RE: Kathleen Lumley College / Finniss Policy Area 12 DPA proposal November 2015

Transcription

1 E J & H M Briedis 38 Finniss Street North Adelaide SA 5006 RE: Kathleen Lumley College / Finniss Policy Area 12 DPA proposal November 2015 Six years ago, my wife and I were prevented from building a new 2-storey extension at the rear of our residence, on the grounds that it would be possible to see the gutters of the upper storey and hence impact on the Local listed heritage status of our home. This is a moot point indeed. Across the road from us, and even immediately adjacent to us are 2 state listed items; one of those being Kathleen Lumley College (KLC) (the one opposite). There are also 5 single-storey cottages on Finniss Street (as part of KLC) which contribute to the streetscape because of their low scale. While not heritage listed, the total demolition of those 5 singlestorey cottages would compromise the character of Finniss Street. This DPA proposes policy lines that would enable KLC to infill-build multi-storey in a street which has an acknowledged high proportion of valued heritage asset, many listed as State or Local Places. Given the refusal for us to build a 2-storey extension at the rear of our residence because the gutters might be seen (and only then by standing on a tall ladder on the opposite side of the street) how does this DPA justify even contemplating a multi-storey anything directly opposite? and demolishing 5 single-storey dwellings in the process! Continual reference to the Dickson Platten Master Plan is also worrying since despite requests for it to be produced during this consultation period, it has not. We are not certain what is contemplated, and the faint sketch on p101 of the Explanatory Statement and Analysis document is far from adequate. Were the proposed possible expansion of KLC to proceed, other issues would arise, particularly with regard to parking and traffic. Students at KLC are car owners and access the site via a gate diagonally opposite us in Finniss Street. There has never been vehicular access from Mackinnon Parade. The recent addition of the Free Connector bus service via Finniss Street has added regular heavy vehicle movement to the mix, and along with Finniss Street s status as a connector feeder, traffic volumes are growing. KLC s expansion plans would add further to our increasing traffic pressures. Parking issues will no doubt be exacerbated as well, because we now have increased Adelaide Oval event traffic and parking peaks, the new Adelaide University Pavilion is about to be joined by the Prince Alfred College Old Collegians Association Pavilion at the eastern end of Mackinnon Parade and all of this on top of a regular demand by medical staff and visitors to the two hospitals at the western end. (Women s and Children s & Memorial). For these reasons we prefer the policy outcome (contemplated on p100 of the Explanatory Statement and Analysis document ) that for future development along Finniss Street... Continue the existing policy approach along Finniss Street i.e. buildings that reflect the single storey streetscape. It is our wish to be heard at public hearing at the Adelaide Town Hall on 18/11/2015. Yours faithfully, for E J and H M Briedis 9 November 2015

2 9 November 2015 Re: North Adelaide Large Institutions and Colleges DPA Please record my objection and opposition to this DPA. This amendment to the development plan for North Adelaide's Historic (Conservation) Zone is unwarranted and driven only by political expediency to satisfy the high-density development aspirations of the owners and managers of these commercial sites within the zone. Except for the Women's and Children's Hospital (which apparently envisages no development), the remaining 10 all seek significant new exceptions to the current development provisions in the plan, purely for commercial growth reasons. When the HCZ was endorsed in 2006 it was accepted by all that the fundamental planning principle behind the zoning was that North Adelaide's policy areas were not, and never would be, growth zones. Even as late as 2012 the planning minister made public statements supporting that view. The 2014 statement of intent that has foreshadowed this plan amendment is a parody of illogical, contradictory and plain silly justifications. In signing off on this statement, the planning minister has illustrated his enthusiasm to allow dubious rationales to dictate the subsequent amendments, which will prove to be highly damaging to the HCZ character fabric. The public explanatory procedures and content since commencement of the public consultation period (August to November 2015) are very clearly deficient, and the consultation's timing has been compromised by fresh ministerial intimations (12 months after the statement was approved) of profound additional change to key elements of the DPA by virtue of new ministerial submissions soon to follow. These would argue for even worse outcomes: removal of all height restrictions, expansion allowances for certain site boundaries, and new land uses (not specified). All up, it has been a farcical event, revealing deeply flawed procedural and content issues. If endorsed by the council it will illustrate that forward planning in terms of predicting and anticipating the effects of future increased population densities, car parking and traffic pressures and public infrastructure demands in and around a heritage zone have been ignored in the lead-up to a public consultation for a proposal flagging a major change to a development plan. I urge council not to pursue this DPA, and not to recommend to the minister that the proposals be signed off. I urge council to honour its hard work between 2004 and 2006 when the Historic (Conservation) Zone development plan was put in place, to the satisfaction of all. North Adelaide's residential policy areas comprise one of South Australia's heritage 'jewels in the crown' and must be protected from 'opportunistic' raids such as this.

