Sunteți pe pagina 1din 504
Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 Karidis Corporation Ltd AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Demolition of existing

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

Karidis Corporation Ltd

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising retail, office and residential uses together with associated car parking and landscaping

322-340 King William Street, Adelaide

DA 020/M043/16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PAGE NO

AGENDA REPORT

1-38

ATTACHMENTS

 

1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS

39-64

2: PHOTOS

65-79

3: APPLICATION & PLANS

 

a. Development Application Form

80-81

b. Certificates of Title

82-85

c. Plans, Perspectives, schedule of materials etc Cheesman Architects

86-124

d. Planning Report, Ekistics

125-200

e. Design Statement, Cheesman Architects

201-203

f. Access Report, Tonkin Consulting

204-253

g. Stormwater Report, PT Design

254-261

h. Waste Management Report, Colby Industries

262-291

i. Wind Impact Report, Windtech

292-303

j. Sustainability Statement, Lucid Consulting

304-314

k. Services Statement, Lucid Consulting

315-325

l. Electricity Act Declaration

326-327

m. Licensed Surveyor Investigation, Alexander Symonds

328-344

n. Building Surveyor Investigation, Katnich Dodd

345

o. Preliminary Environmental Site History, Mott MacDonald

346-436

4: AGENCY COMMENTS

 

a. Associate Government Architect Referral Advice

437-440

b. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Regulated Airspace Approval

441-443

5: COUNCIL COMMENTS or TECHNICAL ADVICE

 

a.

Adelaide City Council Referral Advice

444-448

8: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

a. Response to Associate Government Architect Referral Advice

449-450

b. Independent Architectural Opinion, R Roach

451-459

c. Response to Adelaide City Council Referral Advice

460-463

1

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 2

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 2

2

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 OVERVIEW Application No 020/M043/16

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

OVERVIEW

Application No

020/M043/16

Unique ID/KNET ID

1447; 2016/15170/01

Applicant

Karidis Corporation Ltd

Proposal

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising retail, office and residential uses together with associated car parking and landscaping

Subject Land

322-344 King William Street, Adelaide

Zone/Policy Area

Capital City Zone,

Relevant Authority

Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee

pursuant to Schedule 10(4B) of the Development Regulations

 

2008

Lodgement Date

29

August 2016

Council

Adelaide City

Development Plan

Adelaide (City) consolidated 24 September 2015 as amended

31

March 2016

Type of Development

 

Merit

Public Notification

Category 1

Representations

N/A

Referral Agencies

Government Architect, Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and Regional Services (for Airport considerations)

Report Author

Jason Bailey, Team Leader, CBD and Inner Metro

RECOMMENDATION

Development Plan Consent subject to reserve matters and conditions

Plan Consent subj ect to reserve matters and conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant seeks Development Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant seeks Development Plan Consent to demolish existing structures and construct, in stages, a 31 level mixed use development comprising retail, office and residential uses together with associated car parking and landscaping at 322-340 King William Street, Adelaide.

The subject site is situated within the Capital City Zone; the economic and cultural focus of the State. An increased resident population and a broad range of employment, community, educational, tourism and entertainment facilities are sought and a high standard of architectural design are expected within the Zone.

The development is of a merit, Category 1 kind. It triggers statutory referrals to the Government Architect and the Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and Regional Services (now the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) for airport considerations. Referral of application documents to the administration of the Adelaide City Council for advice regarding technical matters was undertaken on a non- statutory basis.

A decision on the proposal is seen to turn on the scale of the podium proposed, the compatibility of the podium with the King William Street and Carrington Street streetscapes, the related matter of the number of car parking spaces proposed and the degree to which the car parking levels are activated. Significant positive features of the proposal include the mix of uses proposed and activation of the ground and first levels.

Whilst finely balanced, it is ultimately considered that the proposal warrants Development Plan Consent subject to reserve matters and conditions.

3

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 ASSESSMENT REPORT 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Strategic Context AGENDA ITEM

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Strategic Context

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

In March 2012, the Minister for Planning rezoned land in the City of Adelaide to increase envisaged building heights and provide additional development opportunities that would help enliven the city. As part of this initiative, policies were introduced that provide for a more performance based planning approach and place a stronger emphasis on the overall planning and design merit of an individual proposal.

1.2 Pre-Lodgement Process

The proponent engaged in the pre-lodgement service, participating in 3 Pre- lodgement Panel (PLP) meetings and 2 Design Reviews Panel (DRP) sessions.

Key issues/outcomes the subject of feedback and design evolution were:

the form and scale of the proposed podium and architectural expression

the arrangement of apartment level floor plans

provision of vehicle access to car parking levels and for servicing.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Application details are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

The proposal comprises demolition of existing structures currently occupying the subject site (these being two buildings formerly put to retail use) and construction of a 31 storey mixed use building accommodating the following:

residential apartments and ancillary communal spaces

retail

restaurants

bar

offices

car parking ancillary to residential and office use

Land Use

Mixed use comprising retail, office and residential and ancillary car parking

Description

Building Height

31 levels / 113.9 metres to top of northern tower (31 levels / 111.8 metres to top of southern tower)

4

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Description of Basement: Ground: Level 1:

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Description of

Basement:

Ground:

Level 1:

Levels 2-9:

Level 10:

Car parking (48 spaces) and services Lobby, retail (including a bar and a restaurant) and services Retail (including a bar and restaurant), bicycle parking and end of trip facilities and storage Car parking (313 spaces in total) Offices

levels

Levels 11-18: Offices

Level 19:

Offices (north tower) and residential apartments (south tower)

Levels 20-27: Residential apartments

 

Level 28:

Level 29:

Level 30:

Level 31:

Residential apartments (north tower) and services (south tower) Residential apartments (north tower) and residential communal facilities (south tower) Plant and services (north tower) and restaurant (south tower) Residential apartment (north tower) and bar (south tower)

Apartment floor area (excluding balconies)

Dwelling Type

Floor Area (excluding POS)

Studio

43.6

square metres

 

One bedroom (Types N1, S1A, and S5)

47 - 49.2 square metres

Two bedroom (Types N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, N7, NP2, N3A, S2, S4, S6 and caretaker apartment)

75.4

– 113.6 square metres

Three bedroom (Types NP1, NP3, NP4, NP5, N4A, S1, S3 and S3B)

86.3

– 130.7 square metres

Skyhome

461 square metres

Site Access

The primary pedestrian access to the proposed building is to be achieved from the King William Street frontage of the subject site. Vehicular access is proposed from George Parade which intersects with Carrington Street.

Car and Bicycle Parking

A total of 365 car parking spaces are proposed. Commitment to the uses to which these are to be attributed has not been made at this stage. A total of 192 bicycle parking spaces are proposed.

Encroachments

A canopy forming part of the proposal encroaches into the public realm over the King William Street and Carrington Street. Architectural fins also encroach over this part of the public realm.

Staging

Five stages proposed:

1. Demolition of existing structures

 

2. Early works, retention piling, excavation and construction of piles

3. Basement and podium construction

 

4. Construction of northern tower

5. Construction of southern tower

5

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 3. SITE AND LOCALITY 3.1 Site Description AGENDA ITEM

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The site consistent of two allotments, described as follows:

Lot No

Plan

Street

Suburb

Hundred

Title

92

DP 46651

King William Street

Adelaide

Adelaide

6132/486

656

FP 182308

King William Street

Adelaide

Adelaide

5832/16

The subject site is located at the south-eastern corner of the intersection of King William Street and Carrington Street. It has a total area of approximately 1,980m 2 .

In addition to its frontages to King William and Carrington Streets, the site has frontage to George Parade – a private road over which both allotments forming part of the subject site enjoy free and unrestricted rights of way. No other easements or rights of way apply to the allotments forming the site.

The site currently contains two single storey buildings formerly put to retail use. It is built out by these buildings and therefore does not accommodate any vegetation or other natural features. The site is level.

3.2 Locality

The locality has an urban character seen to be in a state of transition.

Figure 1 – Location Map

en to be in a state of transition. Figure 1 – Location Map Generally speaking, commercial

Generally speaking, commercial uses are predominant in the locality – particularly along the frontages to King William Street, Carrington Street and Wright Street. Proximate residential uses are found to the south-east of the subject site fronting Toms Court and Halifax Street. These have recently been augmented with finalisation

6

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 of construction of the Vue apartment

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

of construction of the Vue apartment building at 411 King William Street. The potential for further development of residential uses is significant with approval having recently been granted for the 30 storey Kodo residential apartment development at 27-31 Angas Street (to the north-east of the site).

Buildings in the locality are diverse in terms of form, height and architectural style. To the north of the subject site grand institutional buildings together forming the Courts precinct are prominent. To the east and west along Carrington Street and Wright Street respectively, low rise (single and two storey) office and other commercial buildings predominate. To the south along King William Street, the greatest diversity of buildings in the locality are found with low rise buildings such as those currently occupying the subject site interspersed with various four and five storey buildings (particularly on the western side of King William Street) as well as medium to high rise buildings in the Vue apartment building (28 storeys), Credit Union SA building (11 storeys) and Quest building (15 storeys).

The vacant site at the north-western corner of King William Street and Wright Street is a notable interruption to the urban character of the locality.

Most of the locality is within the Capital City Zone. To the south-east of the subject site is the Main Street (Adelaide) Zone enveloping Halifax Street. North of the subject site is the Central Business Policy Area of the Capital City Zone in which the greatest intensity of development in the State is envisaged.

Places of heritage significance within the locality are:

302 and 302A King William Street (attached shops)

304 and 304A King William Street (attached shops)

the former King’s Hall building at 318-320 King William Street (to the immediate north of the subject site opposite Carrington Street)

348-352 King William Street (former shops and dwellings)

4. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS

Referral responses are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

4.1 Government Architect

The Government Architect is a mandatory referral pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008. The Committee must have regard to the advice received in response to this referral.

The Associate Government Architect (AGA) has responded to the referral on behalf of the Government Architect. The AGA supports:

the intent to develop a high density mixed-use building offering apartments and the benefit the increased daily population could bring to the precinct

the overall design direction

the proposed height subject to impacts of this being off-set

the inclusion of retail and commercial space at the ground and first level

the provision of a canopy over the King William Street and Carrington Street footpaths

for the most part, the materials and finishes proposed (recommendations to review painted concrete finishes and painted Corten aluminium louvres are made to enhance quality and durability)

the proportions and ceiling heights of apartments and the access the apartments have to natural light and ventilation

7

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The AGA does not support the

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The AGA does not support the provision of seven levels of above ground car parking and is not convinced by the height and scale of the podium element accommodating these seven car parking levels. Whilst acknowledging the intent to break down the perceived scale of the podium through horizontal and vertical articulation, the AGA believes there to be opportunity to better define the corner of King William and Carrington Streets by way of a podium that is informed by existing built forms in the locality – especially the former Kings Hall building.

