SCAP refuses two developments because of height and scale
The state’s peak building assessment body has rejected two multimillion-dollar developments in the CBD – including one where a heritage home had to be knocked down.
Developments worth almost $80m combined across Adelaide and North Adelaide have been knocked back this month.
The State Commission Assessment Panel refused plastic surgeon James Katsaros $15.7m plan that includes bulldozing a local heritage place to make way for a five-storey apartment complex.
The panel agreed Dr Katsaros’ development was too high, too dense, and did not complement the area or streetscape.
Meanwhile, Global Intertrade Pty Ltd’s was told to go back to the drawing board for its $60m, 11-storey building at 200 East Tce because of its height, scale and “excessive adverse effects on residential amenity”.
Global Intertrade Pty Ltd managing director and chief executive Manuel Ortigosa planned to resubmit revised plans.
“I am still optimistic, positive and will address the issues that have been raised,” Mr Ortigosa said.
“We have to assess our position and how we can deal with these issues in a constructive way.”
The East Tce development – which includes 47 apartments, wine bar, basement level carparking, yoga deck and landscaping – is located on a catalyst site so it is not bound by height restrictions.
The proposed building would be 39.18m high, or about three metres higher than other nearby developments.
“It’s disappointing considering there is not much height difference in comparison to what is already there,” Mr Ortigosa said.
“But I do respect the concerns of people around there.”
Meanwhile, Dr Katsaros’ development, which he plans to privately fund, includes 11 apartments including a penthouse and undercroft parking for 30 cars.
An Adelaide City Council report also opposed the demoltion of the heritage-listed home and the project’s “proposed height, bulk and scale”.
Dr Katsaros maintained the heritage status of the building was an “anomaly” because it had been “substantially altered on several occasions since the mid-1800s.
“Its heritage citation stating that it was built in 1938 is incorrect and therefore its listing is questionable because it is not an original structure,” he told The Advertiser last month.
As part of the plan, another home would also be demolished while parts of another local heritage-listed and state heritage-listed property would be “restored and reused”
Mr Katsaros was contacted for comment.
Heritage consultant Sandy Wilkinson lodged representations with the panel about both developments.
He said he was pleased with the outcomes.
“The concern with both of them was a gross over development and over height of the sites,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“Twice as much on each development than what should be.”
