[APP] Peregrine HQ | 38m | 8 levels | Kensington

[how good is he]

Also saw advertised (Romaldi) builders calling for quotes for the main pit building & hotel for Motorsport Park.

[how good is he]

Any idea where they will move to while this gets built? They have buildings/offices on KW St and North Tce (which I think also has DAC as tenants).

[muzzamo]

And wow - the scale of it - shows how cigarettes and petrol are immune to the economy so no worries there for them!

The national operators - woolies and coles - are unable to compete. If coles and woolies used the same "creative" contacts to get developments off the ground, and applied the same "creative" use of traineeships, they would be put under a national and shareholder spotlight that could cause them immense damage.

This is what makes me wonder if peregrine could truly go national. While I would love to see a South Australian based national champion, could they cope with their methods being put under a national spotlight? Or if they changed their methods, could they still vastly outcompete their competitors?

[Will]

There was an article in the Advertiser today regarding this development, stating it will rise to 38m.

[[Shuz]]

Does anyone know how tall the spire is of the church across the road? Just for comparison's sake?

Also - Peregrine wouldn't last a day nationally. 7/11 are copping a tremendous amount of flak on the East Coast for their similar business practices and I think Caltex has just been caught out too. Are they not ASX listed?

[how good is he]

Peregrine is ranked as SAs biggest privately (family) owned SA company - so not ASX listed. The family name - Shahin translates into Peregrine (Falcon) in English. It is also their logo. Some of their mansions (inc previous ones - Ocean Boulevard, Seacliff Pk) have the Peregrine Falcons on the front gates... From Wiki - Shahin referring specifically to Falco pelegrinoides utilized for Falconry.

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

‘Your $50m tower will ruin an iconic Adelaide view’

Dan Jervis-Bardy, James Gratton, Eastern Courier Messenger
November 2, 2016 5:31pm



An artist’s impression of Peregrine Corporation’s proposed new head office in Kensington. Source: State Government



THE community is uniting to oppose a seven-storey office tower planned for a prominent Kensington intersection, saying it will destroy the character of the area.

Nowood, Payneham & St Peters Council and the Norwood and Kensington residents associations have written to Planning Minsiter John Rau to oppose Peregrine Corporation’s plans for its new head office on the southeastern corner of The Parade and Portrush Rd.

In a letter to Mr Rau, Kensington Residents’ Association president Stewart Caldwell said one family on Bowen St – immediately behind the proposed development – had already sold their house and another family, who was renting in the area, was preparing to leave.

Mr Caldwell told the East Torrens Messenger his group was concerned the 38m-tall building – the equivalent of an average nine-storey structure – would dominate the area.


“We are just worried that this development is so out of context and really inappropriate for its location,” said Mr Caldwell, referring to the landmark Clayton Wesley Uniting Church on the northeastern corner of the intersection and the former Norwood Wesleyan Methodist Church opposite.

“Looking up The Parade towards that church is one of Adelaide’s iconic views and this large building competing with it is not appropriate for the area.”

NP&SP Council last week held a special meeting to discuss the proposal, which Mr Rau will assess directly after he determined the $50 million development was of “economic significance to the state”.


In front of a packed – and at times vocal – public gallery, Mayor Robert Bria also expressed concern as to the impact of the development.

“One could see a similar type of development, not this scale, perhaps in the heart of Norwood, but of all places Kensington?” Mr Bria told the meeting.

“I just think it is really a dagger to the heart of the community who live there and for that locality.”

Cr Sophia MacRae said Peregrine Corporation – the parent company of the On The Run service station chain, owned by the Shahin family – had ignored the council’s feedback on the proposal.

“The applicant, despite having years of information and consultation with our staff about what would be a workable development, has chosen to completely bystep that process,” Cr MacRae said.


“They have not done this lightly and have deliberately chosen to go beyond what is acceptable to our community.

“We will have to live with this for the next 100 years.”

Peregrine Corporation did not respond to questions from the East Torrens Messenger, including if it would compromise on the proposed height of the building.

