “Three, two storey dwellings” at 12 Tungara Ave Croydon Park SA 5008:

    John Lord commented

    To whom it may concern.
    I am a resident of 23 Tungara avenue, and have recently heard about the plans for number 12.
    There are a number of concerns I have about this project. Firstly, there is the issue of parking. The street parking is already quite heavy during the day, and becomes nearly impossible at the beginning and end of school hours. The extra vehicles associated with three extra homes would create gridlock conditions at these times and a crowded street for the rest of the day.
    Secondly, the majority of the houses in the street are traditional family homes with a front and back yard, a private driveway and a secure ‘homey’ feeling. The exceptions in the street that have been divided up into multiple properties or accommodations have in many cases led to unsavoury or illegal activities. Three new houses on one house block will provide new opportunities for such behaviour.
    Thirdly, by squeezing 3 two story buildings onto one house block the appeal of the street will be reduced along with the land values. As the buildings age, they will become more of an an eyesore.
    Fourthly, finally, I am familiar with properly in question. It is a sound construction with great potential as a family home.

  7. In Alberton SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Queen St Alberton SA 5014:

    Debra Farmer commented

    Disappointed another historical building is being considered to be demolished. Why can't they restore the front cottages and build their "new developments" on the remaining land (which I believe is quite large). Alberton residence's are proud to live in a historical area. Please do not allow block style/cookie cutter housing to be approved.

  8. In Windsor Gardens SA on “Section 7 and 187 (Full...” at 11 McKay Ave Windsor Gardens SA 5087:

    Anita R commented

    Can council please stop approving developments in this area with single garages ? All new developments should have double garages. As a local resident, i’ve noticed more and more cars parked on the roads because they can’t park on their single driveway. It creates frustration when trying to drive around the cars parked on the roads, and impedes on garbage collection day because someone is parked in front of my bin.

  9. In Semaphore SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Albert St Semaphore SA 5019:

    Clare Shuttleworth` commented

    I own a property in Albert St and walk up and down the street most days. I am disheartened to read about the demolition application for the house at 11 Albert St. Disheartened and disappointed, but not surprised as the house has been left empty for some years and its exterior, and presumably interior, have deteriorated.

    I understand that Albert St is within a historic conservation area, and suggest that this house certainly contributes to the heritage and character of the area. Would it be possible for the Council's Heritage Advisor to provide an opinion on the house?

    Maybe there is a possibility that other development options could be considered for this (quite large) block that include retaining and restoring the existing house.

    Each time a significant building such as this is lost, there is an impact on the overall historic and unique character of our neighbourhood.

    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

  10. In Enfield SA on “Torrens Title Land Division...” at 13 Park Tce Enfield SA 5085:

    Christopher McBride commented

    Four allotments from one on a corner plot? Where will their cars be parked i wonder when the garages will be to small for all but the smallest of cars? I expect there to be a lot of cars parked on a narrow street on a corner with a roundabout. I would also urge an inspection of the houses currently being built on the old Uniting Church site as the quality seems so low i would be concerned as to their structural stability.

  11. In Port Adelaide SA on “Single storey detached...” at 3 Holmes St Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Jenny Ramos commented

    What a shame this lovely blue stone house is going to be knocked down and replaced with a generic new dwelling. It must be at least 100 years old. So sad the Port is losing it's working class history. Shed 26 knocked down and now the old dwellings are following.

  12. In Enfield SA on “Demolition of domestic...” at 18 Bowman Cres Enfield SA 5085:

    Concerned Citizen commented

    Off street parking for this dwelling seems unacceptable and has caused traffic congestion in Bristol ave this is before anyone hase moved in to the new home built on the rear half of the block.

  13. In Port Adelaide SA on “Modification of building...” at 102 Commercial Rd Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Truong Tam Nguyen commented

    this building very good Ord and strong I'm built to look like antiques please look my Facebook Truong Tam Nguyen and type email yourvietnamesefood you will see anything

  14. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Frank Leyvraz commented

    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..

  15. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Janine Matheson commented

    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.

  16. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Michelle Renshaw commented

    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.

  17. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Lisa M commented

    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.

  18. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Debbie Williams commented

    How on earth does this encourage or promote tourism to our Port !! This has the potential to create 'exclusive 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.

  19. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Sharon Holmes wrote to local councillor Michelle Hogan

    My understanding of the height of any developments should be limited to 5 storeys. Surely this development is not going to pass any assessment. Why would this developer believe that this proposal would be feasible?
    Another factor is the significance of Wharf Shed 1 (Fishermen's Wharf Market building) being the only such structure in the inner harbour. A developer with vision and respect for our maritime heritage and historic buildings would consider a way to use this structure as a foundation for development rather than demolish it.
    The location of this site is important for public access along the river. Surely, there is going to be enough housing with other development that this site could be better used e.g. art gallery, restaurant/bistro/wine bar, cinema, Indigenous space to tell the history of the first people in Port Adelaide.

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Hogan. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Port Adelaide SA on “Construction of an eight...” at 33-35 North Pde Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Helen Macilwain wrote to local councillor Michelle Hogan

    The Port Adelaide Precinct Plan gives guidance to a 5 storey limit. This document was community informed and should be acknowledged in planning processes or are we dudded yet again by government so called "consultation"? How do current developers feel when inappropriate development is sought adjacent to areas where they have undergone more stringent scrutiny? Port Adelaide is finally experiencing positive change with acknowledgement of its heritage assets and this North Parade Development kicks us back again to darker times. This construct will kill the Inner Harbor once and for all.

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Hogan. They are yet to respond.

