News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[AtD]

I wonder why the four of the five independent panellists on the Development Assessment Panel didn't rock up to the meeting.

Three were interstate or overseas and the fourth cited family reasons.

[Will]

If the rejection of CC8 was the main catalyst for this decision, then I would be very worried indeed if it had been approved in its existing form by the new DAC.
I hope very much that this move has been made for the right reasons. Proposals ought to be approved not only because they meet basic development laws, but also because they seek unique and engaging solutions to environmental, aesthetic and streetscape concerns. Of course, the ACC hasn't necessarily been particularly strong in this area, but the recent rejections of Spire and CC8 suggest that there are still people with the sense of sight within the Town Hall's walls. In keeping with the Australian tradition, I shall reserve the right to be initially distrustful of a government decision until proven otherwise.

Although I am not a fan of the current CCT8 design, I think it was a grave error to reject the building outright. It would have been a far more intelligent outcome, if the ACC had instead deferred this proposal. A deferral gives the message that on the whole the council supports development but has certain ussues that need to be addressed. An outright rejection gives the message that the CBD is closed for business.

Only someone who takes things on face-value would perceive the rejection of CC8 as a sure sign that the Adelaide CBD is 'closed for business'. Marvellous as a headline, but it's not exactly factual. If there had been a better-designed building proposed, I am sure that it would have been approved - to say 'closed for business' assumes that the CC8 proposal was the best outcome for the site, when it certainly wasn't, and that the problems with the design were not so fundamental to the design that they could be altered within a reasonable timeframe to warrant a deferral, whereas I think the opposite.

I know some of you will disagree with what I am saying, and bring out the figure that the council approved more than $1 billion worth of development last year. Sure this is true, but remember that the council approved this with the aid of the specialist and independent DAP members introduced 2 years ago. I wonder how much of that $1 billion worth of development would have been approved had the DAP still being staffed solely by councillors?

$1 billion's worth of development is indeed an impressive number, but for all any outsider knows, that could be a series of hideously expensive toaster ovens with obtuse crumpets poking out every which way. Those who pull out the Billion Dollar Super Awesome figure are just as bad as the Closed For Business types, taking everything at face-value.

In fact the CCT8 decision gives an indication of what would have happened. For the vote on whether to approve CCT8, most of the independent specialist members did not take part. Without them to dilute the councillors, the councillors showed their true colours and rejected this development.

Surely someone responsible for the CC8 design looked over the 11-storey blank wall rising above Darling and spilled coffee all over themselves in response to its lack of innovation/attractiveness/uniqueness/relationship with the street and nearby buildings/differentiation from other CC buildings. It's not just an issue that requires tweaking here and there, as you would expect a deferral would entail - the entire western wall is a tribute to concrete driveways; the southern facade has the aforementioned obtuse crumpets poking out every which way, and so on. To borrow from Mr. World in another thread, not in my rear course, thank you.

In any case, despite my best efforts to derail the thread (*cough*), there is much more to this issue than merely CC8; praise be. We shall only truly know the appropriateness of this Government decision until we see the DAC in action. I for one look forward to seeing what architects and developers come up with now that the parameters have altered somewhat.

I refer you to page 4 of the CCT8 thread in the CBD forum so that you may see that I am probably this building's harshest critic. I dislike this building as much as you. However my or your opinion on this matter is irrelevant because despite its looks, it still complies with the ACC development plan. The fact that something such as CCT8 complies with the development plan is however another issue, not related to the one we are discussing.

I now refer you to page 9 of the CCT8 thread whereby I reported that the ACC's own development officers has recommended this building receive planning approval. And herein lays the problem. Despite the objections of the Heritage Branch, CCT8 complied with the development plan, and as such should have received planning approval or to be deferred. I think it is reasonable to expect that if developers submit plans which comply with the existing development plan, they should receive planning approval. Although the property council's statement that this decision indicated the CBD was closed for business may be an overreaction, it is reasonable to say however that such a decision nevertheless sends a very negative message to developers and investors. A message of uncertainty. A warning that even proposals not at odds with the development plan can still be rejected.