The AGA is of the view that an increase in the distance by which the tower elements of the proposal are set-back from site boundaries and increased differentiation of the height of the two towers will reduce the impacts of the scale and mass of the proposal.

On architectural expression, the AGA is not convinced that this successfully conveys the vision to realise a “vertical village” and recommends further investigation of a design solution to strengthen the verticality of the two towers and refine the podium to tower connection.

On apartment amenity, the AGA recommends further consideration of the size and proportion of smaller balconies adjacent bedrooms to ensure useability and consideration of solar loads on west facing apartments. The AGA also sees there to be opportunity to further refine communal areas such as lift lobbies, corridors and central link spaces to enhance access to natural light and ventilation.

The applicant provided a response to this referral advice. Both the AGA’s referral advice and this response is discussed in detail the body of this report.

4.2 Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, the Commonwealth Secretary for the Department of Transport and Regional Services (now the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) is a mandatory referral in respect of any development which would exceed an airport building height threshold contained within a Development Plan. The proposed development exceeds the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) contours identified by Map Adel/1 (Overlay 5) and therefore triggers this referral. The power of direction is provided the Department in respect of this matter.

On 29 August 2016 the Department approved an application for an intrusion into airspace regulated by the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 a distance which would accommodate the proposed development (specifically 53.771 metres above the OLS).

5. COUNCIL TECHNICAL ADVICE

5.1 Adelaide City Council

Adelaide City Council’s administration was informally consulted on the proposal to provide advice and comment on technical matters. The advice received in response provides observations and recommendations regarding:

the provision of car parking, allocation of car parking spaces to the various uses proposed and the possibility of the car park becoming available to the general public (i.e. non-ancillary car parking)

8

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1  the design of vehicle access

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

the design of vehicle access arrangements and car parking areas (encompassing issues such as sight lines, particularly with respect to sight lines and distances)

the number of accessible car parking spaces proposed and the location of these within car parking levels

convenience of access to bicycle parking spaces

rights over George Parade

proposed encroachments into the public realm.

Comfort with the proposed waste management approach was expressed. No comment was provided regarding adjacency/compatibility with places of local heritage significance.

The applicant provided a response to these comments in the form of supplementary views from Tonkin Consulting on car parking design matters in particular. Both the informal referral advice and this response are discussed in detail the body of this report.

6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application is a Category 1 development pursuant to Principle of Development Control 37 of the Capital City Zone. No public notification was therefore required.

7. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject site is wholly located within the Capital City Zone as described within the Adelaide (City) Development Plan consolidated 24 September 2015 as amended on 31 March 2016 pursuant to Section 29 of the Development Act 1993.

Figure 3 – Zoning Map

2015 as amended on 31 March 2016 pursuant to Section 29 of the Development Act 1993

9

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The 31 March 2016 Section 29

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The 31 March 2016 Section 29 amendment to the Adelaide (City) Development Plan updated references to State Heritage Places contained in Table Adel/1 and Overlay Maps Adel/56 and Adel/58 to reflect the latest entries within the State Heritage Register.

Relevant planning policies are contained in Appendix One and summarised below.

7.1 Zone

The Capital City Zone is the economic and cultural focus of the State and includes a range of employment, community, educational, tourism and entertainment facilities. It is anticipated that an increased population within the Zone will complement the range of opportunities and experiences provided in the City and increase its vibrancy.

The Desired Character for the Capital City Zone seeks high-scale development with high walls that frame the streets, reinforce Adelaide’s pattern of streets, and creating an interesting pedestrian environment that is active during the day, evening and late night. Ground level uses should generate pedestrian activity and include shops, cafes and restaurants.

Exemplary and outstanding building design is desired in recognition of the location as South Australia’s capital. Contemporary juxtapositions will provide new settings for heritage places. Innovative forms are expected in areas of identified street character, referencing the past, but with emphasis on modern design-based responses that support optimal site development. A rich display of art that is accessible to the public and contextually relevant is desired.

Development should create pedestrian links and support the provision of high quality bicycle and shared pedestrian routes.

7.2 Council Wide

Council Wide provisions provide guidance in relation to achieving high quality architectural and urban design outcomes, suitable bulk and scale of buildings and appropriate housing choice with regard to private open space, minimum dwelling floor areas, functional apartment layouts and access to natural light and ventilation.

7.3 Overlays

7.3.1 Affordable Housing

The subject site lies within the affordable housing overlay area as depicted by Map Adel/1 (Overlay 15a). This has the effect of applying policy which seeks that development comprising 20 or more dwellings include a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing.

7.3.2 Adelaide City Airport Building Heights

Map Adel/1 (Overlay 5) Airport Building Heights identifies the OLS contours over the City of Adelaide. Development that exceeds or penetrates these contours must be referred to the Commonwealth Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services (now the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development).

The subject site lies between the 100 and 110 metre AHD contours. Having an overall height in the order of 159 metres AHD, the proposed development penetrates the OLS and must therefore be referred. This was previously discussed in section 4.2 above.

10

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 7.3.3 Other AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The subject site lies

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

7.3.3 Other

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The subject site lies just outside the Primary Pedestrian Area identified by Map Adel/1 (Overlay 2 and 2A) Pedestrian Network with the southern boundary of this area running along that part of Carrington Street to which the site has frontage. Various policies regarding design of buildings (including activation of street frontages, provision of canopies and other pedestrian shelter, vehicle access points and design of car parking structures) apply to development within the Primary Pedestrian Area.

Map Adel/1 (Overlay 3) Bicycle Network and Map Adel/1 (Overlay 4) Public Transport Network respectively identify King William Street as part of the primary bicycle network and as a high concentration public transport route.

Finally, Map Adel/1 (Overlay13) Proposed Lighting Framework identifies King William Street as a “precinct of higher coverage / amenity / safety”.

8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Adelaide (City) Development Plan, which are contained in Appendix One.

8.1 Quantitative Provisions

 

Development Plan Guideline

Proposed

Guideline

Comment

Achieved

Affordable

Development comprising 20 or more dwellings should include a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing

No formal

YES

 

Discussed in body of report.

Housing

affordable housing

 

included

NO

included NO  
 

PARTIAL

PARTIAL

Building

Maximum envisage building height 53 metres although allowance for over height applicable

113.9 metres to the top of the highest parapet

YES

113.9 metres to the top of the highest parapet YES Building height is seen to respond

Building height is seen to respond appropriately to relevant policy. Discussed in body of report.

Height

NO

Height NO
 

PARTIAL

  PARTIAL

Building

Habitable rooms and balconies should be set back 3 metres from adjacent property boundary

Habitable room windows and balconies on eastern elevation within 1 metre and 700mm of eastern boundary respectively

YES

 

Right of way abutting eastern boundary of subject site provides additional separation to property to east. Discussed in body of report.

Setbacks

NO

Setbacks NO

PARTIAL

PARTIAL

Apartment

Studio – 35m 2

Studio – 7.8m2

YES

Apartment Studio – 35m 2 Studio – 7.8m2 YES  
 

Sizes

1B/R – 50m 2

1B/R – 16.3m2

NO

Sizes 1B/R – 50m 2 1B/R – 16.3m2 NO

11

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1   2B/R – 65m 2 2B/R

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

 

2B/R – 65m 2

2B/R – 11.5m2 to

PARTIAL

   

15.4m2

 

3B/R – 80m 2 plus an additional 15m 2 for every additional bedroom over 3 bedrooms

3B/R – 21.1m2 to

106.6m2

Private

Studio – No minimum

Studio – 7.8m2

YES

 

Communal open space offered to mitigate departure from policy. Discussed in body of report.

Open

 

Space

1B/R – 8m 2

1B/R – 16.3m2

NO

Space 1B/R – 8m 2 1B/R – 16.3m2 NO

Area

2B/R – 11m 2

2B/R – 11.5m2 to

PARTIAL

Area 2B/R – 11m 2 2B/R – 11.5m2 to PARTIAL

15.4m2

 

3B/R – 15m 2

3B/R – 21.1m2 to

 

106.6m2

Private

Minimum of 2.0 metres

Minimum of 2.0 metres

YES

Private Minimum of 2.0 metres Minimum of 2.0 metres YES  
 

Open

 

Space

   

NO

Space     NO

Minimum

 

Dimension

PARTIAL

Dimension PARTIAL

Storage

Studio – 6m 3

Studio – 0m 3

YES

 

Discussed in body of report.

1B/R – 8m 3

1B/R – 4.5m 3 8.41m 3

NO

1B/R – 8m 3 1B/R – 4.5m 3 – 8.41m 3 NO

2B/R – 10m 3

PARTIAL

2B/R – 10m 3 PARTIAL  
 

3B/R – 12m 3

2B/R – 6.06m 3 to 32.06m 3

 

3B/R – 8m 3 to 15.9m 3

Bicycle

1

space for every

192 spaces

YES

 

Discussed in body of report.

Parking

dwelling with a total floor area < 150m2

NO

Parking dwelling with a total floor area < 150m2 NO

2

spaces for every

   

dwelling with a total floor area > 150m2 Additional provision for visitors of 1 space for every 10 dwellings (equates to 203

PARTIAL

floor area > 150m2 Additional provision for visitors of 1 space for every 10 dwellings (equates

spaces in total)

 

8.2 Land Use

The lead paragraph of the statement of Desired Character for the Capital City Zone provides that the zone is “the economic and cultural focus of the State and includes a range of employment, community, educational, tourism and entertainment facilities It further provides that King William Street will be reinforced as the City’s commercial spine.

PDC 1 of the Zone explicitly identifies particular land uses envisaged within the zone. The uses proposed, being residential, office, retail (including restaurants and bars) are all explicitly envisaged within the zone.

12

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 8.3 Building Height AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Guidance regarding building

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

8.3 Building Height

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Guidance regarding building height is provided by PDCs 19 and 20 of the Capital City Zone. The former provides guidance regarding maximum envisaged building heights; the latter provides guidance regarding minimum envisaged building heights and, by virtue of the height of the proposed built form, is satisfied and no longer discussed.

