Page 1 of 6
[COM] Infinity Waters | 7lvls | 28m | Residential
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:29 pm
by Algernon
7 levels (6 above ground), 51 apartments, 5 offices, health and fitness thingy, restaurant.
This was denied approval by Charles Sturt Council a few months ago, on a vote of 3-1 by the DAP.
The developers appealed to the ERD court. The 23 August judgement is as follows:
Summary and Conclusion
No objection was raised to the proposed development by the Council on the basis of land use. The issues concerning traffic and carparking were overcome by slight changes in the plans. Given the substantial distance between the dwellings to the north-east, across the lake, and the land, the impact of the proposed development in terms of overlooking and noise will not, in our assessment, diminish the residential amenity. Having regard to the design, materials, and articulation, the proposed building is sufficiently sympathetic to the buildings around it and to the character of the locality. The residential component of the development is high density, but, balancing that against its other attributes, and having regard to the Desired Future Character Statement as a whole, it is not fatal to the proposal.
Orders will be made in the following terms:-
1. The decision of the City of Charles Sturt to refuse to grant provisional development plan consent to Development Application No. 252/1529/04 is reversed.
2. Provisional development plan consent is granted for the erection of a seven level building (including basement car parking level) accommodating 51 residential apartments, five offices, a health and fitness centre and a restaurant, together with car parking and landscaping at 155 Brebner Drive, West Lakes (Development Application No. 252/1529/04) subject to the following conditions:
blah blah blah
3. The provisional development plan consent hereby granted will lapse 18 months from the date of this order unless the development hereby approved has been lawfully commenced by substantial work on the site of the development within that 18 months. This order is intended to be an extension of the 12 month period provided for in Reg 48(1)(b) of the Development Regulations.
The site has been fenced off recently, and now advertising hoardings are up. The developer has 18 months to start construction, or the approval will lapse.
Edit - Now 7 levels above ground
[COM]
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:13 pm
by Algernon
The council came up with about 30 recommendations should the ERD court have approved the application. A lot of it is really specific stuff, so here's a few things i've picked:
A. That Council maintains its objection to the proposed development and any approval of such.
B. That in the event that the court sees fit to approve the proposed development EDIT by Chris - which it did, the Chief Executive be given the delegations to liaise with Council solicitors and to negotiate with the appellant and the Environment, Resources and Development Court to ensure, as far as possible, that the following conditions are achieved on the consent:
1. That the proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and approved plans except where varied by the conditions herein and shall be completed prior to occupation of the proposed development.
23. The proposed restaurant including the outdoor eating area shall have a seating capacity not exceeding eighty-one (81) patrons.
24. Alfresco dining within the proposed restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 7:30am to 10:00pm on all days of operation and the restaurant itself shall not operate outside the hours of 7:30am to 11:00pm, Sunday to Thursday and 7:30am until midnight, Friday to Saturday. Further, the doors to the Alfresco dining area shall be closed from 10:00pm each day to 7:30am the following day.
25. The hours of the gymnasium shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am to 10:00pm, Monday to Friday and 8:00am until 9:00pm, on weekends.
28. No live music shall be played at the restaurant and no live or amplified music shall be played throughout the alfresco dining area associated with the restaurant.
33. That the number of carparks allocated for public use be increased from 42 to 51 and the number of carparks allocated for private use be decreased from 86 to 77.
[COM]
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:35 pm
by Al
Awesome news! I can't believe some of those conditions the council wants to impose. Like 81 seats for a restaurant!? I don't how big the proposed restuarant will be but assuming four people per table, 16 tables (which includes indoor and outdoor) is not a lot. No live music or amplified music? Councils can be amazing.... it happens to be my council too.
[COM]
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:34 am
by Algernon
Al, just out of interest, are you also a member of the state electorate of Lee? (west lakes, semaphore, seaton, grange etc)
I'm thinking of writing the local member Michael Wright, to put a little pressure on about diverting the grange train to West Lakes Mall/Football Park, and i'd love to have a few more signatures to put on this thing
[COM]
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:30 am
by Al
Don't think so, unless Renown Park is there. I can pretend to be though.
[COM]
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:10 pm
by Will
Even though the image is only B/W you can tell that it is a stylish and elegant design. It angers me that councils can be so stupid when considering such developments. Any sane person can see that this building will enhance the appearance of West Lakes! And the restrictions imposed on the businesses that will operated out of the building are severely out-dated.
[COM]
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:49 pm
by Algernon
[COM]
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:03 pm
by AtD
Just another example of how Councils are trying to hold the state back. Thankfully the state government has more sense.
[COM]
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:10 am
by stumpjumper
Beofre you join wave the 'any development is good development' flag, consider the costgs and benefits.
A large structure such as the Infinity Waters building provides a number of people with a fine view and a pleasnat home.
It also deprives other people of sunlight, and it adds to the traffic and other loads in the locality.
A thin fringe of tall apartment buildings along every metrpolitan beachfront, lakefront and park frontage is not good planning. In fact it is pandering to the few, just as the developers of such building claim that opposition to their plans is 'bowing to the residents' as in the North Adelaide Le Cornu debate.
There is a place for massive, high density developments, and there is a 'desirable frequency' for them.
Whether Infinity is in the right place or not requires a considered analysis of the effects of the development on its neighbours.
[COM]
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:46 pm
by AtD
stumpjumper wrote:Beofre you join wave the 'any development is good development' flag, consider the costgs and benefits.
I don't believe that any development is a good development, but many local councils have taken the view that any development is automatically a bad development if it isn't a carbon copy of every other development in the area.
stumpjumper wrote:A large structure such as the Infinity Waters building provides a number of people with a fine view and a pleasnat home.
It also deprives other people of sunlight, and it adds to the traffic and other loads in the locality.
No objection was raised to the proposed development by the Council on the basis of land use. The issues concerning traffic and carparking were overcome by slight changes in the plans. Given the substantial distance between the dwellings to the north-east, across the lake, and the land, the impact of the proposed development in terms of overlooking and noise will not, in our assessment, diminish the residential amenity. Having regard to the design, materials, and articulation, the proposed building is sufficiently sympathetic to the buildings around it and to the character of the locality. The residential component of the development is high density, but, balancing that against its other attributes, and having regard to the Desired Future Character Statement as a whole, it is not fatal to the proposal
[COM]
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:22 pm
by Algernon
stumpjumper wrote:There is a place for massive, high density developments, and there is a 'desirable frequency' for them.
If that's your view, is it safe to assume you argue in favour of the modern centralised city model?
[COM]
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:42 pm
by Will
stumpjumper wrote:
A large structure such as the Infinity Waters building provides a number of people with a fine view and a pleasnat home.
It also deprives other people of sunlight, and it adds to the traffic and other loads in the locality.
.
No offence, but this is a rather small town mentality. In the eastern states, a six level building is not considered a 'large structure'. This mentality is in my opinion holding back progress. Maybe it's because the people in local councils have never left the state, but this mentality that anything over 3 levels is a skyscraper is damaging and holding progress back.
[COM]
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:55 pm
by Algernon
"Progress" is very subjective, Will.
[COM]
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:32 pm
by INFINITY
[COM]
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:55 pm
by Howie
Sensational... looks brilliant Infinity!
And thanks for coming to our forums, hope we hear from you more in the future.
