Sensational-Adelaide.com

It’s crazy to live in a CBD and expect building heights to be limited. It should be expected. Perhaps Mr Khabbaz Should move to North Adelaide where the ‘village charm’ is more his thing

Wherever you live, you need to be aware of the zoning and allowable building heights for your position. It doesn't matter if you are in the city or suburbs. There are plenty of objections to suburban development too, this is not just a 'city' thing.

I am not sure what the zoning was when the objector moved in, but currently this proposed building fits into the zoning allowed for that position. In this case the developer has done nothing wrong.

If the objection is about a zoning change since he moved there, then he should have taken that up at the time of the zone planning changes, not with individual developers who are lawful.

While I totally agree it should be built/approved, the pertinent line in the article is -"It would include 38 apartments and would be 53.9m tall, which is well above the recommended 22m maximum building height for the subject land." Therefore the objector has got a point. However the Council or Govt therefore should have/be changing the max. building height to reflect it is in the city and its location.

Yes - I just doubled checked the current zoning, the 40m-70m height limit does stop west of Hutt St, this site definitely falls into a lower height limit, but clearly the planning authorities have overridden. But you're right, the zoning for this site should have been updated, to be fair.

Absolutely agree with Rev. Just another dickhead nimby getting in the way of progress in the CITY.

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:24 pm

Absolutely agree with Rev. Just another dickhead nimby getting in the way of progress in the CITY.

Was it your intention to ignore everything stated above? This project exceeds the height for this area, instead of 'dick-head nimby' how about 'landowner protecting their rights'?

Triggered again eh Patrick?

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:02 pm

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:24 pm

Absolutely agree with Rev. Just another dickhead nimby getting in the way of progress in the CITY.

Was it your intention to ignore everything stated above? This project exceeds the height for this area, instead of 'dick-head nimby' how about 'landowner protecting their rights'?

He just doesn't want his views spoiled.
How is it any different to Adelaidean wanting to stop the student accommodation tower next door? From memory ya'll thought THAT was a stupid reason to oppose the student accom. development.

He's complaining about increased traffic.
So what, is he going to oppose every single development within an extended radius into metropolitan Adelaide from his property? Because all of that, within a huge radius, will increase traffic.
No?

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:54 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:02 pm

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:24 pm

Absolutely agree with Rev. Just another dickhead nimby getting in the way of progress in the CITY.

Was it your intention to ignore everything stated above? This project exceeds the height for this area, instead of 'dick-head nimby' how about 'landowner protecting their rights'?

He just doesn't want his views spoiled.
How is it any different to Adelaidean wanting to stop the student accommodation tower next door? From memory ya'll thought THAT was a stupid reason to oppose the student accom. development.

He's complaining about increased traffic.
So what, is he going to oppose every single development within an extended radius into metropolitan Adelaide from his property? Because all of that, within a huge radius, will increase traffic.
No?

Actually no, I think you'll find that I've always been against the student accommodation building next to Adelaidean. What we'll do is plonk a tall-ish building next to your house and see how you much enjoy it. Whatever the guy's reasons for contesting the approval, he's in the right based on current zoning regulations.

Patrick_27 wrote:

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:54 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:02 pm

Was it your intention to ignore everything stated above? This project exceeds the height for this area, instead of 'dick-head nimby' how about 'landowner protecting their rights'?

He just doesn't want his views spoiled.
How is it any different to Adelaidean wanting to stop the student accommodation tower next door? From memory ya'll thought THAT was a stupid reason to oppose the student accom. development.

He's complaining about increased traffic.
So what, is he going to oppose every single development within an extended radius into metropolitan Adelaide from his property? Because all of that, within a huge radius, will increase traffic.
No?

Actually no, I think you'll find that I've always been against the student accommodation building next to Adelaidean. What we'll do is plonk a tall-ish building next to your house and see how you much enjoy it. Whatever the guy's reasons for contesting the approval, he's in the right based on current zoning regulations.

What he's actually doing is opposing a development because it's next to him
By this criteria it would be difficult for anything to be built anywhere
What is so special about his area ? Nothing really. It's just another unnecessary hindrance on development
The board has the power to grant approval to over limit buildings so under what ruling is he trying to stop it?
Move out like everyone else
A rich man who wants his way

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Rev, the views aren't the issue here as the objectors home (and all others) face East Tce and overlook the parklands. There are no lost views.I had a look at what previous changes the developer was required to make and they included setting the building back (at the rear) further for rubbish removal trucks and to allow better traffic flow for what is basically a laneway. One point could be how it would cope with say an extra 50-100 cars a day. Again I think it should be approved/built, but just to clarify what the objectors argument is, is it’s an over development (I think the tallest buildings along that part of East Tce are 4 -5 storeys) and it doesn’t comply with the zoning/height limits - in fact its nearly triple.
Therefore I think the dispute should be concentrated on why aren't the height limits increased here?