  21. In Windsor Gardens SA on “Demolition of structures...” at 104 Pitman Rd Windsor Gardens SA 5087:

    Carolyn Parmiter commented

    Does this mean that the lovely old home will be demolished to have numerous new homes erected? What a shame! So many character homes destroyed in the name of money in our district. Hope these new homes will still be standing for as long as some of the ones which have been demolished to make way for the 2 or 3 or 4 new ones to take its place.

  22. In Port Adelaide SA on “Change of use consisting of...” at 55 Commercial Rd Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Daniel O'Connor commented

    I'm very supportive of this proposal! The existing renovation works and similar have integrated well with the other buildings in the area; I look forward to seeing this building operating again as a business

  23. In Glanville SA on “Single storey dwelling” at 63A Causeway Rd Glanville SA 5015:

    Council Victim commented

    Is it being referred to DPTI? And wasting months of time?!

    I hope turning paths are shown on all drawings.

  24. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Sharon Holmes commented

    I agree with the comments made by Stephanie Roberts. Whilst the current building has not maintained the original appearance, I would prefer to see the developers consider the heritage buildings along this strip and design accordingly. The home being built by Federation Homes is an excellent example of maintaining the character of the area. A little further south on the corner of Rawson and Esplanade, a 2 storey building shows little respect for heritage. After seeing the Quest building on the wharf in Port Adelaide, I have little hope that whatever the developer plans will be rejected. It seems anything can be built if the price is right.

  25. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Stephanie Roberts commented

    How sad to see yet another beautiful old dwelling disappear, changing the streetscape of this "Golden Mile" once again.
    The new property being built by Federation Homes to the north, on the Esplanade, is a genuine example of maintaining the character of the area, if a property MUST be demolished.
    I hope the character of this unique area is being taken into consideration by the developers, but more importantly, insisted upon by the council.

  26. In Kilburn SA on “Natural change of use from...” at 13 Hopetoun Ave Kilburn SA 5084:

    Ben Ottewill wrote to local councillor Gary Johanson

    I own several properties surrounding this hazzardous property. There have been fires that required attendace of fire brigade with several appliances, rotting food, continual stench eminating from the property.
    Surrounding home owners should be notified and have input regarding this dangerous activity in a residential area.

    Photo of Gary Johanson
    Gary Johanson local councillor for City of Port Adelaide Enfield
    replied to Ben Ottewill

    Good morning

    Thank you for taking the time to inform the Mayor of the incidents related to the above mentioned property.

    The Mayor will forward this to the relevant departments within the Council for their attention.

    Kind regards

  27. In North Haven SA on “The construction of 18...” at 14-15/46-56 Osborne Rd North Haven SA 5018:

    Leah wrote to local councillor Peter Jamieson

    Where can we see the concept plans for this? I am assuming the Foodland will remain and development will occur around this? I live nearby and would be interested to see what is planned for the area.

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Jamieson. They are yet to respond.

  28. In North Haven SA on “The construction of 18...” at 14-15/46-56 Osborne Rd North Haven SA 5018:

    David Hunter wrote to local councillor Peter Jamieson

    This is the North Haven Shopping centre address, does this mean we will lose the shopping centre?

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Jamieson. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Port Adelaide SA on “Six storey office building...” at Nile St Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Stephanie and Graham Roberts wrote to local councillor Michelle Hogan

    Good morning.
    We have a number of questions and comments.
    The first question and often the "elephant in the room" when it comes to developing Port Adelaide: are there no alternatives considering the number of vacant buildings currently for sale and lease in Port Adelaide?
    Is 6 storeys approved - even HIGHER than the Quest apartments currently under construction?
    Is the removal of trees necessary? They are used ALL the time by workers in the area as a shady retreat for breaks.
    Is the proposed building sympathetic to Port heritage?
    How many times will this occur, higher and higher until we don't have any heritage feel left in certain areas of the Port?
    Both myself and my husband are not happy with another monster "block" building (such as the Quest apartments) eating away at or heritage. Are we able to see the final plans/look of the building before the process goes so far as to make any changes impossible?
    It is possible to build in and progress the Port whilst maintaining its charm. This may mean investing more in a building and its surrounds (ie trees).
    We trust that the council and developers take this into account.
    Thank you

    Photo of Michelle Hogan
    Michelle Hogan local councillor for City of Port Adelaide Enfield
    replied to Stephanie and Graham Roberts

    Hi Stephanie and Graham
    Thank you for your email - and especially your support for maintaining heritage in the Port.
    Unfortunately this development, along with the Quest Apartments, has been classified as a state development and is considered and approved by the (state government) Development Assessment Commission, not Council. Developments over $3m are now automatically taken out of our hands and under the new Planning legislation, it looks like councils will have even less influence in ensuring community feedback is taken into account.
    If you are interested in this issue I encourage you to join the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust, who have been campaigning around this for some time - the website will give you the details.
    I appreciate your concern and will continue to advocate on heritage and the natural environment issues within the council.

    Kind regards,

    Cr. Michelle Hogan
    Semaphore Ward, Port Adelaide Enfield Council

  30. In Rosewater SA on “Change of use to shop with...” at 117 Grand Junction Rd Rosewater SA 5013:

    Daniel O'Connor commented

    I'm generally for this application, but I do want to point out that drainage from the property and the footpath lower the street appeal of any shop here fairly significantly.

    Given the number of other vacant shops nearby, I'd be interested to know if what plans if any the applicants have to improve the street appeal of the shop part of the property.

    The other vacant shops nearby haven't attracted businesses even with renovations; I'd be worried about the same happening here over the longer term especially without improvements, doubly so with the drainage issues making the footpaths unusable for potential customers.

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