Furthermore it is worthwhile in this discussion to highlight the reasons why CCT8 was rejected. Although the councillors may have considered the look of the pods, the blank western façade, the lack of active street frontages and the green coloured glass; i.e. the reasons why people on this forum do not like the building, these were NOT the reasons given for its rejection. CCT8 was rejected due to its lack of setbacks to Bentham and Franklin Streets and the relationship of the building’s podium in relation to the Darling Building. To expand on this, the councillors thought that the materials used for the podium (mainly glass) were ‘too light’ and did not pay homage to the ‘heavy’ elements of the Darling Building. If we can send people to the moon, I am sure that setbacks and more masonry on the podium could have been introduced into the building’s design. A decision to defer this proposal would have allowed the developers to address these concerns, in a similar way that the developers of Spire did a few weeks ago. However an outright rejection does not allow the developers to address these concerns, whilst at the same time giving negative messages to investors and developers. This is the reason why the state government took action.

[Omicron]

My concern is that there are so few avenues for the relevant body to deny applications based on worthwhile aesthetic considerations. I would hazard a guess that members of the ACC would gladly like to inform Aspen that their CC8 design is a hideous mess of the old, the tired and the conservative, but the only opportunities for them to voice their discontent laid within the lack of setbacks and the poor relationship between Darling and CC8 - that is, they made the fullest objections they could legally make.

Perhaps then my view takes on a new form - that for the ACC to remain a relevant body within the development process, it must alter its development plan to incorporate aspects of design that are appropriate to the enhancement of Adelaide as a bustling, quality city. If the Development Plan does in fact allow for a building of CC8's embarrassingly limited qualities to burst through in a legal context, then it must aim far higher than the mere skeleton of safety and size that currently exists, rather than the communist-esque totality of the restrictions that inappropriately govern our admirably large CBD.

This is the ACC's chance to demonstrate its relevance to the development process. If it believes that it contains the appropriate knowledge and intelligence to be worthy of inclusion in the development process for significant projects (aside fom the tired old democratic representation argument), then it must seek to revise the the Development Plan to the extent that it becomes a desirable and valuable part of the entire process. Our CBD can support the extension of height restrictions across a greater area - irrespective of Westpac, buildings of Grenfell Centre and Telstra's height can be justified across a wider area than that which currently exists, and residential density can be increased with developments of sufficient quality to encourage voluntary relocation to places that currently only allow for 30/50/70m buildings. Our CBD can support the creation of unique and distinctive building designs with a Development Plan that demands higher quality through specific aesthetic requirements, or the track record of an assessment panel that rejects designs of limited design quality.

In essence, our CBD can support far more than the extent to which it is so vehemently constrained. That CC8 could have been approved in its current form is a disgrace; that Aspen hides behind the glaring faults of its juvenile designs with lawsuits and court challenges is a disgrace; that, potentially, the existing ACC Development Plan allows for buildings such as CC8 to be approved without question is a disgrace. The opportunity for leadership lies with the ACC as we speak - to take its existing Development Plan by the scruff of the neck and rework it in such a way that the decisions of the newly-formed DAC are subject to a progressive, accommodating and innovative Plan that ensures future developments are worthy of an emerging global city.

[adam73837]

I must say WELL DONE State Government for stripping those F****** A******S of their power. As Kent Brockman said in the The Simpsons Season 5 Episode Bart's Inner Child (when everyone does what they feel like doing); This reporter thinks it's about F***ing Time.
The ACC had their chance and it seems as though their 'strong message' was the last straw for Paul Holloway (brilliant person; you know, he is the Minister for Mineral Resources Development so let us think to ouselves: Who's the one in the government that's really steering this Mining Boom in right direction (Not the Media Boys...). Anyway...).
And for once I can say well done to Pat Conlon for sticking to his guns and being unmoved from all these threats by the North Adelaide Residents and the councillors within the ACC about all this Bull***t about the 'bullying' them and taking everyhting away 'without warning'. Well quite frankly, if they couldn't see the train coming, it seals everyone's assumptions that they are EXTREMELY narrow minded.
Now, Pat Conlon and Paul holloway have done their VERY good deeds, so here's a message for Mike Rann and Kevin Foley: PLEASE BUILD US A STADIUM IN THE CBD BECAUSE IF YOU DO, CHANCES ARE YOU WILL GET THE VOTES OF MANY YOUNG SOUTH AUSTRALIANS THAT WILL BE HERE IN 50 YEARS TIME TO WITNESS THE EFFECTS OF TODAY'S DECISIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Unlike Leigh Whicker... )

[Shuz]

My concern is that there are so few avenues for the relevant body to deny applications based on worthwhile aesthetic considerations. I would hazard a guess that members of the ACC would gladly like to inform Aspen that their CC8 design is a hideous mess of the old, the tired and the conservative, but the only opportunities for them to voice their discontent laid within the lack of setbacks and the poor relationship between Darling and CC8 - that is, they made the fullest objections they could legally make.