Mr Rau said it was “inappropriate to comment” at this time.

The family who sold their Bowen St property also declined to comment.

Work on the redevelopment was expected to start later this year and be completed in 2018, subject to Mr Rau’s approval.

Consultation on the plans closed last week

[Patrick_27]

From the Advertiser:

‘Your $50m tower will ruin an iconic Adelaide view’

Dan Jervis-Bardy, James Gratton, Eastern Courier Messenger
November 2, 2016 5:31pm



An artist’s impression of Peregrine Corporation’s proposed new head office in Kensington. Source: State Government



THE community is uniting to oppose a seven-storey office tower planned for a prominent Kensington intersection, saying it will destroy the character of the area.

Nowood, Payneham & St Peters Council and the Norwood and Kensington residents associations have written to Planning Minsiter John Rau to oppose Peregrine Corporation’s plans for its new head office on the southeastern corner of The Parade and Portrush Rd.

In a letter to Mr Rau, Kensington Residents’ Association president Stewart Caldwell said one family on Bowen St – immediately behind the proposed development – had already sold their house and another family, who was renting in the area, was preparing to leave.

Mr Caldwell told the East Torrens Messenger his group was concerned the 38m-tall building – the equivalent of an average nine-storey structure – would dominate the area.


“We are just worried that this development is so out of context and really inappropriate for its location,” said Mr Caldwell, referring to the landmark Clayton Wesley Uniting Church on the northeastern corner of the intersection and the former Norwood Wesleyan Methodist Church opposite.

“Looking up The Parade towards that church is one of Adelaide’s iconic views and this large building competing with it is not appropriate for the area.”

NP&SP Council last week held a special meeting to discuss the proposal, which Mr Rau will assess directly after he determined the $50 million development was of “economic significance to the state”.


In front of a packed – and at times vocal – public gallery, Mayor Robert Bria also expressed concern as to the impact of the development.

“One could see a similar type of development, not this scale, perhaps in the heart of Norwood, but of all places Kensington?” Mr Bria told the meeting.

“I just think it is really a dagger to the heart of the community who live there and for that locality.”

Cr Sophia MacRae said Peregrine Corporation – the parent company of the On The Run service station chain, owned by the Shahin family – had ignored the council’s feedback on the proposal.

“The applicant, despite having years of information and consultation with our staff about what would be a workable development, has chosen to completely bystep that process,” Cr MacRae said.


“They have not done this lightly and have deliberately chosen to go beyond what is acceptable to our community.

“We will have to live with this for the next 100 years.”

Peregrine Corporation did not respond to questions from the East Torrens Messenger, including if it would compromise on the proposed height of the building.

Mr Rau said it was “inappropriate to comment” at this time.

The family who sold their Bowen St property also declined to comment.

Work on the redevelopment was expected to start later this year and be completed in 2018, subject to Mr Rau’s approval.

Consultation on the plans closed last week

Not that I expect anything to come from writing to Rau, but I agree with the community's stance. It's completely out of character for the area. If Peregrine want to build something of this scale, do so in the city, it's not as if they're short of $ or alternative properties.

[thecityguy]

Quite like the design, I hope this goes ahead, people wouldn't bat and eye in Melbourne or Sydney over this. Exactly what we need in our city rim suburbs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brucetiki]

Ah nothing like a good NIBMY strongly worded letter for a good laugh.

[serca]

How exactly is this proposal going to ruin an iconic view? It is on the opposite side of the intersection to the church. I'd understand the NIMBY's if this another 20m+ higher than it is but a 7 levels with such a sleek design, suck it up princess.

The existing Peregrine site looks dated and is an eyesore. The area needs this if anything.

[Patrick_27]

How exactly is this proposal going to ruin an iconic view? It is on the opposite side of the intersection to the church. I'd understand the NIMBY's if this another 20m+ higher than it is but a 7 levels with such a sleek design, suck it up princess.

The existing Peregrine site looks dated and is an eyesore. The area needs this if anything.