He is fighting approval in the Supreme Court, so that means he is only able to challenge the process of approval, not the approval itself. If he was to fight the specifics of the proposal directly he would be going to the ERD Court.

He will fight the process because he doesn't like the specifics

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Supreme Court refuses to quash approval for Theo Maras’ $27m Hutt Street apartment tower

Developer Theo Maras has cleared a hurdle in his bid to build a “legacy” CBD apartment tower after the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a high-profile neighbour to the project.

Food industry identity Ray Khabbaz, who co-founded Copperpot Dips and owns Australian Wholefoods, had sought a judicial review against the January 2020 approval of the 16-storey $27 million building on the corner of Hutt St and Bartels Tce.

Mr Khabbaz lives next to the planned project and argued the state commission assessment panel’s January 2020 approval was invalid or unlawful, in part because the 53.9m design was more than double the recommended 22m maximum height for the site.

He also argued former Planning Minister Stephan Knoll had erred in making interim changes to the Adelaide City Council development plan in June 2019 that allowed “over-height” buildings in circumstances projects met benchmarks such as excellent design and sustainability measures.

But in a ruling delivered on Thursday, Justice Greg Parker refused to quash the approval, dismissing all Mr Khabbaz grounds of appeal, opening the door to Mr Maras to build the project, which is a partnership with developer James Arsenikakis.

Mr Maras has previously described the project, which includes 38 apartments opposite Rymill Park, as his “legacy” to Adelaide’s East End.

The development would crown Mr Maras’s career, which started in the 1970s, and continue his commitment to reviving the city’s East End.

“The design, the quality and everything about this project is high quality,” Mr Maras previously told The Advertiser. “It is (my) long-term legacy.”

Mr Khabbaz and his wife had previously told SCAP in a submission that the “scale and intensity of the proposal is such that it will significantly impact upon and detrimentally alter the current high level of amenity that is enjoyed by them and their neighbours and which makes this part of the city a desirable location for developments such as that proposed”.

Mr Khabbaz declined to comment on the ruling.

tiser today,

Theo Maras’s ‘legacy’ development on Hutt St faces another challenge from high-profile neighbour

Two prominent Adelaide businessmen are at loggerheads over a 16-storey, $27m “legacy” development in Adelaide’s East End – with the latest legal challenge heading to the full Supreme Court.

A battle over Theo Maras’s $27m “legacy” apartment development in the city will head to the Full Court of the Supreme Court with a high-profile neighbour appealing an earlier legal setback.

The development has now been on the cards for four years, first heading to the State Commission Assessment Panel in 2018, with that body approving it in January, 2020, before its approval was challenged by neighbour Ray Khabbaz.

Mr Khabbaz is well-known in Adelaide business circles, having co-founded Copperpot Dips, which he sold in 2007, before buying Australian Wholefoods.

Mr Khabbaz lives next door to the planned project and argued the SCAP’s approval two years ago was invalid or unlawful, in part because the 53.9m design was more than double the recommended 22m maximum height for the site.

In approving the development, the SCAP said development guidelines had the scope to allow a building taller than 22m if its height “complements its context and anticipated city form, and embodies specified design and sustainability measures’’.

Panel documents from 2018 said there were buildings of a similar height, either completed or approved, in the wider East End precinct.

Mr Khabbaz also argued former planning minister Stephan Knoll had erred in making interim changes to the Adelaide City Council development plan in June 2019 that allowed “over-height” buildings in circumstances where projects met benchmarks such as excellent design and sustainability measures.

Justice Greg Parker, in a ruling handed down in February this year, refused to quash the approval, dismissing all Mr Khabbaz’s grounds of appeal, opening the door for Mr Maras to build the project, which is a partnership with developer James Arsenikakis.

Mr Khabbaz’s lawyers have now lodged an appeal which will be heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court, comprising three judges.

Mr Khabbaz declined to comment when contacted by The Advertiser, saying the matter was in the hands of his lawyers.

Mr Maras, whose family business has developed much of the East End, said Mr Khabbaz “has a got a right before the law” to appeal, and he was happy to have the legal process play out.

“It’s fair and proper to go through the process,’’ Mr Maras said.
The development, which Mr Maras has previously described as his “legacy” to the East End, would comprise 38 apartments across 16 storeys, and is situated on the southeastern corner of Hutt St and East Tce.

In a letter to the SCAP, Mr Khabbaz’s lawyers said he had lived at his East Tce residence for 11 years at the time, and that he and his wife were not opposed to the development of the site.

“They do, however, have concerns that the scale and intensity of the proposal is such that it will significantly impact upon and detrimentally alter the current high level of amenity that is enjoyed by them and their neighbours, and which makes this part of the city a desirable location for developments such as that proposed,” the letter states.