Perhaps then my view takes on a new form - that for the ACC to remain a relevant body within the development process, it must alter its development plan to incorporate aspects of design that are appropriate to the enhancement of Adelaide as a bustling, quality city. If the Development Plan does in fact allow for a building of CC8's embarrassingly limited qualities to burst through in a legal context, then it must aim far higher than the mere skeleton of safety and size that currently exists, rather than the communist-esque totality of the restrictions that inappropriately govern our admirably large CBD.

This is the ACC's chance to demonstrate its relevance to the development process. If it believes that it contains the appropriate knowledge and intelligence to be worthy of inclusion in the development process for significant projects (aside fom the tired old democratic representation argument), then it must seek to revise the the Development Plan to the extent that it becomes a desirable and valuable part of the entire process. Our CBD can support the extension of height restrictions across a greater area - irrespective of Westpac, buildings of Grenfell Centre and Telstra's height can be justified across a wider area than that which currently exists, and residential density can be increased with developments of sufficient quality to encourage voluntary relocation to places that currently only allow for 30/50/70m buildings. Our CBD can support the creation of unique and distinctive building designs with a Development Plan that demands higher quality through specific aesthetic requirements, or the track record of an assessment panel that rejects designs of limited design quality.

In essence, our CBD can support far more than the extent to which it is so vehemently constrained. That CC8 could have been approved in its current form is a disgrace; that Aspen hides behind the glaring faults of its juvenile designs with lawsuits and court challenges is a disgrace; that, potentially, the existing ACC Development Plan allows for buildings such as CC8 to be approved without question is a disgrace. The opportunity for leadership lies with the ACC as we speak - to take its existing Development Plan by the scruff of the neck and rework it in such a way that the decisions of the newly-formed DAC are subject to a progressive, accommodating and innovative Plan that ensures future developments are worthy of an emerging global city.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with most contexts of your response, I believe the DAC will go against many of the development plans regulations anyway in a effort to go against context of the existing plan. The ACC can change it as much as they want to, but inevitably it is in the State Governments control (yes I know theyre politically independent, but doesnt mean that they can by persuaded by the big boys) to control the future of the city. After all, I bet with the number of backroom deals done over the last few years with those high profile executives, Rann has given them their chance. The whole approach is morally corrupt, but isn't that politics? I mean, no wonder the Democrats couldn't hold out.

[urban]

I now refer you to page 9 of the CCT8 thread whereby I reported that the ACC's own development officers has recommended this building receive planning approval. And herein lays the problem. Despite the objections of the Heritage Branch, CCT8 complied with the development plan, and as such should have received planning approval or to be deferred. I think it is reasonable to expect that if developers submit plans which comply with the existing development plan, they should receive planning approval. Although the property council's statement that this decision indicated the CBD was closed for business may be an overreaction, it is reasonable to say however that such a decision nevertheless sends a very negative message to developers and investors. A message of uncertainty. A warning that even proposals not at odds with the development plan can still be rejected.

You are forgetting that the council planners recommendations only make up one of many inputs to the decision making process. The recommendations of the Heritage Branch are more important than the recommendations of the planners. Under the Development Act provisions for State Heritage Places override the Development Plans and can even override the Building Code. If the Council had approved this development the application would then have to be sent to the DAC for a final decision.

As an Architect involved in both submitting and assessing development applications I have serious reservations about the ability of planners to assess anything other than the mundane measurable aspects of the Development Plans which are only a small aspect of the development plan. Planners rarely get it right in terms of Desired Future Character, Townscape Context and Sustainable Development and Amenity.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world where planning is considered a separate discipline to Architecture. In most countries planners and Architects start out doing the same Uni course and then specialise in either Architecture or Planning. The separation of the two degrees here is to the detriment of both Planners and Architects and hence to our built environment.

[Clr Yarwood]

I understand most of you don’t think this is a governance issue or a civil liberty issue as this is a development blog - but as a person elected to represent people and looking at the bigger picture it fundamentally is.

If the State Government wanted to take away your right to local decisions in your own neighbourhood I promise would be disappointed. I support reform, but doing it this way is bad practice...democracy is a fundamental right in the civilised world.

Keep in mind I received votes from people who do not live in the city, the central ward is littered with investors, business owners and developers who have a stake in the city and are anything but “minority views”. I am also a Member of the Planning Institute of Australia and as such bring a broader representation to the table than simply backing a bunch of small minded locals afraid of change!

