News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

[Nort]

It's sad to lose a physical venue like this but the building itself isn't that impressive and the business in it had failed, so time to let someone else try something new with the site.

[Will]

Work commencing soon on the new Panorama Hotel:

Hurley Hotel Group - Hospitality - $52 M
Sarah Constructions are excited to be delivering another hotel for the Hurley Group - The Hotel Panorama. The 5 story project will deliver a chic hospitality experience for patrons, with bistro dining, 3 ground floor bars and winter garden. The hotel above will include 77 accommodation rooms, function spaces plus a sky deck with panoramic views.

Project specs:

- Approximately 9829m2 over six levels

- Basement carparking facility

- 77 hotel accommodation rooms – over three levels

- External ramp and entry works

- Several hospitality facilities

- Gaming Room

- Vertical transportation

- Function spaces

- Gaming Area

- BOH, support and storage areas

The project is due for completion in late 2025.

[baytram366]

I take it "Vertical Transportation" translates to "Lifts"?

[Mpol02]

Where will this be located?

Work commencing soon on the new Panorama Hotel:

Hurley Hotel Group - Hospitality - $52 M
Sarah Constructions are excited to be delivering another hotel for the Hurley Group - The Hotel Panorama. The 5 story project will deliver a chic hospitality experience for patrons, with bistro dining, 3 ground floor bars and winter garden. The hotel above will include 77 accommodation rooms, function spaces plus a sky deck with panoramic views.

Project specs:

- Approximately 9829m2 over six levels

- Basement carparking facility

- 77 hotel accommodation rooms – over three levels

- External ramp and entry works

- Several hospitality facilities

- Gaming Room

- Vertical transportation

- Function spaces

- Gaming Area

- BOH, support and storage areas

The project is due for completion in late 2025.

[Vasco]

Where will this be located?

Work commencing soon on the new Panorama Hotel:

Hurley Hotel Group - Hospitality - $52 M
Sarah Constructions are excited to be delivering another hotel for the Hurley Group - The Hotel Panorama. The 5 story project will deliver a chic hospitality experience for patrons, with bistro dining, 3 ground floor bars and winter garden. The hotel above will include 77 accommodation rooms, function spaces plus a sky deck with panoramic views.

Project specs:

- Approximately 9829m2 over six levels

- Basement carparking facility

- 77 hotel accommodation rooms – over three levels

- External ramp and entry works

- Several hospitality facilities

- Gaming Room

- Vertical transportation

- Function spaces

- Gaming Area

- BOH, support and storage areas

The project is due for completion in late 2025.

Goodwood road, Old Panorama TAFE site, opposite the cemetery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mpol02]

Great thanks for that

[eKwatee]

OUCH!!

This is going to upset a lot of people as the reforms come into effect immediately,

Govt strengthens urban tree protections
The state government has strengthened protection for trees in South Australia’s planning system – a move that has been enthusiastically welcomed by environmentalists and decried by the development lobbies.

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/05 ... rotections

A couple of snippets of the article worth pointing out:

1. The 10 metre rule is now 3 metres "The parliamentary committee recommended abolishing South Australia’s “10-metre rule” whereby a property owner can legally remove a tree if it is within 10 metres of a house of swimming pool."

2. The trunk size definition for a regulated tree shrinks from two metres to one metre while significant trees go from three metres to two.

and of course, there's always a reason for the government to take more of our money. 3. The cost of removing a regulated tree rises from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.

[SouthAussie94]

OUCH!!

This is going to upset a lot of people as the reforms come into effect immediately,

Govt strengthens urban tree protections
The state government has strengthened protection for trees in South Australia’s planning system – a move that has been enthusiastically welcomed by environmentalists and decried by the development lobbies.

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/05 ... rotections

A couple of snippets of the article worth pointing out:

1. The 10 metre rule is now 3 metres "The parliamentary committee recommended abolishing South Australia’s “10-metre rule” whereby a property owner can legally remove a tree if it is within 10 metres of a house of swimming pool."

2. The trunk size definition for a regulated tree shrinks from two metres to one metre while significant trees go from three metres to two.

and of course, there's always a reason for the government to take more of our money. 3. The cost of removing a regulated tree rises from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.

I don't hate this, and I'd go as far as to ask if the cost to remove a regulated/significant tree should be higher? Should the cost to remove a tree that has taken 100+ years to grow be more than $1500?

[gnrc_louis]

OUCH!!

This is going to upset a lot of people as the reforms come into effect immediately,

Govt strengthens urban tree protections
The state government has strengthened protection for trees in South Australia’s planning system – a move that has been enthusiastically welcomed by environmentalists and decried by the development lobbies.

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/05 ... rotections

A couple of snippets of the article worth pointing out:

1. The 10 metre rule is now 3 metres "The parliamentary committee recommended abolishing South Australia’s “10-metre rule” whereby a property owner can legally remove a tree if it is within 10 metres of a house of swimming pool."

2. The trunk size definition for a regulated tree shrinks from two metres to one metre while significant trees go from three metres to two.

and of course, there's always a reason for the government to take more of our money. 3. The cost of removing a regulated tree rises from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.

Yes, I much prefer living in a desolate wasteland suburb with no trees to drop leaves on my concrete and fake grass. Hell yeah dude!

[abc]

OUCH!!