PDC 19 provides that maximum envisaged building heights should be in accord with the maximum building heights identified by Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2. The maximum envisaged building height for the subject site is 53 metres.

PDC 19 further provides that maximum envisaged buildings heights may be exceeded where one or more of a number of criteria, including the following of relevance to the proposal, apply:

the site is within 200 metres of a high concentration public transport route identified by Concept Plan CC/1

the site area is greater than 1500 square metres

the development provides an orderly transition up to an existing taller building or prescribed maximum building height in an adjoining zone or Policy Area.

The above are relevant to the proposal because:

King William Street is identified as a high concentration public transport route by Concept Plan Figure CC/1

the subject site is approximately 1,980 square metres in area

to the immediate north of the subject site (across Carrington Street) lies the Central Business Policy Area of the Zone in which no maximum building height is envisaged.

Also of relevance to the matter of building height are the following:

Council-wide Objective 47

Buildings should be designed to:

(d) provide for a transition of building heights between Zone and Policy Areas where building height guidelines differ

Council-wide PDC 171

Buildings and structures should not adversely affect by way of their height and location the long-term operational, safety and commercial requirements of Adelaide International Airport. Buildings and structures which exceed the heights shown in Map Adel/1 (Overlay 5) and which penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) should be designed, marked or lit to ensure the safe operation of aircraft within the airspace around the Adelaide International Airport.

The maximum height of the proposed building is 113.9 metres above ground level. At more than twice the 53 metre maximum envisaged building height identified by

Concept Plan Figure CC/1, this constitutes a liberal use of the allowance for over-

height development. following reasons.

It is, however, seen to be acceptable, in and of itself, for the

13

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 As previously mentioned, no maximum building

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

As previously mentioned, no maximum building height is envisaged to the immediate north of the subject site and, therefore, buildings in the order of 130 metres high can reasonably be anticipated here noting that the operational, safety and commercial requirements of Adelaide International Airport are likely to permit this with the Westpac tower at the corner of King William Street and Currie Street having set this benchmark.

The recently completed Vue apartment building at 411-427 King William Street sets an 85.5 metre bench mark to the south of the subject site. The Vue building was granted consent against the policy regime applying to the subject proposal. This being the case, buildings of a similar height to Vue can reasonably be anticipated to the south of the subject site.

The proposed built form lies roughly between 130 metres and 85.5 metres and is therefore seen to provide for the transition in building heights sought buy Council- wide Objective 47. Whilst a simple approach to assessment against this policy, it is nevertheless considered sound.

Finally in this context is the AGA’s in-principle support for the height of the proposed built form. Whilst this is subject to the impacts of this height being off-set, it nevertheless confirms the AGA’s view that the subject site can ‘carry’ a building of the height proposed without unacceptably detrimental impact on the townscape and the locality.

8.4 Design and Appearance

A

large number of policies regarding design and appearance of buildings are relevant

to

the proposed development.

In broad terms, Zone PDC 6 seeks “a high standard of architectural design and finish which is appropriate to the City’s role and image as the capital of the State”. At a finer grain, guidance regarding building form, architectural expression, materials and finishes and the design of sky and roof lines is provided.

8.4.1 Building Form

Policy of relevance regarding building form begins with Zone PDC 11:

Other than in the Central Business Policy Area, buildings should be designed to include a podium/street wall height and upper level setback (in the order of 3-6 metres) that:

(a)

relates to the width of the street and achieves a suitable level of enclosure to the public realm;

(b)

provides a human scale at street level;

(c)

creates a well-defined and continuity of frontage;

(d)

gives emphasis and definition to street corners to clearly define the street grid;

(e)

contributes to the interest, vitality and security of the pedestrian environment;

(f)

maintains a sense of openness to the sky for pedestrians and brings daylight to the street; and

(g)

achieves pedestrian comfort by minimising micro-climatic impacts (particularly wind tunnelling and downward drafts).

14

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Also of particular relevance is Zone

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Also of particular relevance is Zone PDC 29:

Vehicle parking spaces and multi-level vehicle parking structures within

buildings should

height, massing and scale

complement

the surrounding built form in terms of

These policies are augmented by the following Council-wide policy directions:

Development should respect the composition and proportion of architectural elements of building facades that form an important pattern

clearly

which contributes to the streetscape’s distinctive character defining ground, middle and roof top levels (PDC 179)

by

New development on major corner sites should define and reinforce the

townscape importance of these sites with appropriately scaled buildings

that

establish an architectural form on the corner (PDC 190)

The proposed building form includes a substantial podium that rises to a height of almost 30 metres above ground level.

The AGA is not convinced by the height and scale of the podium. The AGA is of the view that further opportunity exists to see this further informed by the height and scale of existing buildings in the locality, especially the former Kings Hall building to the immediate north of the site opposite Carrington Street. The AGA is also of the view that the distance by which the tower elements of the proposal are setback from King William Street should be increased as should the distance by which the tower elements are separated from each other.

Arguably, the height of the podium relates to the approximate 40 metre width of King William Street and thereby gains some support from part (a) of Zone PDC 11. This, however, needs to also be weighed against Zone PDC 29 and Council-wide PDC 179 which essentially require that cues provided by built form context be considered in the assessment of proposed forms.

The AGA’s view that further opportunity exists to see the proposed podium informed by the height and scale of existing buildings in the locality draws support from Zone PDC 29 and Council-wide PDC 179. The AGA focuses on the former Kings Hall in this context. This is considered reasonable given its proximity to the site and status as a place of local heritage significance.

The street elevation study provided by the applicant (excerpt below) is considered to reveal some validity in the AGA’s view in respect of the proposed podium – insofar as there is no clear reference in the proposed podium to the upper parts of the former Kings Hall building.

insofar as there is no clear reference in the proposed podium to the upper parts of

15

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 On this relationship, the applicant submits

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

On this relationship, the applicant submits that:

The bronzed horizontally striated vertical elements on the podium are provided in deference to the adjoining three storey local heritage place (Former Kings Hall) with a denser aperture at lower levels which directly responds to the parapet heights and horizontal articulation of this historic building. At higher levels, the horizontal striation is increased in spacing, providing articulation and defining the corners of the podium. This simple aesthetic maps the existing local built form context and sets up a new model for a significant parapet as a triumphal edge to the King William Street boulevard.

The applicant further contends that the height of the podium is driven by the commercial requirement for car parking which is crucial for the project’s viability. Noting that such considerations cannot inform assessment, the AGA’s view in respect of this matter is consequently shared.

In being setback, 1 metre and approximately 1.2 metres from the King William Street and Carrington Street frontages respectively, the tower elements of the proposed built form do not align with PDC Zone 11. However, it is apparent that taller buildings along King William Street also have not provided upper level setbacks of the extent sought by this policy. Moreover, to the immediate north of the subject site, within the Central Business Policy Area, these setbacks are not sought. In this light, the departure from Zone PDC 11 on this front is not considered an issue of significance.

On provision of human scale at street level and interest, vitality and security to the pedestrian environment it is considered that the proposal performs well. This is by virtue of the inclusion of active uses at the ground and second levels and the proposed balcony (which is seen as a positive gesture by the AGA). The balcony will complement that offered by the local heritage item to the south of the site at 348-352 King William Street (partly occupied by La Trattoria restaurant).

Separation of the towers for aesthetic outcomes is not the subject of policy within the Development Plan. Therefore, whilst the AGA’s view regarding the value of increased separation is not disagreed with, it is seen that the degree of separation does not detract from the overall merit of the proposal.

8.4.2 Architectural Expression and Activation

Policy directions regarding architectural expression and activation provided by the Capital City Zone comprise:

presentation of an attractive pedestrian-oriented frontage that adds interest and vitality to City streets and laneways (PDC 7)

building facades that are strongly modelled, incorporate a vertical composition which reflects the proportions of existing frontages, and ensure the architectural detailing is consistent around corners and

along minor streets and laneways (PDC 14)

Vehicle parking spaces and multi-level vehicle parking structures within

enhance active street frontages by providing land

uses such as commercial, retail or other non-car park uses along

and incorporate façade treatments

along major street frontages that are sufficiently enclosed and detailed

buildings should

ground floor street frontages

16

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 to complement neighbouring buildings consistent with

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

to complement neighbouring buildings consistent with the Desired Character of the locality (PDC 29)

Relevant Council-wide directions provided are:

Development should respect the composition and proportion of architectural elements of building facades that form an important

pattern which contributes to the streetscape’s distinctive character in a manner consistent with the desired character of a locality

visual links with neighbouring buildings by reflecting

and reinforcing the prevailing pattern of visual sub-division in building facades where a pattern of vertical and/or horizontal sub-divisions is

and clearly defining ground, middle and roof top

by

establishing

evident and desirable levels (PDC 179)

Where there is little or no established building pattern, new buildings should create new features which contribute to an areas desired character and the way the urban environment is understood

generating new

introducing elements for future

emphasising the importance of the building

by

frontages

creating

clearly

defined

edges

compositions and points of interest

neighbouring buildings

according to the street hierarchy (PDC 180)

Building facades fronting street frontages, access ways, driveways or public spaces should be composed with an appropriate scale, rhythm and proportion which responds to the use of the building, the desired character of the locality and the modelling and proportions of adjacent buildings (PDC 181).

The AGA is of the view that opportunity exists to sleeve the proposed car parking levels with active uses – particularly against the Carrington Street frontage. The AGA also sees that there is opportunity to further express the ‘vertical village’ nature of the proposal, strengthen the verticality of the tower elements and refine the podium to tower element connection. No other issue regarding architectural expression is raised by the AGA (noting that comments regarding materiality are discussed subsequently).

As previously discussed, it is considered that the proposal performs well in terms of activation at its lower two levels. It therefore responds positively to Zone PDCs 7 and 29 amongst other Council-wide provisions seeking similar outcomes.

The key consideration in this context is seen to be whether or not the car parking levels within the proposal should be sleeved with active uses.

The applicant, in responding to the AGA’s views, argues it is simply not possible to sleeve the car park component of the building with active uses due to site depth and car parking design standards. This, of course, rests on the applicant’s contention that the car parking proposed is a crucial commercial component going to the heart of the viability of the proposal.

Zone PDC 29 is clear in identifying the ground floor frontage as critical in this respect. The proposal is aligned with this as it presents active uses to both the King William Street and Carrington Street frontages of the site.

Whilst the ideal outcome in this context is certainly that all levels of car parking would be sleeved, the Development Plan is not seen to be definite in respect of a desire for active uses sleeving car parking levels above ground level. This being the case, it is considered tolerable that above ground level car parking

17

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 levels are not sleeved with active

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

levels are not sleeved with active uses provided they are presented appropriately to street frontages.