I WORKED AT DAC and know a vast majority of people that still work there. The Development Assessment Commission is no more likely to rubber stamp development applications or influence the heights of buildings – it’s experts that will offer an expert opinion.

FACT: The expertise in processing and assessing big building development applications lies with Adelaide City Council Staff (who are employed and trained to deal with such complex applications) and the decision makers that have a stake in the city and experience in city matters.

I understand there are some developers that are unhappy as they know things may take longer and become more complicated…development must meld into the local landscape (i.e. footpath heights etc) and thus working within an administrative framework removed from the happenings of city functions makes for a doubling up of administration and complexity.

The current Adelaide DAP has approved pretty much EVERYTHING and even approved stuff the administration recommended for refusal so there is NO EVIDENCE we are anti-anything.

This ill considered and poorly implemented action will do nothing except double up on the handling of development applications and cause greater delay!

[loud]

Further to the bin issue, they are made of stainless steel in Germany, not see-through perspex. Who wants to see the inside of a bin at a major tourist destination/through-point?

Continuing on the issue of the ACC's loss of power- I wonder why the four of the five independent panellists on the Development Assessment Panel didn't rock up to the meeting. If they don't feel Tower 8 is important enough to turn up and support, who's to blame the councillors for high-jacking the meeting and turning it down? (The only development worth more than $10mil to be turned down by the panel this year.) Also, the CBD is not a zone set aside for purely commercial purposes, to be ruthlessly and economically regimented for maximum profit. It is a living space, a place where people live, where some people spend up to 10 hours a day and more, a place where people shop and come to cafes and restaurants, etc., etc.. There is more at stake than some developer's profits. This move essentially removes the right of the people of Adelaide to have a say in stuff that may very well affect them. We do not live in China, where whole neighbourhoods are routinely bulldozed.

Of course the city is for more than just big commercial buildings - that is what zoning is for isn't it??? CCT8 is in a Central Business Area Zone, where commercial office buildings, retail and mixed uses are encouraged.

And the people of Adelaide still do have a say in what goes on in the city! They vote in the State Election don't they? I see this as a much fairer way for the greater population of South Australia to have a say in how their capital city, a place where a heap of people that don't reside in the city spend the majority of their waking hours, to have a say.

[Hippodamus]

Neuropolis... maybe open a Sensational-rural South Australia forum so you can focus on your forte of rural arcologies...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're a city here mate, like it or not there will be tall buildings. although tall buildings are not the be-all and end-all of a truly functional city, they are important features in any modern metropolis. most of these forums are about tall buildings and urban development.

maybe your the dinosaur that needs to move on...

And maybe all of these ideas are not really very cutting edge or even especially innovative.
Besides, cities are not defined by tall buildings. Development can mean all sorts of things and I hold our collective human future in high regard. It's just that, for me, a city means more than some notion of an outdated metropolis. Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.

no worries mate, keep reading those sci-fi mags.

[monotonehell]

And maybe all of these ideas are not really very cutting edge or even especially innovative.
Besides, cities are not defined by tall buildings. Development can mean all sorts of things and I hold our collective human future in high regard. It's just that, for me, a city means more than some notion of an outdated metropolis. Cities like this are doomed mate. This is not the way of the future. It's time to embrace new ideas that are not some cookie cutter version of every other city. We're not here to play 'catch up' to the likes of Melbourne or Sydney. That's a mugs game and has no long term future.

no worries mate, keep reading those sci-fi mags.

Maybe we're all being a bit quick to dismiss what Neuropolis says. Whatever his intentions are aside, I can see merit in what he has said. To paraphrase:
In this day and age there are MANY boxes that a development needs to tick, being "tall" is way down the list. Near the top of the list are things like economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, Social sustainability and so on. Acrowatsits are probably the far end of such endevours, but there are experimental communities along these lines being set up around the world, and aspects of these concepts are being included in contemprary architectural design today. Things like included green pockets, energy saving ideas like glass curtains, and other concepts that reduce the work air/con has to do.

I'd rather see arcitecturally interesting buildings approved and built before tall for tall sake monstrosities. Too many cities in the US are just a hogepoge of towers built by accountants. The DAP needs to involved all of aesthetics, heritage, environment and economic concerns. I'd rather see a beurocracy set up to handle the DAP than a commitee. Beurocracies usually involve experts. While commitees usually involve NIMBYs.