3 Councillors have an opportunity to honour the many years of administrative and community investment in conserving the character of North Adelaide's residential areas by saying 'no' to the minister on this proposal. Should the minister go ahead, it will be his government's political capital that will be at stake, not council's. John Bridgland 5/274 Ward Street, North Adelaide

4 From: Ross Haslam Sent: Monday, 9 November :12 PM To: Beth Thackray Subject: Submission DPA Please acknowledge receipt NORTH ADELAIDE LARGE INSTITUTIONS AND COLLEGES DPA SUBMISSION Name K Peters Address 204 Archer St, North Adelaide SA 5006 In response to the Adelaide City Council's request for public comment re the above DPA in relation to Archer West Policy Area 13, I am making the following submission 1/ On the Northern side of Archer St, near Wellington Square there is a heritage area. In order to preserve the distinct and important heritage character of that area, I submit that any development on the Lutheran site opposite that area, should not exceed 3 stories. It also concerns me that a significant part of the Lutheran site, The Lohe Memorial Library located in the grounds of the Lutheran land holding has not been heritage listed or mentioned at all in the Lutheran 1

5 development proposal. This building should be heritage listed because of its architectural and historical value not only as a significant local heritage site but as a significant historical site associated with the Lutheran Church s presence in North Adelaide.I note from their website that the Lohe Memorial Library was established in 1882 and considered by them to be a significant part of their history. I submit that the Lohe Memorial Library be heritage listed and be retained.. 2/ Ward St on the Southern side of the Lutheran site, is a much wider street than Archer St.and has far fewer residential premises that face the Lutheran site. As a result of Archer Street s much narrower width, there is a significant and unfair disadvantage for the many Archer St residents ( compared to the few Ward St residences) when the building envelope involving the 45 degree plane is applied from both boundaries. Bearing these facts in mind,i submit that the higher rise development ( ie up to 6 stories ) proposed, should be placed nearer Ward St than Archer St. It also concerns me that a significant part of the Lutheran site, The Lohe Memorial Library located in the grounds of the Lutheran land holding has not been heritage listed or mentioned at all in the Lutheran development proposal. This building should be heritage listed because of its architectural and historical value not only as a significant local heritage site but as a significant historical site associated with the Lutheran Church s presence in North Adelaide.I note from their website that the Lohe Memorial Library was established in 1882 and considered by them to be a significant part of their history.i submit that the Lohe Memorial Library be heritage listed and be retained. 2

6 3/ Archer St is a narrow street and even now,before any redevelopment, it is extremely busy and dangerous due to the flow of traffic heading to and from the North Adelaide Village and elsewhere. In particular, the intersection of Cambridge St. and Archer St is the scene of accidents and near misses on almost a daily basis. I note that there is a proposal that the Lutheran site may have an additional North-South roadway that would be near to, or join up to, Cambridge St. I think this would create even more traffic for Archer St. and I am certain it would create an intersection that would be extremely dangerous to the pedestrians, motorists and the many cyclists who use Archer Street. Bearing these facts in mind,i submit that any additional roads on the Lutheran site should only have entry and/or exit points off the much wider and safer Ward St. (Including delivery vehicles, maintenance vehicles, trucks etc.) 4/ Parking in Archer St is currently extremely limited and is the cause of much frustration to residents. There is insufficient parking for the many workers employed on O'Connell Street and in the North Adelaide Village and for patrons of the various establishments. I submit any redevelopment proposal should be required to provide off-street parking not only for all the Lutheran business centres staff and visitors but also for their aged care residents, for the guests of these residents and for the significant number of extra staff who will be required to service the proposed aged care facilities and other offices. 5/ Archer St. is currently lined, on both sides of the street with mature and attractive trees. I submit that any proposal to remove any Archer St trees should be rejected. 3

7 6/ I have recently read press articles indicating that land owners who are churches or educational providers pay no or minimal Council rates.i have read a proposal from the Lutheran Church website which advised that its proposal for the site is to develop a large high rise aged care facility where the Church would retain title to the land but transfer the operations of the aged care facility to an experienced aged care provider. There would be no requirement for aged care residents to be involved with the Lutheran church.in that same proposal, it stated that Lutheran students who are currently residing on the site would be required to move.in the event of such a redevelopment, I am strongly of the view that I, as a ratepayer,should not be subsidising their Council rates. I therefore submit that in the event of this proposed redevelopment the rating system for this site be examined to achieve a fairer and more equitable result considering itmassive expansion of commercial development. I do not wish to be heard at the public meeting. K Peters 4