[CAN] 171-207 Gouger Street | 59m | 19lvls | Mixed Use

[[Shuz]]

Thank God for the State Government DAC. Common sense oft prevails in their boardroom.

[Reb-L]

How about rebranding the ACC as the Village Council?

[rhino]

That would just make it acceptable for them to act like the Village Idiots.

[Ben]

How many CBD's in the world stop building high rise buildings because it causes shadows on the single and double story houses on the block next door? What next? it's not 1836 anymore! Lucky we have got rid of farm paddocks from the CBD... oh wait.

[crawf]

Ah the Adelaide City Council

[claybro]

Had to laugh at the line quoted "other Claxton Street properties already over shadowd by fences trees or themselves" Are these idiots serious? And I still maintain that taller thinner structures would solve any overshadowing issue. Even taller structures??? Well that would teach them a valuable lesson to be careful what you wish for.

[rev]

And then the ACC wants to regain approval powers back from the Government...
With nonsense like this, it's easy for even the most disinterested individual to understand why the government took over planning approval responsibilities of developments over $10million from the council.
Next step should be to either completely strip them of planning powers, or go further down and anything over $1million goes to the Government panel..

[Reb-L]

I just wonder why the ACC (in their DAP clothing) needs to waste their time on matters that they - fortunately - do not decide (i.e. 10m+ developments). Yes, I have heard the argument that they provide valuable input for the final decision but it appears to me that their views are not taken that seriously by the DAC (state govt) anyway. I guess feeling irrelevant is not a happy feeling but that is what happens when you are out of touch.

[SRW]

Just a point of fact, the article did say that the recommendation came from the Council's expert planners, not from any Councillors. Just something to bear in mind before you start going for the jugular...

[Reb-L]

Just a point of fact, the article did say that the recommendation came from the Council's expert planners, not from any Councillors. Just something to bear in mind before you start going for the jugular...

Info about who the "Council's expert planners" are is freely available on its own website. Make up your own opinion.

[bva]

Interesting that the planner is effectively seeking refusal for a scheme where even compliance with the 22m height threshold will not asisst overshadowing for most properties
http://ncapps.adelaidecitycouncil.com/a ... _03DAP.pdf
Read page 595

[claybro]

Reading the relevant page and sighting the photo would indicate that the biggest shading problem is the BLOODY GREAT TREES in the back yards. Most of these properties are so tightly packed in and under a large tree canopy, I would be surprised if any sun penetrates at any time. From these figures for the 21st of JUNE each year, this day is obviously the point at which the sun is lowest in the Northern Sky and therefore realistically for 11 months of the year the over shadowing should not be an issue anyway. A pretty good outcome for a strret in a major CBD i would have thought.

[skyliner]

With Aria just down the road (same side) Gouger St will look VERY different in the future. Finally developing that end of the city!

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[degruch]

Why is it that the rules are set, yet developers continue to submit unrealistic plans that are not going to meet council approval? If the hotel is too high the plans need to be amended, very simple. The DAP seems to have a lot to answer for in it's recent meddling with our city...unfortunately, we're not likely to ever see answers as they believe they're untouchable.

[Will]

Why is it that the rules are set, yet developers continue to submit unrealistic plans that are not going to meet council approval? If the hotel is too high the plans need to be amended, very simple. The DAP seems to have a lot to answer for in it's recent meddling with our city...unfortunately, we're not likely to ever see answers as they believe they're untouchable.

The developers behind this proposal are not breaking any rules.

With catalyst sites such as this, there are no prescribed height restrictions.