Dark blue double glazed full height low-emissivity glass and aluminium louvers painted in a corten (bronze) colour are proposed to be used to screen the car parking levels. These are seen to relate well to the exterior cladding materials to be used in the tower elements of the proposal. The design statement submitted in support of the proposal provides that they will “entirely screen” the car parks behind. It is considered that further information is required to demonstrate this unequivocally. It is considered that this can be appropriately pursued by way of a reserve matter.

Finally in this context, no issue is held with respect to continuity of detailing around the King William Street and Carrington Street corner.

8.4.3 Materials and Finishes

Council-wide PDC 186 to 189 seeks that materials and finishes:

have regard to their surrounding townscape context, built form and public environment (PDC 186)

be sympathetic to the design and setting of the new building, incorporate recycled or low embodied energy materials, be of high quality and durability and “not necessarily imitate materials and colours of an existing streetscape” (PDC 187)

be easily maintained and not readily stain, discolour or deteriorate (PDC

188).

avoid ”large expanses of highly reflective materials and large areas of monotonous, sheer materials (such as polished granite and curtained wall glazing)” (PDC 189).

There is variety in the materials present in both the King William Street and Carrington Street streetscapes. On the one hand are the high quality natural stone buildings of the Courts precinct to the north of the site. On the other are the commercial buildings (generally south of and along Carrington and Wright Streets) comprised of multiple materials (including glass, render) that do not present any particular patterns in type or quality of materials.

This variety of materials, and the view that development the subject site does not clearly belong to the Courts precinct to the north where a definite pattern in material type and quality exists, leads to the view that the surrounding townscape context does not provide a resounding cue for the materials and finishes for the proposal.

Glazing (comprising low emissivity glass) dominates the palette of materials and finishes proposed. Bronzed fins are included to break the expanse of this and bring vertical definition to the proposal.

The AGA supports the materials and finishes proposed yet recommends that the painted concrete wall on the southern elevation and painted Corten aluminium louvre elements be changed to materials of higher quality (commensurate with the design aspiration) and greater durability. The applicant contends that the painted finish proposed to the wall is more durable than a pigmented concrete finish and that the painted finish to the fins too are of high durability.

18

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 It is considered that the materials

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

It is considered that the materials and finishes proposed are easily maintained and will not discolour or deteriorate prematurely. It is also considered that, whilst dominated by glazing, they are not monotonous by virtue of the fins and balcony elements that bring rhythm and verticality to the western façade in particular (this being the most prominent and expansive).

At nine storeys and just under 22 metres, the painted concrete wall on the southern elevation will rise well above the existing single storey building occupying 342 King William Street. Whilst expectations of it being built out in the future are not considered unreasonable, it will, until such time, be very visible from the south. This is seen to be a weakness of the schedule of materials and finishes proposed.

8.4.4 Roof Form

Council-wide PDC 192 seeks that buildings be designed to incorporate well designed roof tops that:

enhance the skyline and local views

contribute to the architectural quality of the building

provide a compositional relationship between the upper-most levels and the lower portions of the building

provide an expression of identity

articulate the roof, breaking down its massing on large buildings to minimise apparent bulk

respond to the orientation of the site

create minimal glare.

The

development.

AGA did

not

raise

any

issue with the

roof form of the proposed

It is considered that the roof form responds well to all of the above points sought by Council-wide PDC 192 save that regarding orientation – insofar as it does not seek to take advantage of the northerly orientation it enjoys. This is considered a minor point subordinate to those to do with views and architectural expression and identity.

8.5

Setbacks

Relevant guidance regarding setbacks is provided by Council-wide PDCs 178 which seeks that buildings in the Capital City Zone be built to street edges to “reinforce the (City’s) grid pattern, create a continuity of frontage and provide definition and enclosure to the public realm whilst contributing to the interest, vitality and security of the pedestrian environment”. The proposal is consistent with this.

An additional relevant consideration regarding setbacks is whether the George Parade right of way provides sufficient separation from a fire source feature. A building surveyor was commissioned by the applicant to provide advice on this matter (refer Attachments) and has confirmed that the eastern boundary of the George Parade right of way is to be taken as the nearest eastern fire source feature due to the fact that this right of way is not height limited. This provides additional certainty regarding the measures required to achieve Building Rules Consent.

19

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 8.6 Residential Diversity and Amenity 8.6.1 Residential Diversity

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

8.6 Residential Diversity and Amenity

8.6.1 Residential Diversity

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Together, Council-wide Objectives 6, 7 and 8 and PDCs 5 and 6 seek provision of a range of housing types, tenures and costs to meet the widely differing social needs of residents. Council-wide PDC 7 seeks that residential development be designed to meet people’s needs throughout their lifespan. Also of relevance is the Affordable Housing Overlay seeking 20% affordable housing.

The apartment offering forming part of the proposal comprises studio, one, two and three bedroom apartments. There is a spread of different sized apartments across the building. This range is considered a positive aspect of the proposal.

Little information has been provided to evince the ability of the apartment offering to meet occupant needs throughout different life stages. Similarly, information evincing adaptability has been submitted. This is not to suggest that the apartment offering is incapable of meeting or being adapted to meet different life stage needs.

The proponent has not entered into an agreement with Renewal SA over the provision of affordable housing. It is understood the applicant intends to offer some apartments at a sale price approaching or equivalent to the official affordable housing. Whilst some sympathy is afforded this position, the absence of an agreement detracts from the overall merit of the proposal.

8.6.2 Apartment Sizes

Council-wide PDC 70 provides guidance regarding minimum apartment sizes. As identified in section 8.1, all apartments meet the minimum apartment sizes sought by this policy.

8.6.3 Private Open Space

Council-wide PDCs 59 to 62 provide guidance regarding:

the minimum area of private open space that should be provided a dwelling

the minimum dimension that private open space should feature to ensure useability

connection of private open space to living areas

protection of private open space from the elements, noise and other environmental factors.

With respect to the first of the above points, not all of the apartments feature an area of private open space that is aligned with the provisions of the Development Plan. Indeed, 51 of the 121 apartments (approximately 42%) are provided with a lesser area of private open space than the minimum envisaged by Council-wide PDC 59. The departure of greatest magnitude is in apartment type S3b (of which there is one) which has a private open space area of 9.1m 2 where Council-wide PDC envisages it will have at least 15m 2 .

Importantly, the minimum dimension of all private open space areas (balconies) is greater than 2.0 metres. This ensures a level of useability sought by the Development Plan. This is augmented by the high degree of

20

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 permeability between balconies and internal living

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

permeability between balconies and internal living spaces resulting from the recessing of balconies into building elevations.

Also mitigating the departure form Council-wide PDC 59 is the communal open at level 29 (that proposed at level 10 is not considered to be convenient to residents given its relationship to the office floor space at this level). This has an area of 653m 2 and encompasses a community room, terrace, pool and other amenities.

Council-wide PDC 59 contemplates communal open space mitigating departures from policy regarding provision of minimum private open space areas. In light of the above it is considered that the proposal performs adequately in respect of this policy.

8.6.4 Access to Light, Ventilation and Outlook

Council-wide PDCs 50 to 58 seek that apartment design maximise access to light and ventilation and quality of outlook through a range of measures including orientation, ceiling heights and cross ventilation amongst others.

The AGA supports the proportions and ceiling heights of apartments and the access apartments have to natural light and ventilation. It is considered that all apartments have outlook of sufficient quality as living rooms are located against building edges to take advantage of views.

8.6.5 Storage

Council-wide PDC 81 seeks provision of minimum storage areas for apartments.

Not all of the apartments proposed are furnished with a volume of storage

meeting Council-wide PDC 81. However, storage lockers located remote to the apartments (on levels 2-9) augment this and, importantly, all apartments are furnished with at least 50% of the storage volume sought by Council-wide PDC

81.

It is not clear what the total volume of storage to be provided each apartment is as remote storage has not been attributed to individual apartments. It is estimated that there is sufficient remote storage to make up for that not located within apartments. It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition requiring final details of this prior to Building Rules Consent being granted the northern tower.

8.6.6 Communal Areas and Facilities

Council-wide PDC 49 seeks that entrances to individual dwellings within medium to high scale residential development be located as close as practical to the lift and/or lobby access, be clearly identifiable and avoid the creation of entrapment spots. Council-wide PDC 50 seeks, broadly, that medium to high scale residential development be designed to maximise opportunities for facilitate natural ventilation and capitalise on natural daylight. Council-wide PDC 80 seeks provision of a common mail box structure located close to the main pedestrian entrance, areas for collection of goods and materials (including waste – discussed separately) and external clothes drying areas for dwellings. Council-wide PDC 99 seeks minimisation of the number of dwellings sharing a common entry to limit noise generation in internal access ways.

21

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The AGA is of the view

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The AGA is of the view that further opportunity exists to improve the amenity of the lift lobbies, communal corridors and central link spaces via provision of increased natural light and ventilation without reliance on the balcony of apartment type s6.

The AGA’s view is seen to draw support from Council-wide PDC 50. Besides this and notwithstanding the absence of communal facilities for clothes drying, the proposal is aligned with the above policies in that:

apartment entrances relatively close to the lift core (the apartment entrance furthest from the lift core is in the order of 20 metres distant)

dwelling entrances are sufficiently identifiable

relatively low potential for entrapment

a common mailbox facility provided at the ground floor concierge

no more than 13 apartments sharing a corridor.

8.7 Interface Management

8.7.1 Visual Privacy

Council-wide PDC 66 seeks that “medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should be designed and sited to minimise the potential overlooking of habitable rooms such as bedrooms and living areas of adjacent development”. Council-wide PDC 67 seeks that habitable room windows, balconies, roof gardens, and decks be setback at least 3 metres from boundaries of adjoining sites in pursuit of visual privacy.

The nearest existing residential land uses to the subject site are the townhouses fronting Tom’s Court to the immediate south-east. Housing further afield is well in excess of 15 metres distant from the subject site and is therefore not the subject of concern in this respect.

The townhouse fronting Tom’s Court have west-facing balconies that are potentially vulnerable to overlooking. However, the proposed apartments nearest these are no less than 50 metres distant – due to their elevation above ground level.

With respect to Council-wide PDC 67, east facing apartments possess balconies setback 700mm from the eastern property boundary. This needs to be considered in conjunction with the right of way between the subject site and neighbouring land to the east.