(Sorry for the typos - I'm at work.. will edit for grammar later )

[nimeton]

I understand most of you don’t think this is a governance issue or a civil liberty issue as this is a development blog - but as a person elected to represent people and looking at the bigger picture it fundamentally is.

If the State Government wanted to take away your right to local decisions in your own neighbourhood I promise would be disappointed. I support reform, but doing it this way is bad practice...democracy is a fundamental right in the civilised world.

FACT: Local Government's are a way for the State Government to outsource their responsibilities.

FACT: Australia only has two tiers of government, as defined by the Australian constitution. Local Government is not one of them.

FACT: When outsourcing is no longer viable, governments don't renew contracts. Equally, when Government departments are not functioning efficiently, they are restructured. There is no reason why local council's should be treated any different.

If the residents of Adelaide CBD wish to have input into decision making in their local area then they can exercise their democratic right to provide feedback to their elected State politicians, applicable government departments and/or vote accordingly at the next state election.

[monotonehell]

FACT: Local Government's are a way for the State Government to outsource their responsibilities.
FACT: Australia only has two tiers of government, as defined by the Australian constitution. Local Government is not one of them.
FACT: When outsourcing is no longer viable, governments don't renew contracts. Equally, when Government departments are not functioning efficiently, they are restructured. There is no reason why local council's should be treated any different.
If the residents of Adelaide CBD wish to have input into decision making in their local area then they can exercise their democratic right to provide feedback to their elected State politicians, applicable government departments and/or vote accordingly at the next state election.

Get your FACTS! right...
Australian Constitution:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... /s106.html

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 106
Saving of Constitutions

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

South Australian Constitution:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... /s64a.html

64A—Constitutional guarantee of continuance of local government in this State

(1) There shall continue to be a system of local government in this State under which elected local governing bodies are constituted with such powers as the Parliament considers necessary for the better government of those areas of the State that are from time to time subject to that system of local government.

(2) The manner in which local governing bodies are constituted, and the nature and extent of their powers, functions, duties and responsibilities shall be determined by or under Acts of the Parliament from time to time in force.

(3) No Bill by virtue of which this State would cease to have a system of local government that conforms with subsection (1) of this section shall be presented to the Governor for assent unless the Bill has been passed by an absolute majority of the members of each House of Parliament.

[crawf]

COMMENT: Govt overkill on council planning powers

Chris Day

16Jul08

THE State Government's decision last week to strip the City Council of its power to assess major developments smacks of overkill and double standards.
At the core of the government's thinking was its push to expel ``local politics'' from the development assessment process.

In doing so, they have shown the development system in this state for what it truly is a highly politicised industry if you have the right money, power and influence, you can hold sway.

The government's move was triggered by the City Council's Development Assessment Panel's (DAP) rejection this month of a 20-storey office tower proposal, in Franklin St.

The independent DAP set up under legislation the Rann Government introduced in 2006 judged that The Aspen Group's proposal would dwarf a nearby heritage building and was at odds with the city's Development Plan.

The panel's job was to make a call, and that is exactly what it did.

The developer and the government don't have to like it they don't even have to accept it.

Under the government's own laws, Aspen can appeal the decision to the Environment, Resources & Development Court and let a judge decide.

The government instead made the political decision to strip the council of its powers after years of encouragement from its powerful, property sector friends.

Developments in the city and North Adelaide worth more than $10 million will now be judged by the state's Development Assessment Commission (DAC).

The DAC is a seven-strong expert panel, picked by Planning Minister Paul Holloway and Cabinet.
Developers rightly see it as a smoother ride towards approvals, without tinkering from local councillors.

The changes are not needed.

By Minister Holloway's own hand, independent experts already outnumber councillors on every councils' DAP.

Since November, the City Council's DAP has approved more than $301 million in major projects.

The Franklin St proposal was the first time it had rejected a project worth more than $10 million.

Its reasons for doing so are yet to be tested in court, and may well be proved right.

Development is at the very heart of politics it shapes the streets we live and work and our surrounding skyline.

Having a minority of elected members on development panels gives the community a voice.

City and North Adelaide residents and businesses have lost their right to be heard.

[Ho Really]

[...]

Having a minority of elected members on development panels gives the community a voice.

City and North Adelaide residents and businesses have lost their right to be heard.

Wasn't that reasonably fair?

Cheers

[skyliner]

I teach about government and governance - Spot on Mono!

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE