News & Discussion: Height Limits

[skyliner]

Greetings and Salutations all -
On reading of the noise and clamout over the building heights in Adelaide I am puzzled at the height of the large Santos building being allowed into Adelaideairspace whilst any othe building that could be of equal height gets a song and dance. Surely, if airspace has been 'invaded' already, how is any other NEARBY building going to cause a problem. Are there any other air routes into the airport?

[crawf]

no offence, but this topic is sooo old...

[Mants]

despite how old the question may be i have never heard a satisfactory answer as to why Santos was built, and why taller buildings are not able to be built

[Will]

Santos was built BEFORE the current height restrictions were imposed.

[Edgar]

I think what JRJ wants to know is, why the current height restriction shouldn't be equal to Santos, since Santos has already been built and broke the height limit.

And, that, it makes not much difference if the height restriction was any lower since old Santos building is already there, and will be there, which that should be the limit instead.

[AG]

The whole point of placing height limits around the place is to influence the style of development that occurs, as well as having respect to open areas and avoiding overshadowing issues that occur. While I agree that the height limit should be increased, in some parts of the CBD it is not yet neccessary for a higher limit yet.

[skyliner]

edgar Raphael got what I was getting at. Having not lived in Adelaide for 20 years it is becoming a little difficult to keep tabs on things. I thought the logic behind the building height restrictions was not there.

I have a copy of the 'City of Adelaide Plan' (from 1975) which shows what I would call an extreme control on heights given the fact that Adelaide was the third biggest city in Australia then (around 750000) I note that controls of the city area now are far greater than any of the capitals - not totally clear why. (other than airspace invasion). The airspace argument was around then but heights have gone up from 18 floors to Santos (35 floors??).

[shuza]

To the mods: I don't know whether you wanted to place this as a sticky in the CBD Development forum or if it should be moved to Picture Posts forum.

I have obtained this map (amended version Jan 06) which clearly indicates the height limits in place around Adelaide CBD. This may be useful to understand, regarding current developments in place.


(c) Adelaide City Council

Note that the 115m height limit is no more, and is now at a mere 103m.
Conservatory on Hindmarsh exceeds the limit for its zone.

[Snorkie]

^^^^ Much appreciated shuza, you dont know how long i been lookin for this map... Man those height limits are a bloody joke. I know its been said before but seriously...

[Howie]

Thanks for posting that. Also note that non-complying developments (i.e. those exceeding their respective limits) are judged by their merits, so yes it's possible to have buildings far exceeding the height limits in theory.

[Al]

^^^^ Much appreciated shuza, you dont know how long i been lookin for this map... Man those height limits are a bloody joke. I know its been said before but seriously...

Totally agree. What's with the two stips of red (1-2 storeys) near angas/hutt? Did someone just make that rule up or something? It's also a joke that you've got a maximum of 103m... absolutely pathetic.

[AtD]

Nice find Shuz

[Will]

In relation to the 103m height limit. This is 4m higher than the previous height limit of 99m.

The 115m height been mentioned is based upon the previous 99m height limit. The 99m height limit refers to the top of ceiling in the uppermost habitable floor. This does not include plant equipment, spires etc. With the previous 99m height limit, structures were allowed to have 16m of plant room, spires etc above the 99m height limit; thus essentially a total of 115m. With the new 103m height limit the same rules apply, so hence our new height limit is in fact 119m.

[crawf]

very interesting, thanks shuz

[shuza]

In relation to the 103m height limit. This is 4m higher than the previous height limit of 99m.

The 115m height been mentioned is based upon the previous 99m height limit. The 99m height limit refers to the top of ceiling in the uppermost habitable floor. This does not include plant equipment, spires etc. With the previous 99m height limit, structures were allowed to have 16m of plant room, spires etc above the 99m height limit; thus essentially a total of 115m. With the new 103m height limit the same rules apply, so hence our new height limit is in fact 119m.

Ahhhh, thats understood now. So really the height limits upped by 4m, whoopee-doo....
EDITED 28/3: Got an email from the ACC regarding height limit amendments.

In reply to your question it is unlikely that there would be any further amendments to the building heights listed in the Development Plan. A building of the size of the Santos building could still be applied for and be assessed under the current plan. The airports authority are also very protective of the airspace so any further intrusions into this space would probably face opposition form them.

If an application was received by council the applicant would be required to address Principle 11 of the Central Business Area Zone provisions as described below.