The right of way is 3.66 metres wide. It is considered reasonable to attribute half this width (1.83 metres) to what the proposal is offering in respect to Council-wide PDC 67 (insofar as the other half can be attributed to the neighbouring property to achieve equity in this respect). Thus the total setback distance seen to be offered by the proposal is 2.53 metres which constitutes a departure from Council-wide PDC 67.

8.7.2 Overshadowing

Council-wide PDC 119 and 120 together seek that development be designed and sited to minimise solar access impacts on adjacent land and buildings. These policies are, however, tempered by other, such as Council-wide PDC 121, which make it clear that greatest attention in this regard is to be given development that has potential to overshadow land and housing in the City

22

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 Living, (Conservation) Zones. Adelaide Historic (Conservation) and

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

Living,

(Conservation) Zones.

Adelaide

Historic

(Conservation)

and

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

North

Adelaide

Historic

It is clear from the shadow analysis diagrams submitted as part of the application that the proposed development will have shadow impacts on adjacent land. No such land lies in the abovementioned zones of particular attention to the Development Plan in this context.

Noting that it is clear that minimisation of shadow impacts on all adjacent land would demand development directions that are incongruous with the height and type of buildings explicitly contemplated by the Capital City Zone, no concern is held with respect to overshadowing

8.8 Traffic Impact, Access and Parking

8.8.1 Pedestrian Access

The subject land is outside of the Primary Pedestrian Area as displayed on Map Adel/1 (Overlay 2A). This is an area generally covering the central and north- eastern parts of the city grid, in which pedestrian amenity is sought to be maximised and vehicle usage and parking limited.

Zone PDC 25 seeks that development ensure maintenance and creation of pedestrian links identified by Map Adel/1 (Overlay 2A). This map does not identify any pedestrian links in the vicinity of the subject site (the nearest existing link being that through the central markets and the nearest proposed link being that immediately south of the Supreme Court).

Pedestrian access to the proposed development is principally to be attained via King William Street, via a grand double height entrance centrally located along that road frontage. Noting that King William Street is the major pedestrian route in this particular location, that a canopy is proposed along this entire frontage and that all vehicular access is to be obtained from George Parade to the rear of the site, it is considered that a high level of pedestrian amenity and access should be achieved as a result of the proposal. Adelaide City Council has assessed the canopy/balcony against standard encroachment policies and issued approval. The proposal is considered to therefore accord with Council- wide PDCs 225, 227, 228, 229, 230.

Zone PDC 8 seeks that finished ground floor levels be at grade or level with footpaths which is proposed in the development. This also is considered to address Council Wide PDC 231 for equitable access into the building.

Adelaide City Council’s administration has recommended that George Parade include a footpath for pedestrians. A 1.2 metre footpath has been incorporated into the design of the widened George Parade. This provision is not ideal in that the Parade will mainly cater for existing and proposed vehicular movements within a relatively confined width. However, the following mitigate concern that otherwise might exist in this respect:

the lack of an expectation that George Parade will perform an important role in pedestrian movement (notwithstanding future development potential of land fronting Tom’s Court)

slow vehicle speeds along George Parade (forced by the need for driver attention).

23

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 8.8.2 Bicycle Access and Parking AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Council-wide

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

8.8.2 Bicycle Access and Parking

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Council-wide PDC 233 and Table Adel/6 seek provision of adequate bicycle parking spaces within the site of the development. Council-wide PDCs 234, 235 and 236 seek that such spaces be in convenient and safe locations. Council-wide PDC 237 seeks provision of end of trip facilities for commercial uses.

The proposal incorporates both bicycle parking and end of trip facilities located at the first level accessible by the residential and office lifts. The end of trip facilities proposed comprise showers and storage spaces. Fourteen showers (7 male and 7 female) and 6 separate toilets are provided.

There are a total 192 bicycle parking spaces proposed on the first floor consisting of 110 for residents and their visitors, and 82 for guests of the retail, office and restaurant.

The applicant’s traffic report discusses that 203 bicycle parking spaces in total are sought by the Development Plan. However this raw figure does not adequately consider the potential for shared use, given there is a broad range of different land uses proposed within the building, of which are likely to have differing peak times of usage. The report concludes that a 15% reduction would be appropriate to cater for the likelihood of shared usage resulting in a theoretical requirement for 173 bicycle parking spaces.

Additional bike parking spaces are also displayed within plans for the basement level, although the number provided is at this stage unspecified and the applicant has stated an intention to finalise this during detailed design. The applicant’s traffic report states a minimum of 16 rails are to be provided for visitor parking within the basement level and within the footpath area along both street frontages. The final details of the latter are to be confirmed with Council. The proponent is also considering providing storage space in the residential apartments for bicycles.

Given all the above, and considering the proximity the subject site enjoys to particularly convenient public transport, it is considered that the number of parks being provided is generally appropriate.

The path of access to the bicycle parking and end of trip facilities is however not ideal. Cyclists will be required to enter the development from George Parade. Access paths generally between 1 to 2 metres wide beside the vehicle ramps will provide access to the central lift core which will provide access to the bicycle parks and end of trip facilities on the first floor. The width of one ground floor access path will narrow to approximately 500mm, however this is for a relatively short distance of some 6m before widening out again. Doors intervene in cyclist’s access to all but one of the lifts. It is unclear how convenient these will be to cyclists.

Whilst not ideal from an access convenience perspective, the path of travel for cyclists from the public road network to the parking spaces (mainly being through the building) will only require travelling along George Parade for a brief section before entering the covered rear section of the building. This is considered beneficial from a safety and amenity (weather protection) perspective, whilst also ensuring bicycles are not required to traverse through the main lobby of the building (where conflicts/amenity issues could otherwise arise).

24

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 8.8.3 Vehicle Access AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Council-wide PDCs 240-247

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

8.8.3 Vehicle Access

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Council-wide PDCs 240-247 provide relevant guidance regarding vehicle access. In summary, they together seek:

safe, convenient and suitable vehicle access points that minimise traffic hazards and vehicle queuing on public roads

the use of minor streets and lanes for vehicle access provided residential amenity is not unreasonably affected

on-site provision of adequate facilities for all anticipated service vehicle demands requirements loading/unloading off-street

minimisation of access points onto primary city access roads

access provisions that avoid necessitating reversing manoeuvres onto public roads.

At the heart of the proposed vehicle access arrangements is the widening of George Parade from 3.66 metres to 7.65 metres to provide two-way vehicle access to the site.

This is aligned with the above policies as it quarantines King William Street and Carrington Street from vehicle access impacts. It is also aligned with Council- wide PDC 245 and 247 which respectively seek that access ways have a minimum width of 6.5 metres and that development be designed in such a way as to avoid the need for vehicles to reverse on to primary and secondary access roads. Adelaide City Council’s administration has raised no in-principle objection to the widening of George Parade for vehicle access to the proposed development.

The proposal provides for key service delivery movements on-site as well as for manoeuvring of service vehicles on site. The applicant envisages augmenting this with a loading zone on Carrington Street. Adelaide City Council’s administration has not expressed any in-principle concern with this but noted such changes will need to be the subject of a separate process or processes involving consultation with the interested community.

Adelaide City Council’s administration has expressed concern regarding the consequences of an errantly parked vehicle on George Parade. Given the private nature of George Parade, it has recommended that a management plan be devised to address such a concern. In response, the applicant has advised that cctv will be used to monitor and address such a situation. This is considered a reasonable and appropriate solution.

Concern regarding the adequacy of sight lines at the entrances/exits to the ramps to the car parking levels (both at basement and above ground) has been expressed by Adelaide City Council’s administration. The applicant in response advises of a willingness to employ warning devices and mirrors to address this situation. This is considered reasonable and, therefore, it is recommended that any consent granted be the subject of a condition requiring final identification and provision of these prior to Building Rules Consent being granted for the podium.

Adelaide City Council has recommended that, given the anticipated increase in vehicle and other movements along George Parade, the proposal address lighting of George Parade. It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition requiring submission of details of lighting to be installed along George Parade prior to Building Rules Consent being granted for the podium.

25

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 8.8.4 Car Parking AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The Development Plan

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

8.8.4 Car Parking

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The Development Plan does not seek provision of car parking in association with any of the uses forming part of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal incorporates a substantial number of car parking spaces that are ancillary to the residential, office and retail uses proposed.

The number is such that the proposal does not stand to contribute as greatly as it could to the Council-wide Objectives of a “shift towards active and sustainable transport modes” of public transport, cycling and walking (Council- wide Objectives 68 and 71). This is not to say the proposal does not contribute to these Objectives – as previously discussed, it provides for bicycle storage and end of trip facilities and occupants of the building will no doubt exploit the convenience of walking within the City square mile and ready access to the tram network in particular.

The inclusion of car parking within the proposal is not, in and of itself, considered detrimental to the proposal because the Development Plan does not provide any clear policy direction that to the effect that car parking ought not be provided. However, the number of car parking spaces proposed is seen to not sit comfortably with the thrust of the Capital City Zone. This view is compounded by the above ground car park levels not having floor to ceiling heights that would facilitate adaptation to some other use in the future.

Council-wide PDC 250 provides guidance with respect to the design of car parking spaces. An associated Design Technique provides that one way of satisfying this is to design car parking in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

Adelaide City Council’s administration has raised concern that the car park may not conform with the relevant Australian Standard (AS 2890.1). The applicant, in response, confirms that it will. It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition requiring this (as is standard practice).

Also of relevance to car parking is Council-wide PDC 77 – which seeks that car parking areas associated with medium to high scale residential development be close and convenient to apartments, lit at night, well ventilated, avoid headlight glare into windows and clearly define visitor parking. This policy is considered to be satisfied save in respect of definition of spaces. The applicant has not nominated which spaces are to be attributed to the various uses proposed. Indeed, it is stated within the planning report, traffic report and response to comment from Adelaide City Council’s administration that:

Approximately 166 car parks out of the total of 361 will be available for sale to apartment owners. The remainder will be available to commercial and retail tenants and users of the building and any surplus car parks, not taken up will be allocated as the owner sees fit including offering such car parks for use of the public.

The Development Application form does not include “non-ancillary car parking” or similar as one of the land uses for which consent is sought. Moreover, it is seen that a consent cannot be granted a potential use of land. To address this it is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a reserve matter requiring identification of the car parking spaces to be assigned to the various uses forming part of the proposal. Such a reserve matter can be

26

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 converted to a condition requiring that

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

converted to a condition requiring that the spaces be used in the ancillary way ultimately nominated.