Pretty simple reason as to why people are opposed to this, have you ever lived in a house that see's absolutely no direct sunlight? The houses located in the side street off Portrush Road behind this building will be subject to this, if it goes ahead. NIMBY is such a pathetic term to call someone for rightfully opposing something that doesn't sit well with the area. If this were in the city, of-course people of your view would have a leg to stand on, but seven levels in an otherwise flat suburb is ridiculous. It's bad enough that the section of The Parade across Portrush Road is going to become amass with this kind of stuff, Kensington shouldn't.

[serca]

Your saying the houses in the backstreets will see absolutely no direct sunlight? Hows that possible ? They will have direct sunlight for 90% of the day. This sits to the west of them and at monstrous maybe 25 -30m max?, situated across a road will cast a shadow on possible a few houses for the last hour or so of sunlight thats about it.

In my opinion a building of this size especially with a sleek design like this is welcomed on a main intersection on the city fringes. I only had a dig at the "NIMYB's" because of their opinion this will ruin an "iconic" view. Now thats pathetic

[victorious80]

I must confess, I am one of the NIMBYs concerned about this one. I am extremely keen for medium density in the area, and am happy for this proposal to eventually proceed, but I do believe the design can be refined to make it fit with its immediate surroundings a little more appropriately. My main concerns that I forwarded to DAC were:

1. Whilst it is listed as 7 levels, with plant room and architectural screens, the building is actually around 40m high, which for comparison is taller than the spire of both churches at the intersection, taller than the water tower, and much taller than the Bath Apartments which will be across the road. The height itself is not a direct concern, it is more that the building is bulky all the way to the top, rather than tapering up towards the top. If it tapered back in the upper levels, it would seem significantly less imposing over Portrush Rd and the Parade.
2. At risk of sounding older and less progressive than I think I am; as the design stands, it significantly detracts from the beauty and prominence of the adjacent heritage buildings. Slightly reduced height and increasing the setbacks would assist in making the new building complement rather than dominate these buildings.
3. On a site of limited area, I questioned the necessity of a 50m lap pool (cantilevered towards the Parade), and questioned whether the pool size can be decreased (and the surrounding deck area), providing more efficient use of building space. This could translate into a global decrease in building size (particularly on the upper levels where building bulk has more of a visual impact).
4. The fritted glass façades rake out over Portrush Rd and the Parade, visually imposing onto the roads. Suggested raking angles away from intersection or increasing setback of facade to minimise visual impact.
5. Significant overshadowing on neighbouring properties on both Bowen St and Phillips St (as per their shadowing diagrams). Certainly a drop in height and lateral bulk would improve this.
6. The overlooking analysis was brief and inconclusive. It suggested overlooking into Bowen St and Phillips St could be an issue. Particularly for residents on western side of Phillips St whose backyards will be on show to those in the new development.
7. Their acoustic report assumed that loading activity will be limited to between 7am and 10pm and that engines and refrigeration units will be turned off whilst deliveries are happening. I believe both of these are invalid, as we live near the BP on the Parade and they deliver at all times of the night and keep engines and refrigeration units on. Whilst we are far enough away from this development for it not to impact us directly, it certainly would have an impact on residents closer to it, considering the rest of the area is quiet, residential streets.

Hopefully in sharing these concerns I will not be situating myself clearly in the anti-progressive, parklands loving group, to be forever shunned by fellow forum members. Rather, I hope it gives insight into the types of issues that concerned residents may have with new developments. Realistically, I doubt any of our concerns will be addressed, but I will remain optimistic that at least some refinement to the design may be possible.

[serca]

Mate your completely entitled to your opinion and it speaks louder than mine as you live in the near vicinity.

I am certainly not just for any development at any cost. For example like many others I'd hate to see the redbrick structures along Frome rd old RAH site be demolished.

This will how ever been a vast improvement on what is already there. If done right a new sleek modern building could actually work well or be a good balance between it and the heritage listed structures adjoining.