PlanningAlerts

23 Comments

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

1. No way - this cannot happen! Is nothing sacred in this hood!

2. Surely this is considered an iconic house ?? How can this even be contemplated?

3. This cannot be possible. Surely this building is or should be protected in some way. It's part of Semaphores history.

4. These structures are iconic to the Semaphore and South Australian landscape and form a big part of our history. I do not agree with this being removed to make way for tourism. There are many other buildings that could be used for this purpose. The street is a residential area and the last thing that residents need is more tourists in a residential area. The parking and access is hard enough, with Semaphore being such a popular destination and with various festivals. I do not give my consent as a resident for this to happen.

5. Absolutely do not agree with this application! It is an iconic building and should remain part of our history and landscape. In any case, Semaphore's history a big part of it's tourism draw and the existing building easily lends itself to accommodation without the need for demolition.

6. This current building is a substantial and important part of the curtilage of the adjoining water tower, and references the era when many of the surrounding residences were constructed. As such the current building substantially contributes to the streetscape.
   On the usage of the proposed building, it is incompatible with the single family dwellings in this street. Any tourist-based accommodation will inevitably result in increased traffic movement in what is a narrow street. This will not be solved even with off street parking as proposed.
   Lastly, the residential amenity of the area will be adversely impacted by increased noise levels from transient visitors who will "be there for a good time, not a long time!"
   I would urge that this proposed development be refused outright.

7. What is the South Australian Planning Portal? I question if they will take any notice of these objections. Sadly Australia would have perhaps, the worst planning regulations in the English speaking world. Where have all the beautiful buildings gone in my lifetime? If this is the example of new buildings in the Port, I would rather have the old ones that they replaced, at least they had character and purpose. Who in their right minds has black walls, black roofs, no eaves in Australia?. I can think of only one building that has been built since 1970, that still looks as the day it was opened. "Adelaide Festival Theatres"

8. this is a land mark building, please do not allow it to be destroyed.

9. These structures are iconic to the Semaphore and South Australian landscape and form a big part of our history. I do not agree with this being removed to make way for tourism. There are many other buildings that could be used for this purpose. The street is a residential area and the last thing that residents need is more tourists in a residential area. The parking and access is hard enough, with Semaphore being such a popular destination and with various festivals. I do not give my consent for this to go ahead.

10. I have lived in this street for 15 years and watched the traffic and parking situation become steadly more conjested, to a point now on event days it becomes gridlocked full of frustrated families who can't drive forward or back, residents in the street including myself have voiced this to the portadelaide council, only to fall on deaf ears. This narrow street needs a solution to keep the traffic flowing not extra holiday units and the chaos that would follow, this is not thebeach front in glenelg, its a side street in semaphore with ongoing traffic issues
    To let that block be developed as proposed would be a very negative for the area.. I totally oppose it

11. I live right next door to the tower and I along with my neighbours are not prepared to put up with noisy disrespectful holiday makers and there vehicles driving in and out of the property day and night to have six holiday units in a suburban neighbourhood with a narrow street is an absolute joke what’s going to happen when the tower is renovated another four holiday units ??? Ropable
    This better not fall on deaf ears

12. Annie

    I’ve lived in Semaphore for 17 years and this is most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen proposed for our area.

    Firstly, the residents of Blackler Street are at full capacity with local traffic, adding to this is insane, it is a logistical nightmare as it is and only gets worse during the warmer months.

    Secondly, has the homeowners on either side of the tower been taken into consideration. No doubt these proposed structures will span from fence line to fence line leaving these people with noise pollution and little or no privacy.

    Thirdly, I feel yet again, greed will pay a big part in this ridiculous proposal at the expense of one of our most Iconic structures. It’s been standing there proud since 1880 and should be left alone to stand there on its own for another 142 years.

13. Have just sighted the plans and extremely disappointed with no regards to residents privacy and noise control by having a common bbq area which is in the boundary of my property also would like to state people work and the sharing of common area would get noisey especially on warm summer nights which would effect all residents. Surely with this in mind it would not get approved.

14. The proposed height, scale, massing, scale, building materials and colour of finishes will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal dominates the streetscape and is contrary to the local requirements which among other matters call for subservience of structures and use to the streetscape in this site.

    The proposal does not respond positively to the neighbourhood and emerging character of the surrounds.

    The lack of suitable setbacks and excessive externallighting will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal fails to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds and public realm, resulting in unreasonable visual bulk.

    The built form demonstrates a lack of integration with the context.

    The proposal does not adequately respond to the topography of the site and surrounds.

    The scale, lack of setbacks and lack of landscaping all contribute to an overdevelopment of the subject site.

    The proposed use and development, having regard to the site and surrounding area, would represent an inappropriate planning outcome.