This is going to upset a lot of people as the reforms come into effect immediately,

Govt strengthens urban tree protections
The state government has strengthened protection for trees in South Australia’s planning system – a move that has been enthusiastically welcomed by environmentalists and decried by the development lobbies.

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/05 ... rotections

A couple of snippets of the article worth pointing out:

1. The 10 metre rule is now 3 metres "The parliamentary committee recommended abolishing South Australia’s “10-metre rule” whereby a property owner can legally remove a tree if it is within 10 metres of a house of swimming pool."

2. The trunk size definition for a regulated tree shrinks from two metres to one metre while significant trees go from three metres to two.

and of course, there's always a reason for the government to take more of our money. 3. The cost of removing a regulated tree rises from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.

Yes, I much prefer living in a desolate wasteland suburb with no trees to drop leaves on my concrete and fake grass. Hell yeah dude!

[SBD]

I live in a street right on the edge of the suburbs, in an estate that this release was opened for sale about 14 years ago. This release was marketed as being dotted with mature trees. I think the developers had removed as much as they could before it went on sale. I'd say about half of the remaining trees have gone away since, most at the time of house building. Each block sold had a "building envelope" marked to protect these remaining trees.

One of my neighbours, a few years after building his house (I assume inside the envelope) applied to remove the largest tree in the street, on the grounds that it was too close to the (aftermarket) verandah on his house, and as such a risk to his guests.

The tree remains (trimmed, I think) after a twenty-something page report to Council, with at least four arborist reports (the applicant's, the council's internal arborist, the applicant's second opinion, the council's external independent consultant. The council does have the ability to prevent destruction of significant landmark trees. It would be good if it was easier to protect them without so much effort, and a higher success rate.

[dbl96]

I live in a street right on the edge of the suburbs, in an estate that this release was opened for sale about 14 years ago. This release was marketed as being dotted with mature trees. I think the developers had removed as much as they could before it went on sale. I'd say about half of the remaining trees have gone away since, most at the time of house building. Each block sold had a "building envelope" marked to protect these remaining trees.

One of my neighbours, a few years after building his house (I assume inside the envelope) applied to remove the largest tree in the street, on the grounds that it was too close to the (aftermarket) verandah on his house, and as such a risk to his guests.

The tree remains (trimmed, I think) after a twenty-something page report to Council, with at least four arborist reports (the applicant's, the council's internal arborist, the applicant's second opinion, the council's external independent consultant. The council does have the ability to prevent destruction of significant landmark trees. It would be good if it was easier to protect them without so much effort, and a higher success rate.

There is a certain type of Australian suburbanite who seems hell-bent on eradicating every bit of greenery from their properties. Chop down all the trees and cover the garden with concrete or fake lawn so things are ‘tidy’ and ‘low-maintenance’. Unpopular opinion, but if you hate gardening that much, you should live in an apartment. These people are turning the suburbs into a scorching, ugly wasteland.

Developers also have a lot to answer for. It’s standard to just clear the block when demolition is done, even though most of the time the building footprint doesn’t occupy the whole block, and there would have been easy opportunities to preserve vegetation around the edges.

Of course there a legitimate instances where the tree has actually become objectively dangerous, but let’s face it - plenty of people trying to get trees removed do so not because of any real danger the tree poses, but because they don’t like that it drops leaves in their pool or gutters, or on their fake lawn.

[SBD]

I live in a street right on the edge of the suburbs, in an estate that this release was opened for sale about 14 years ago. This release was marketed as being dotted with mature trees. I think the developers had removed as much as they could before it went on sale. I'd say about half of the remaining trees have gone away since, most at the time of house building. Each block sold had a "building envelope" marked to protect these remaining trees.

One of my neighbours, a few years after building his house (I assume inside the envelope) applied to remove the largest tree in the street, on the grounds that it was too close to the (aftermarket) verandah on his house, and as such a risk to his guests.

The tree remains (trimmed, I think) after a twenty-something page report to Council, with at least four arborist reports (the applicant's, the council's internal arborist, the applicant's second opinion, the council's external independent consultant. The council does have the ability to prevent destruction of significant landmark trees. It would be good if it was easier to protect them without so much effort, and a higher success rate.

There is a certain type of Australian suburbanite who seems hell-bent on eradicating every bit of greenery from their properties. Chop down all the trees and cover the garden with concrete or fake lawn so things are ‘tidy’ and ‘low-maintenance’. Unpopular opinion, but if you hate gardening that much, you should live in an apartment. These people are turning the suburbs into a scorching, ugly wasteland.

Developers also have a lot to answer for. It’s standard to just clear the block when demolition is done, even though most of the time the building footprint doesn’t occupy the whole block, and there would have been easy opportunities to preserve vegetation around the edges.

Of course there a legitimate instances where the tree has actually become objectively dangerous, but let’s face it - plenty of people trying to get trees removed do so not because of any real danger the tree poses, but because they don’t like that it drops leaves in their pool or gutters, or on their fake lawn.

The mature trees that remained when this development was released have not grown significantly - they were all big.

I may well be the first in the street to remove a decent-sized gum tree that grew since we moved in. I have about 20 that are now 3-4 metres tall, all germinated in the back garden after the smoke from the Sampson Flat bushfire. A few of them are growing in increasingly inconvenient places. Some are conveniently screening a bland fence and will get to stay.