8.8.5 George Parade

In the initial documentation submitted as part of the subject application, the applicant advised that it intends to employ a licensing arrangement to provide adjoining property owners (and ultimately the public) with rights of access over that part of the site to be added to George Parade.

Adelaide City Council’s administration expressed a preference that rights of way be used to this effect to provide more surety of ongoing access. In response, representatives of the applicant advised that there is an understanding that a long form easement registered against titles will be used to this end.

It is considered necessary that any consent granted the proposal be subject to

a reserve matter requiring resolution of this matter in a manner commensurate with the proposal.

8.9

Infrastructure

Lucid Consulting Engineers were engaged by the proponent to investigate the availability and adequacy of utilities and services to the development. It found that there is sufficient capacity available or can be made available to service the proposed development which satisfies PDC 135 (Council Wide).

The proposed service structures and utilities have been designed to be an integral part of the development and have been appropriately screened from the public realm, consistent with PDC 133 (Council Wide). The Service Utilities Infrastructure Statement prepared by Lucid Consulting details the services and utilities provisions available and needed to service the proposed development site as follows.

8.9.1 Power Supply

Lucid Consulting engineers found that the existing power networks capacity to supply power to the site will be insufficient. South Australian Power Network have confirmed that a new transformer is required to service the development.

This is due to the insufficient capacity in the existing SAPN high voltage network in the vicinity of the subject site to cater for the development of this scale. The proposed development will have a maximum demand in the order of 1.8MVA, as such a 2MVA SAPN pad mounted transformer is required to serve the development. SA Power networks have further advised the requirement for

a Switching Cubicle.

8.9.2 Communications Infrastructure

The proposed development will compromise in excess of 100 tenants (retail/commercial and residential), in which case Lucid Consulting engineers deem the building eligible for the installation of an NBN fibre optic cabling network. It has been confirmed that NBN Co. will provide fibre optic communications cable connection to the subject development site which will be terminated in a dedicated communications room located in the basement.

8.9.3 Sewer and Water Infrastructure

SA Water Corporation have investigated the capacity of the existing waste water (sewer) and water mains infrastructure adjacent the subject site. Based

27

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 on the proposed increase demand the

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

on the proposed increase demand the development will bring, SA Water Corporation have advised that the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cater for the development without the need for upgrades to sewer and water mains. Water metres will be housed in cast iron footpaths boxes. All new sewer connections will incorporate a government inspection point in the adjoining public reserve or George Parade easement.

8.9.4 Natural Gas Infrastructure

An existing gas mains is located in Carrington and King William Street, both are medium pressure gas mains. APA Group have confirmed that a suitably sized NG service connection to cater for the development’s natural gas loading, can be derived from the Carrington Street medium pressure gas mains. The proposed gas meter enclosure will be established on the eastern wall of the building, facing out to George Parade.

8.10 Environmental Factors

8.10.1 Crime Prevention

Council-wide PDCs 82-86 provide guidance for the creation of crime resistant environments that promote passive surveillance, building and site security and visibility.

The proposal is incorporating a number of crime prevention measures to promote natural surveillance such as window and entry orientation, glazing to the facades of the ground floor, retail functions at the ground floor and passive surveillance from the upper ground floor balcony. There are no protrusions or cavities on street frontages or within the car park, thereby minimising opportunities for concealment.

The proposal incorporates a wide variety of land uses that will promote day and night time activity and will incorporate a concierge service providing active 24 hour/7 day surveillance and security to the building and its patrons.

Security lighting and CCTV is proposed to be used in and around all pedestrian and cycling entrances to the building, with lighting to all internal pathways to stairs and lift banks. Security gates and monitors will be used at the George Parade car park access and swipe card access will be required for all service corridors and the rear foyer.

It

considered

development.

is

considered

and

that

crime

incorporated

8.10.2 Noise Emissions

prevention principles

have

into

the

overall

design

been sufficiently

proposed

of

the

Council-wide PDCs 87, 89 & 93-98 provide guidance for noise sensitive development. Development should be designed to protect its occupants from noise sources contemplated in the zone which, in the Capital City Zone, includes licensed entertainment premises. Ancillary services such as waste collection should not occur after hours and mechanical plant should be appropriately sited, screened and attenuated.

Sonus, on behalf of the applicant, undertook a noise assessment of the proposed development. The assessment addressed noise from traffic into proposed apartments; and noise from mechanical plant operation, patrons and

28

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 music, car park and waste collection,

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

music, car park and waste collection, at the development to other noise sensitive land uses.

The assessment resulted in the following recommendations:

install 6.38mm thick laminated glass to apartments

restrict hours of waste collection to be between 7am to 10p on Monday to Saturday and 9am to 10pm on a Sunday or public holiday

design mechanical plant to achieve a noise level (Leq, 15 min) at residences which is no more than the higher of:

o

55dB(A) during the daytime (7am to 10pm)

o

45dB(A) during the night-time (10pm to 7pm); or

o

the lowest equivalent noise level (LAeq, 15 min) in the existing environment

design licensed premises so that patron noise achieves a noise level (Leq, 15 min) at residences which is no more than the higher of:

o

52dB(A) during the day (7am to 10pm)

o

45 dB(A) at night (10pm to 7am); or

o

the lowest existing background (L90) noise level

design licensed premises so that music achieves a noise level (L10, 15 min) at residences which is:

o

no more than 8dB above the level of background noise (L90, 15 min) in any octave band of the sound spectrum

o

no more than 5dB(A) above the level of background noise (LA 90, 15 min) for the overall (sum of all octave bands) A-weighted level.

As the final design of the plant room and operational details of the licensed areas are not yet know, the noise assessment report recommends that a detailed noise assessment of these aspects of the proposed development be carried out during the detailed design phase of the project, and the licence application stage for the licensed areas.

Should the Committee be of a mind to grant the proposal planning consent, it is recommended that the recommendations of the Acoustic Assessment be the subject of a condition.

8.10.3 Waste Management

Council-wide PDCs 101 to 104 provide guidance regarding waste management. Key outcomes sought by these are:

the inclusion of a dedicated area for on-site collection and sorting of recyclable materials and refuse within a development

incorporation of waste and storm water reuse infrastructure

avoidance of smell or other externalities having potential to detrimentally affect the amenity of adjacent property through, amongst other things, inclusion of extraction flues, ventilation and other infrastructure for restaurants, cafes and other uses having potential to generate odour.

The waste management approach adopted has been informed and described by Colby Industries.

Collection services to the proposed development will be delivered by private waste contractors, with property management to align collection services for all land uses to minimise collection events. Lease agreements will oblige

29

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 commercial tenants to use the Property

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

commercial tenants to use the Property Management contracted service, except where other specialise services (e.g. cooking oil) are be sought.

Collection is proposed in the loading areas identified in the rear private lane.

Disposal points for residents will be located on each level to waste chutes in each tower. The bin storage areas and waste chute discharge are located under each tower on the ground floor. An on-site bin washing area has been provided on level 6. The bin washing area will have a graded waterproof floor; drain to sewer with basket screen; potable water supply with faucet and hose connection; 1Ø/240V power supply; walls lined to water proof; and temporary curtains or screens that can be erected during bin wash events.

A shared waste and recycling storage area will be provided for all offices across

the proposed development. Waste and recycling will be collected by cleaners and disposed to bins in above storage. It is anticipated that the stationary rooms in offices will provide space for any confidential paper bins required.

The ground and upper ground retail tenancies and the restaurant and bar on levels 30 and 31 will be provided with shared waste and recycling (and storage) on the ground floor. The local waste area for the restaurant and bar will be located in the kitchen on level 29. Once bins are full they will be swapped with empties in the ground floor bin area.

The proposal is expected to generate 166,139 litres of waste per week, with 21,252 litres generated by the residential component, 41,135 litres generated by the office component, 99,164 litres generated by the commercial retail component and 4,588 litres generated in the public areas. There will be at least 4 collection events per weekday and 3 per day on the weekend. There may be between 5-7 collection events on some days if the larger food and beverage tenancies elect separate cardboard or recycled deposit container services.

The Waste Management Plan report states that collection events should be scheduled to occur outside of peak access hours to minimise associated traffic impacts on access via the rear lane to the development and other nearby properties, as well as at times to minimise impacts on local amenity.

It is considered that sufficient space is provided to accommodate the number of

bins needed to store waste/recycling demands from each of the towers, based on the number of collection frequencies. In all, the proposal is consistent with Council Wide provisions regarding waste management.

In light of the above, and noting that Adelaide City Council administration has not raised issue with the proposed waste management approach, no issue is held in this context.

8.10.4 Energy Efficiency

Council-wide Objective 30 and PDCs 106-115 together seek development that minimises consumption of non-renewable resources through the use of passive thermal comfort measures (such as exploitation of natural light and ventilation, efficient building and apartment layouts that enable zoning and inclusion of insulation), inclusion of solar collectors and photovoltaic cells and building adaptability.

30

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 Lucid Consulting Engineers prepared a Sustainability

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

Lucid Consulting Engineers prepared a Sustainability Report on behalf of the applicant which provides an overview of the sustainability initiatives incorporated within the proposed development.

The project has been benchmarked against the Sustainability Principles of the Green Star Communities framework as defined by the Green Building Council of Australia. The key sustainability principles of this framework are enhance liveability, create opportunities for economic prosperity, foster environmental responsibility, embrace design excellence and demonstrate visionary leadership and strong governance. Lucid Consulting Engineers report that the following aspects of the proposed development meet these principles:

energy efficient design (high performance building envelope, low energy building services, access to natural light and ventilation)

water efficient design (WELS rated fixtures and fittings)

walking distance to Adelaide business district

communal areas located within the development to enhance liveability

close proximity to shops and restaurants

easy access to public transport

The National Australian Built Environment Rating Scheme (NABERS) provides an industry recognised framework for evaluating and benchmarking the environmental performance of buildings in Australia. The proposed development is targeting a 4.5 star NABERS energy rating for the proposed office areas. The proposal also includes passive design features and energy efficiency initiatives including:

high performance building fabric

reflective, light-coloured roof to reduce peak cooling loads in summer

high performance low-E glazing, selected to address the specific thermal requirements of the building

living areas set-back from façade to reduce solar heat gains within these spaces during summer

energy-efficient massing to minimise the extent of exposed floors and ceilings

extensive natural lighting provided to all habitable spaces in the development

high efficiency air-conditioning units and effective control strategies

energy efficient luminaires such as LED fittings

lighting in common areas controlled via motion sensors to reduce consumption

high efficiency lifts with LED lighting and regenerative drives

It is considered proposed development is consistent with Council Wide

provisions regarding energy and water efficiency and sustainability and that the

proposed ESD measures are acceptable.