    The proposal does not contemplate contemporary best practices in stormwater disposal and water sensitive urban design.

    The proposal fails to contemplate contemporary best practices regarding rainwater use, minimising energy and utility use and efficiency of the structures.

    The proposal will alter the direction, volume and velocity of overland water flows.

    Insufficient information has been provided regarding ongoing management of motor traffic generated by the proposal.

    The proposal will generate excessive motor vehicle traffic which will have unacceptable amenity impacts upon the surrounding community and public realm.

    I urge the responsible authority to refuse to grant a permit.

15. I would like to add to my previous submission, please consider both of my submissions together.

    The proposal fails to respond to the heritage values of the site and surrounds.

16. In my opinion there are 3 obvious reasons for this application to be declined - 1) a complete disregard for the residents of Blackler St and the surrounding area; 2) demolition of a circa 1938-built art deco building; 3) tourist accommodation (comprising six 2 story very modern-looking dwellings, in addition to the 4 proposed units for the tower itself) is inappropriate for a family orientated residential street.

    1) The residents of Blackler St and surrounding areas will be further adversely affected due to increased noise & traffic from short-term holidaymakers. Blackler St & Coppin St residents whose homes adjoin and/or are overlooked by the current buildings will also have an increased lack of privacy. Blackler St is a narrow street which already experiences parking & traffic problems from day visitors in peak times eg when festivals are on, during summer etc, as well as on occasion noisy and unruly behavior from some of these (sometimes inebriated) day visitors. It is also likely adjoining streets will have increased traffic from congestion spillover.

    2) The circa 1938-built art deco building comprising 2 flats is a unique part of Semaphore history and has architectural merit in its own right. It contributes to the heritage character of the area & has been there for over 80 years - it should be retained.

    3) Tourist accommodation (in this case comprising six 2 storey very modern-looking dwellings, in addition to the 4 proposed units for the tower itself) is inappropriate & completely out of place for this family-orientated residential street. It is not compatible with the heritage nature of the tower and also the street in general. The street/area is not zoned for commercial use & rightly so.

    I am totally opposed to this application.

17. This what appears to be the requirements from SAPPA site map WILLIAM scroll on side pane:

    ocation: 40 BLACKLER ST SEMAPHORE SA 5019 LTS 124 125
    Valuation: 0406022007
    Title Prefix: CT
    Title Volume: 5840
    Title Folio: 151
    SAILIS: Link

    Planning & Design Code:
    All policies that apply to this address
    Policies for a development at this address

    Zones
    Established Neighbourhood - EN

    Overlays
    Airport Building Heights (Regulated) - All structures over 110 metres
    The Airport Building Heights (Regulated) Overlay seeks to ensure building height does not pose a hazard to the operation and safety requirements of commercial and military airfields.
    Historic Area - PAdE3
    The Historic Area Overlay aims to reinforce historic themes and characteristics through conservation, contextually responsive development, design and adaptive reuse that responds to the attributes expressed in the Historic Area Statement.
    Prescribed Wells Area
    The Prescribed Wells Area Overlay seeks to ensure sustainable water use in prescribed wells areas.
    Regulated and Significant Tree
    The Regulated and Significant Tree Overlay seeks to mitigate the loss of regulated trees through appropriate development and redevelopment.
    State Heritage Place
    The State Heritage Place Overlay seeks to ensure development maintains the heritage and cultural values of State Heritage Places through conservation, ongoing use and adaptive reuse.
    Stormwater Management
    The Stormwater Management Overlay seeks to ensure new development incorporates water sensitive urban design techniques to capture and re-use stormwater.
    Traffic Generating Development
    The Traffic Generating Development Overlay aims to ensure safe and efficient vehicle movement and access along urban transport routes and major urban transport routes.
    Urban Tree Canopy
    The Urban Tree Canopy Overlay seeks to preserve and enhance urban tree canopy through the planting of new trees and retention of existing mature trees where practicable.

    Variations
    Maximum Building Height (Metres)
    Maximum building height is 9m
    Minimum Site Area
    Minimum site area for a detached dwelling is 600 sqm; semi-detached dwelling is 250 sqm; row dwelling is 250 sqm; group dwelling is 250 sqm; residential flat building is 250 sqm
    Maximum Building Height (Levels)
    Maximum building height is 2 levels
    Minimum Side Boundary Setback
    Minimum side boundary setback is 1m for the first building level; 2m for any second building level or higher

18. I live behind the proposed development and can honestly say that this development is wrong for our established neighborhood zone in so many ways.

    I have read the Development Application and the first point I make is that the Sydney based developer makes no firm commitment to restore the water tower structure. He simply says that this work would be a second stage to the development that will require a second application to PlanSA , which will be subject to the financial viability of the first stage, 6 new tourist accommodation units. As the cost of rectification works would be very high I do not believe this could ever be justified financially.

    The Water Tower is situated in an 'Established Neighborhood' and as I understand it the intention of this zoning is to allow residential building that is sympathetic to the surrounding area. The properties in the area are single story detached houses on reasonably sized blocks of land. The proposed development is for six, two story houses on land parcels that are considerably less that the planning guidelines (142 square metres each). These will in no way be sympathetic to the local area or this important heritage place.

    The Development Application appears to have had no input from heritage experts and completely dismisses the historic value of the residential building attached to the tower proposed for demolition. I believe the residence was built in the 1940's and is itself represents an important part of Semaphore's history. The only reason this structure is to be demolished is to allow provision for car parking. This is completely wrong!

    Also is locating a car park in front of such an important State Heritage place, as proposed, really sympathetic and respectful to this important structure. I think not!

    The residence at the side of the water tower appears to have been fully integrated into the tower structure and there are no reports attached to the Development Application to confirm that t's removal will not impact the structural integrity of the tower structure.

    There are also several areas that the proposed row of tourist houses does not comply with the Development Code. The rear offset distance to my property is 3m and will result in a considerable loos of light to areas of my home. The second story of the accommodation units have bathrooms that will directly overlook my home, These bathrooms have large windows that overlook my property and while the architect proposes to incorporate obscure glass they will still result in a complete loss of privacy.

    A similar situation will occur for my Blackler Street neighbors that live either side of the development.

    The proposed development includes the removal of a regulated tree. This very large tree, truck circumference greater than 2.8m, is situated 9.8m from the water tower and 15m from the residence. The Water Tower has heavy engineers foundations that would not be impacted by the presence of this important tree. This tree has been completely ignored in the Development application.

    The Development Application make no consideration for noise or a report from a noise specialist to confirm that expected noise levels generated by the tourist accommodation facility will be acceptable. I note that all residence have rear facing air-conditioner units with no noise reduction provisions proposed.

    The proposed maintenance facility is sited on the rear boundary line of the property. I assume this will house washing machines, driers, air conditioners etc., and no conidiation has been made for the potential noise generated from this activity.

    Blackler Street is a very busy and has considerable car parking issues. I do not believe the architect has considered the car and truck turning movements into the site during the proposed 2 year construction period or while in operation. This will undoubtedly add to an already difficult traffic management situation for all residents in the street on an ongoing basis.

    I hope that it is clear from the above that the community should unit to stop this proposed development proceeding in any form

19. There is insufficent parking in Blackler street to allow this to proceed. Can the safety of the tower be guarenteed during this process?

20. I have looked at the proposed plans for stage 1 of this development application. The developer wishes to demolish the two existing units added to the water tower in 1936 and claims that these buildings are not sympathetic to the water tower and the other homes in the surrounding area. I completely disagree with this assessment by the developer which has no basis excepting for the developers wish to demolish them in order to build 6 townhouses/row houses on the land they currently occupy. The 1936 dwellings are completely sympathetic to the current surrounds including the use of the same bricks and colours as those used on the water tower. The window treatments that are on the 1936 dwellings are also in keeping with the character of the historic building. The developer says that the proposed development of the six, two story townhouses are sympathetic to the surrounding houses and water tower and are more appropriate than the current two dwellings built in 1936. I cannot agree with this assessment. It is obvious that the proposed plans are for six ultra modern two story townhouses that are in no way sympathetic to the water tower or other surrounding homes. They are only 143 square meters in size which is significantly smaller than the beautiful old surrounding houses in the street. I understand that the planning guidelines state a that a minimum of 250 square meters per dwelling for this location yet the proposal is to squeeze six 143 square meters per dwelling onto the property for the obvious purpose of capitalising on the money that can be obtained through renting them out. Making as much money as you can from a development by saying the existing two dwellings built in 1936 should be demolished because they are not in keeping with the surrounds and replacing them with six units that are under the planning guidelines requirements is not a reason to approve this development.

21. Just a further comment to let you know I would like to be in attendance at the council meeting that discusses this application.

22. I live right next door to the tower and I along with my neighbours are not prepared to put up with noisy disrespectful holiday makers and there vehicles driving in and out of the property day and night to have six holiday units in a suburban neighbourhood with a narrow street is an absolute joke what’s going to happen when the tower is renovated another four holiday units ??? Ropable
    This better not fall on deaf ears

23. Please do not allow this proposal to happen. This is an iconic building and the surrounding gardens and trees are all beautiful and need to be preserved as they are. The idea to remove the annexed apartments and surrounding garden is a terrible idea and an encroachment upon an already overcrowded neighbourhood and the narrow streets.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to South Australia Planning Portal. 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