Sensational-Adelaide.com

gnrc_louis wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:36 pm

This got rejected. Another win for the NIMBY morons.

SCAP slammed it: https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... eeting.pdf

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:22 pm

Great idea, great location right near the edge of the city, nice use of the old hotel.

Watch the Walkerville Council blow this to pieces.

I knew SOMEBODY would bugger this up, at least...

The SCAP have had a few shockers of late.

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:51 pm

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:22 pm

Great idea, great location right near the edge of the city, nice use of the old hotel.

Watch the Walkerville Council blow this to pieces.

I knew SOMEBODY would bugger this up, at least...

Just about the only thing they did not have an issue with was the overall height/number of levels!

It seems to me that a lot of the concerns could have been addressed by architects and designers having a coffee with the SCAP members/advisors to understand what would be accepted. Are they allowed to regard this meeting as a trial run, address the feedback and resubmit in a few months?

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 08, 2024 4:49 pm

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:51 pm

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:22 pm

Great idea, great location right near the edge of the city, nice use of the old hotel.

Watch the Walkerville Council blow this to pieces.

I knew SOMEBODY would bugger this up, at least...

Just about the only thing they did not have an issue with was the overall height/number of levels!

It seems to me that a lot of the concerns could have been addressed by architects and designers having a coffee with the SCAP members/advisors to understand what would be accepted. Are they allowed to regard this meeting as a trial run, address the feedback and resubmit in a few months?

They could re-apply with a revised design that satisfies what SCAP deemed to not satisfy.

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 08, 2024 4:49 pm

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:51 pm

dsriggs wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:22 pm

Great idea, great location right near the edge of the city, nice use of the old hotel.

Watch the Walkerville Council blow this to pieces.

I knew SOMEBODY would bugger this up, at least...

Just about the only thing they did not have an issue with was the overall height/number of levels!

It seems to me that a lot of the concerns could have been addressed by architects and designers having a coffee with the SCAP members/advisors to understand what would be accepted. Are they allowed to regard this meeting as a trial run, address the feedback and resubmit in a few months?

That would most certainly be a conflict of interest, unethical and breach the Accredited Professional code of conduct.

The application has been refused.

There are two pathways to take:
1. Appeal the decision to the Environment, Resources and Development Court.
2. Submit a new application.

With pathway 1, it is quite often that either a 'pending track' or 'conference track' will take place, in which a 'compromise' proposal will be submitted to the SCAP.
These are confidential, and we will not know the outcome until the Court makes consent orders.
If the court sees there is no prospect of resolution, a directions hearing will take place and will follow the 'hearings track'.

nimby morons.

I actually agree with the refusal. Scale, setbacks and design aesthetic are actually all quite poor. Not all development is good development. Back to the drawing board from me.

Dvious wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:51 pm

I actually agree with the refusal. Scale, setbacks and design aesthetic are actually all quite poor. Not all development is good development. Back to the drawing board from me.

I am the same. I would be happy if this was 30+ storeys, but the ground level activation and scale was minimal at best.