8.10.5 Wind Analysis

Council-wide PDC 125 provides that buildings over 21 metres in height that is to be built at or on street frontages should minimise wind tunnel effect.

A desktop wind study undertaken by Windtech was commissioned to

investigate the wind impacts that the proposed built form stands to cause. This

found the following:

31

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1  the King William Street and

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

the King William Street and Carrington Street footpaths are expected to experience tolerable wind conditions with the inclusion of the proposed impermeable canopy above

the wind conditions to be experienced on the level 1 balcony are expected to be tolerable

the north western corner of the podium top is potentially exposed to south-westerly and north-easterly winds “accelerating around the development” and that a series of full height impermeable baffle screens should be included to ameliorate detrimental effects of this

the rooftop terraces on both the northern and southern tower are expected to experience tolerable wind conditions due to shielding provided by the proposed tapered impermeable screen along the perimeter edge of the terraces

the private residential balconies are expected to experience tolerable wind conditions due to shielding provided by the development and them being recessed into the building

The study notes that only a wind tunnel study can more accurately predict the wind impacts that the proposed built form stands to cause.

In light of the above findings, particularly relating to the public realm, it is not considered essential that a wind tunnel study be undertaken to inform the proposed development.

It is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition requiring submission of details of baffles to be inserted to the north- west corner of the podium top prior to Building Rules Consent being granted for the podium

8.10.6 Glare

Council-wide PDC 122 seeks avoidance of glare that would discomfort or endanger pedestrians, occupants of adjacent buildings and motorists. A Design Technique provided to illustrate means of satisfying this PDC identifies a high masonry to glass ratio, recessing of glass, shading or angling of glass, selection of low reflective glass and avoidance of large expanses of glass as means of satisfying this principle.

Having a high expanse of exterior glazing, the proposal has potential to result in glare that might cause discomfort or danger to passers-by.

Information regarding the means by which glare will be avoided has not been submitted as part of the application. It is known that glare from glazing can be minimised. This being the case, it is considered that any consent granted the proposal be subject to a condition requiring submission of details regarding management of glare to the satisfaction of the Committee.

8.10.7 Stormwater Management

Council Wide Objectives 35 - 39 and PDCs 127 through to 131 provide the most guidance for stormwater management generally seeking that stormwater management systems be designed to ensure that the capacity of downstream systems are not exceeded and other properties are not adversely affected as a result of any concentrated stormwater discharge from a site.

32

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 The existing site is fully covered

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

The existing site is fully covered by impermeable surfaces. Post development impermeable surfaces will not increase the horizontal catchment area over the existing condition.

PT Designs, on behalf of the applicant, prepared a Stormwater Management Report. The proposed development and the highest point of the ramps down into the car park have been set 300m above the highest adjacent street water table level to minimise the risk of water inundation from stormwater outside of the site during major storm events. Existing levels at all boundaries will be maintained.

New concrete spoon drains and connections will be undertaken in strict accordance with Council’s requirements.

The report has concluded that the proposed development cannot achieve Water Sensitive Urban Design measures due to the nature of development and the fact that the whole of the ground floor will be set on a suspended slab.

Harvesting and reticulation of stormwater will be considered further during detailed design development.

Council has raised no stormwater related objections. In this light it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will have any negative impact on the existing council stormwater system and is considered to be acceptable.

8.10.8 Site Contamination

Mott MacDonald was engaged by the applicant to undertake a preliminary environmental site history assessment of the subject site. The purpose of the assessment report was to summarise any potential contamination issues associated with past and present land uses.

The results of the site history research indicate that there is sufficient information based on the nature and timeline of previous land uses to indicate the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination to be present at the site. The report concludes that the likelihood of gross or widespread soil contamination existing in the soils and groundwater at the site (at concentrations likely to preclude the proposed land use) is low. However, it is recommended that screening level soil sampling and testing to be conducted to confirm this assessment once site demolition has occurred.

Should the Committee be of a mind to grant the proposal consent it is recommended that this be the subject of a condition.

8.11 Signage

No advertising signage forms part of the proposed development. Such signage will form part of a separate Development Application.

The AGA recommends that a way finding signage strategy should be employed. Given policy regarding amenity and crime prevention, pursuit of this by way of a condition attached to any consent granted the proposal is considered reasonable and appropriate.

33

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 8.12 Staging and Life of Development

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

8.12 Staging and Life of Development Plan Consent

The applicant proposes to complete the development in 5 stages. A staging plan has been provided to illustrate that these stages are:

demolition of existing buildings

early works, retention piling, excavation and construction of piles

basement and podium construction

northern tower construction

southern tower construction

Further, the planning report submitted by the applicant provides that:

Staged development approvals are also likely to be sought for individual building components such as piling, capping beams, bulk excavation, sub-structure/super structure and architectural and services fit out.

No issue is held with this approach to staging.

In addition to staging, the applicant has requested that, in the event of Development Pan Consent being granted, the period to substantially commence and complete construction be extended from the legislated standard (1 and 3 years) to 3 and 5 years. The scale of the proposed development is such that detailed design may require an extended period. In this light, this request is not considered unreasonable and, in the event of consent being granted, should be granted.

9.

CONCLUSION

The proposal presents a difficult assessment task.

There is no question that the land use range is appropriate and has potential to greatly enliven the important south-central precinct of the City square mile. This potential advanced by the high degree of activation of the ground and first floor planes.

The proposal however involves a very intense use of the site. This manifests in a misalignment between the scale of the podium and its immediate context and some less than ideal apartment and communal space amenity conditions.

The proposed podium, however, is seen to share some characteristics with recent high scale development to the south along King William Street and therefore not be completely incongruous with the King William Street streetscape. Also, whilst the predominant car parking use of the podium does not greatly assist with acceptance it scale (given that the thrust of the Adelaide City Development Plan is towards active forms of travel), the fact that the Plan doesn’t clearly and explicitly discourage car parking at the subject site needs to be borne in mind.

On balance it is considered that the positive aspects of the proposal outweigh the negative and that Development Plan Consent is warranted subject to reserve matters and conditions regarding technical matters.

34

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 10. RECOMMENDATION AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 It is recommended that

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

10. RECOMMENDATION

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the proposal meets the key objectives of the Capital City Zone.

3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent (and Land Division Consent) to the proposal by the Karidis Corporation Ltd for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising retail, office and residential uses together with associated car parking and landscaping at 322-340 King William Street, Adelaide subject to the following reserved matters and conditions of consent.

RESERVED MATTERS

1. Pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the following matters shall be reserved for further assessment, to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission, prior to the granting of Building Rules Consent for stage 3 of the development (the podium):

1.1 attribution of car parking spaces to the land uses forming part of the development.

1.2 the appropriate instrument or instruments to provide necessary rights of access over that part of the site to be added to the George Parade carriageway to provide access to the development.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

1. Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the details and following plans submitted in Development Application No 020/M043/16:

Plans:

15128_DAC02 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC03 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC04 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05A dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05B dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05C dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05D dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05E dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC05F dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC06 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC07 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC07A dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC08 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC09 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC10 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC12 dated 22 August 2016

35

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016  15128_DAC12A dated 22 August 2016  15128_DAC12B dated

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

15128_DAC12A dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC12B dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC13 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC13A dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC13B dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC13D dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC14 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC15 dated 22 August 2016

15128_DAC16 dated 22 August 2016

14154_DAC26 dated 22 August 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

2. Final details of the external materials for each component of the development, including the provision of a detailed materials schedule and samples board, shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to Building Rules Consent for the podium. This will include details of glare suppression measures to be employed.

3. Final details of baffles to be installed at the north-western corner of the podium top to ameliorate potentially adverse wind conditions shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to Building Rules Consent for the podium.

4. Final details of storage lockers shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Committee prior to Building Rules Consent being granted stage 3 (northern tower).

5. Final details of devices (such as warning signals and mirrors) to be used to ensure safe movement along George Parade shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission, in consultation with Adelaide City Council, prior to Building Rules Consent for the podium.

6. Final details of lighting of George Parade shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission, in consultation with Adelaide City Council, prior to Building Rules Consent for the podium.

7. All vehicle car parks, driveways and vehicle entry and manoeuvring areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and be constructed, drained and paved with bitumen, concrete or paving bricks in accordance with sound engineering practice and appropriately line marked to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to the occupation or use of the development.

8. All bicycle parks shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

9. The finished floor level of the ground floor level entry shall match the existing footpath unless otherwise agreed to by the Development Assessment Condition.

10. The recommendations of the report dated July 2016 prepared by Sonus Pty Ltd shall be implemented in full.

11. A detailed assessment of noise likely to be generated by plant and equipment shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to Building Rules Consent for the podium.

12. A way-finding signage strategy shall be submitted to the satisfaction the Development Assessment Commission prior to buildings rules consent being granted

36

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 the northern tower. northern tower. This

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

the northern tower. northern tower.

This strategy shall be implemented upon occupation of the

13. Prior to the commencement of construction a dilapidation report (i.e. condition survey) shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to ensure the stability and protection of adjoining buildings, structures and Council assets. A copy of this report shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commission.

14. The applicant shall submit to the Development Assessment Commission a definitive statement to demonstrate that the land is suitable for its intended use prior to commencement of construction of the podium. If required by the auditor, the applicant shall prepare a Phase 2 Site Assessment Report, prior to commencement of further works.

15. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA publications “Handbook for Pollution Avoidance on Commercial and Residential Building Sites – Second Edition” and “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” – to minimise environmental harm and disturbance during construction.

The management plan must incorporate, without being limited to, the following matters:

a. air quality, including odour and dust

b. surface water including erosion and sediment control

c. soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of soil contamination

d. groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination

e. noise

f. occupational health and safety

For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?'.

A copy of the CEMP shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commission

prior to the commencement of site works.

ADVISORY NOTES

a. The development must be substantially commenced within 3 years of the date of this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment Commission. The authorisation will lapse if the development is not substantially commenced within 3 years of the date of this Notification.

b. Any act or work authorised or required by this Notification must be completed within 5 years of the date of the Notification unless this period is extended by the Commission.

c. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development Court within two months

from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow. The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located

in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 8204

0289).

