Sensational-Adelaide.com

The court case won’t stall this? They could clear it and it be left empty until the case is finished, correct?

Don't know the details of the case but given that Samaras is clearly throwing anything he can at the wall in the hope something will stick I would be very surprised if there was an order to halt development while they are resolved.

Samaras should just grow a thick skin and move on. He is being pathetic.

timtam20292 wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:18 pm

Samaras should just grow a thick skin and move on. He is being pathetic.

Probably privately talking to buyers telling them that the tower next door won't go ahead and they can feel totally safe buying apartments for the great northern views.

Surely Samaras knows that this is a lost battle. The building is in compliance with the development plan. Planning law has been adhered to. You cant dispute that just because you don't like the law or the development plan.

I think he is just hoping to stall it long enough so his apartments have settled. I think that’s highly unlikely for him.

Let’s be real - a good deal of investors have dropped the better half of $1m on apartments with northern views. The nature of CBD development means that this was never guaranteed.

But I wouldn’t begrudge a developer from throwing everything he can towards protecting both his and other people’s investments. I mean, how would you feel if you put up the cash and had the developer wash their hands clean when construction had barely broken ground?

timtam20292 wrote:Samaras should just grow a thick skin and move on. He is being pathetic.

Insightful and pragmatic

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I believe as this is a Supreme Court Appeal, rather than an injunction (which Samaras couldn't file) there is nothing stopping this student tower from proceeding. Should somehow the court rule in favour of Samaras (which would be stunning if they did) only then can an injunction be filed, and the development halted.

Well no new evidence can be introduced, the appeal can only consider the evidence already tendered and whether or not the presiding judge/magistrate had made an error at law. As it has already, I believe been reviewed by a single judge in the ERD it is going to be very remote to have the supreme court decide otherwise.

Demolition progress from today:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Developer: I'm not making enough money from this development

Architect: lets throw in some more levels (no additional height though, just reduce what we have) and remove the windows and replace with concrete. Wallah

S10/40/2017/A
05/12/2018
266-269 North Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000
Vary previous authorisation demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a 34 storey mixed-use building comprising student accommodation, associated student services/amenity spaces and ground floor commercial land uses - VARIATION - Additional two (2) storeys (ground plus 35), reduction in floor to floor heights, deletion of basement, reduction in size of café tenancy, reconfiguration of communal areas, reconfiguration of apartment typology's across Level 24 - 26, change in materiality (glass panels replaced with precast concrete panels of similar colour) and reduction in height and change of materiality within the crown. No overall increase in building height.

FFS, hopefully they check out the details carefully before approving the changes.

I hope such changes are rejected and consigned to the rubbish where they belong.

Developers are treating all of us like idiots. They have projects approved only to dumb them down later.

If developers wish to make such drastic changes to their buildings, the law should be changed forcing them to start the planning process from scratch. This is unacceptable.

I'm laughing at the idea of concrete precast panels that are a "similar colour" to the originally proposed glass.