37

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1 d. No additional signs shall be

Development Assessment Commission 17 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1

d. No additional signs shall be displayed upon the subject land other than those identifying the parking area access points and those shown on the approved plans. If any further signs are required, these shall be the subject of a separate application.

e. Lead times for removal / relocation of stobie poles and other infrastructure can be significant. It is recommended that application for such works be made to the Adelaide City Council early to avoid delays to construction programming.

Council early to avoid delays to construction programming. Jason Bailey Team Leader CBD & Inner Metro

Jason Bailey Team Leader CBD & Inner Metro DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE

38

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Adelaide (City) Development Plan dated 24 September 2015 (as amended 31 March 2016)

CAPITAL CITY ZONE

Desired Character

This Zone is the economic and cultural focus of the State and includes a range of employment, community, educational, tourism and entertainment facilities. It is anticipated that an increased population within the Zone will complement the range of opportunities and experiences provided in the City and increase its vibrancy.

The Zone will be active during the day, evening and late night. Licensed entertainment premises, nightclubs and bars are encouraged throughout the Zone, particularly where they are located above or below ground floor level to maintain street level activation during the day and evening.

High-scale development is envisaged in the Zone with high street walls that frame the streets. However an interesting pedestrian environment and human scale will be created at ground floor levels through careful building articulation and fenestration, frequent openings in building façades, verandahs, balconies, awnings and other features that provide weather protection.

In important pedestrian areas, buildings will be set back at higher levels above the street wall to provide views to the sky and create a comfortable pedestrian environment. In narrow streets and driveways the street setback above the street wall may be relatively shallow or non-existent to create intimate spaces through a greater sense of enclosure. In the Central Business Policy Areas, upper level setbacks are not envisaged.

Non-residential land uses at ground floor level that generate high levels of pedestrian activity such as shops, cafés and restaurants will occur throughout the Zone. Within the Central Business Policy Area, residential land uses at ground level are discouraged. At ground level, development will continue to provide visual interest after hours by being well lit and having no external shutters.

There will also be a rich display of art that is accessible to the public and contextually relevant.

Exemplary and outstanding building design is desired in recognition of the location as South Australia’s capital. Contemporary juxtapositions will provide new settings for heritage places. Innovative forms are expected in areas of identified street character, referencing the past, but with emphasis on modern design-based responses that support optimal site development.

Adelaide’s pattern of streets and squares

The distinctive grid pattern of Adelaide will be reinforced through the creation of a series of attractive boulevards as shown on Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2. These boulevards will provide a clear sense of arrival into the City and be characterised by buildings that are aligned to the street pattern, particularly at ground level.

Views to important civic landmarks, the Park Lands and the Adelaide Hills will be retained as an important part of the City’s charm and character.

The City’s boulevards, terraces and Squares will be developed as follows:

(a) North Terrace will be reinforced as an important pedestrian promenade and cultural

boulevard that provides an important northern edge to the City square mile.

(b) King William Street will be enhanced as the City’s principal north-south boulevard and

will be reinforced as the City’s commercial spine.

(c) Grote Street-Wakefield Street will be enhanced as the City’s principal east-west

boulevard and will be developed to provide a strong frame that presents a sense of

enclosure to the street.

(d) East Terrace will be characterised by buildings that maximise views through to the

Park Lands and provide a distinct City edge.

(e) West Terrace will be reinforced as the western ‘gateway’ to the City centre and will

form an imposing frontage to the western City edge. Buildings will be constructed to the front and side boundaries, and designed to maximise views through to the Park Lands. Corner sites at the junctions of West Terrace and the major east-west streets will be developed as strongly defined visual gateways to the City. This will provide an imposing frontage to the western edge of the City, which comprises a mixture of commercial, showroom and residential development.

(f) Pulteney and Morphett streets are key north-south boulevards. A sense of activation and enclosure of these streets will be enhanced through mixed use development with a strong built form edge. Pulteney Street will include residential, office and institutional uses, and retail activities. These boulevards will become important tree-lined commercial corridors.

(g) Currie, Grenfell, Franklin and Flinders streets, as wider east-west boulevards provide

important entry points to the City. Currie and Grenfell streets will become a key focus for

pedestrians, cycling and public transport. These streets also provide long views to the hills

as

their closing vistas and these view corridors should remain uncluttered.

(h)

Victoria, Hindmarsh and Light Squares will have a continuous edge of medium to high-

scale development that frames the Squares and increases ground level activity.

The Zone also includes a number of Main Street areas, encompassing Rundle Mall, Rundle Street, Hindley Street and Gouger Street, which are envisaged to have a wide range of retail, commercial and community uses that generate high levels of activity. These areas will have an intimately scaled built form with narrow and frequent building frontages. These areas are shown on Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2.

Minor streets and driveways will have a sense of enclosure (a tall street wall compared to street width) and an intimate, welcoming and comfortable pedestrian environment with buildings sited and composed in a way that responds to the buildings’ context. There will

be a strong emphasis on ground level activation through frequent window openings, land

uses that spill out onto the footpath, and control of wind impacts.

Development in minor streets and driveways with a high value character will respond to important character elements and provide a comfortable pedestrian environment, particularly in the following streets: Gray, Leigh, Union, Chesser, Coromandel, Tucker, Cardwell, Kenton, Market, Ruthven, Cannon, Tatham, Benthem streets, Murrays Lane and Wright Court.

A comprehensive, safe and convenient movement network throughout the City will

develop, focusing on the provision of linkages on both public and private land between important destinations and public transport. A high quality system of bicycle or shared

pedestrian and bicycle routes will be established within the Zone.

OBJECTIVES

General

Objective 1: The principal focus for the economic, social and political life of metropolitan Adelaide and the State.

Objective 2: A vibrant mix of commercial, retail, professional services, hospitality, entertainment, educational facilities, and medium and high density living.

Objective 3: Design and management of City living to ensure the compatibility of residential amenity with the essential commercial and leisure functions of the Zone.

Objective 4: City streets that provide a comfortable pedestrian environment.

Objective 5: Innovative design approaches and contemporary architecture that respond to a building’s context.

Objective 6: Buildings that reinforce the gridded layout of Adelaide’s streets and respond to the underlying built-form framework of the City.

Objective 7: Large sites developed to their full potential while ensuring a cohesive scale of development and responding to a building’s context.

Objective 8: Development that contributes to the Desired Character of the Zone.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Land Use

1 The following types of development, or combinations thereof, are envisaged:

Affordable housing Aged persons accommodation Community centre Consulting room Convention centre Dwelling Educational establishment Emergency services facility Hospital Hotel Indoor recreation centre Licensed entertainment premises Library Motel Office Pre-school Personal service establishment Place of worship Serviced apartment Restaurant Residential flat building Student accommodation Shop or group of shops Tourist accommodation

2

Land uses that are typically closed during the day should be designed to maximise daytime and evening activation at street level and be compatible with surrounding land uses, in particular residential development.

3 Low impact industries should be located outside the Central Business Policy Area and have minimal off-site impacts with respect to noise, air, water and waste emissions, traffic generation and movement.

4 Development listed as non-complying is generally inappropriate.

Form and Character

5 Development should be consistent with the Desired Character for the Zone.

Design and Appearance

6 Development should be of a high standard of architectural design and finish which is appropriate to the City’s role and image as the capital of the State.

7 Buildings should present an attractive pedestrian-oriented frontage that adds interest and vitality to City streets and driveways.

8 The finished ground floor level of buildings should be at grade and/or level with the footpath to provide direct pedestrian access and street level activation.

9 Providing footpath widths and street tree growth permit, development should contribute to the comfort of pedestrians through the incorporation of verandahs, balconies, awnings and/or canopies that provide pedestrian shelter.

10 Buildings should be positioned regularly on the site and built to the street frontage, except where a setback is required to accommodate outdoor dining or provide a contextual response to a heritage place.

11 Other than in the Central Business Policy Area, buildings should be designed to include a podium/street wall height and upper level setback (in the order of 3-6 metres) that:

(a) relates to the width of the street and achieves a suitable level of

enclosure to the public realm;

(b)

provides a human scale at street level;

(c)

creates a well-defined and continuity of frontage;

(d)

gives emphasis and definition to street corners to clearly define the

street grid;

(e) contributes to the interest, vitality and security of the pedestrian

environment;

(f) maintains a sense of openness to the sky for pedestrians and brings daylight to the street; and

(g) achieves pedestrian comfort by minimising micro climatic impacts

(particularly wind tunnelling and downward drafts).

12 Buildings north of Rundle Mall, Rundle Street, Hindley Street and Gouger Street should have a built form that incorporates slender tower elements, spaces between buildings or other design techniques that enable sunlight access to the southern footpath.

14

Building façades should be strongly modelled, incorporate a vertical composition which reflects the proportions of existing frontages, and ensure that architectural detailing is consistent around corners and along minor streets and driveways.

Building Height

19 Development should generally be compatible with the overall desired city form and not exceed the maximum building height shown in Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2; unless it meets one or more of the following:

(a)

the proposed building is located in one of the following areas:

(i) fronting North Terrace, West Terrace or East Terrace and/or at the junction of two City boulevards shown in Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2; (ii) on an allotment with frontage to Light Square; (iii) within 200 metres of a high concentration public transport route identified on Map Adel/1 (Overlay 4);

(b)

the site area is greater than 1500 square metres and has side or rear

vehicle access;

(c) the development provides an orderly transition up to an existing taller

building or prescribed maximum building height in an adjoining Zone or Policy Area;

20 Development should have optimal height and floor space yields to take advantage of the premium City location and should have a building height no less than half the maximum shown on Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2, or 28 metres in the Central Business Policy Area, except where one or more of the following applies:

(a) a lower building height is necessary to achieve compliance with the

Commonwealth Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations;

Movement

23

Pedestrian movement should be based on a network of pedestrian malls, arcades and lanes, linking the surrounding Zones and giving a variety of north-south and east west links.

26

Car parking should be provided in accordance with Table Adel/7.

29

Vehicle parking spaces and multi-level vehicle parking structures within buildings should:

(a) enhance active street frontages by providing land uses such as

commercial, retail or other non-car park uses along ground floor street

frontages;

(b) complement the surrounding built form in terms of height, massing

and scale; and

(c) incorporate façade treatments along major street frontages that are

sufficiently enclosed and detailed to complement neighbouring buildings consistent with the Desired Character of the locality.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Public Notification

37 Categories of public notification are prescribed in Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008. In addition, the following forms of development, or any combination of (except where the development is non-complying), are assigned:

(a) Category 1, public notification not required: