All recent comments on applications from South Australia Planning Portal, SA

To Whom It May Concern,

In relation to the proposed development of seven (7) two-storey townhouses on the allotment located at 1 Hagen Street, Robe, we respectfully request that a detailed car parking plan be submitted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning and Design Code under PlanSA.

Pursuant to applicable planning standards, each dwelling is required to be provided with a minimum of two (2) on-site car parking spaces. Accordingly, please supply:

A site-specific parking plan demonstrating compliance with the minimum parking requirement for each of the proposed dwellings; and

An overflow parking strategy to accommodate visitors and overnight guests, ensuring that visitor parking does not place additional pressure on existing on-street parking.

We also bring to your attention the following contextual considerations that must be factored into the car parking assessment:

The adjoining Frome Street is host to two State Heritage-listed properties, namely the Robe Police Stables and Robe House.

These sites attract regular and significant tourist visitation, resulting in frequent on-street parking along both sides of Frome Street in the vicinity of the heritage buildings.

At peak times, this equates to approximately 10–12 vehicles parked along the street frontages of the Robe House and Police Stables. These vehicle numbers exclude contractors servicing the Robe House Accomodation and excludes contractors working at the Police Stables

In light of the above, the proposed development must take into account the existing parking demand generated by local heritage tourism and nearby residential properties, specifically at 2, 4, and 6 Frome Street.

We therefore request that:

The development application includes a comprehensive on-street parking impact assessment covering the current usage patterns and capacity of Frome Street (particularly the section between Hagen Street and Cooper Street); and

The plan clearly demonstrates how the proposed development will not compromise the availability of parking for existing residents and will mitigate risks of congestion.

Local residents have expressed concerns that insufficient parking associated with the proposed townhouses could adversely affect residential amenity and exacerbate traffic congestion along Frome Street. These concerns must be considered as part of a balanced planning assessment.

We look forward to your detailed response and updated plans addressing the above matters.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Hughes
6 Frome St
0432288377
12/04/2024

I see that this project is now underway. I spoke to the demo guys and the building has a under ground carpark also, so will be lots of dust and noise he said. He said the build will be done in mid 2026. We have friends in Netherby St and tried to get there last week, couldnt get down Glenburnie St because of truck.

will North Adelaide now become another high rise area just like adelaide city, what happened to the planning for no high rise

The applicant will undoubtedly receive permission to remove the tree: I would oppose that, but also recognise council greed that will permit it to be removed. However, I believe the applicant should be required to find another spot along their section of footpath to "install" another mature tree. We cannot just keep chopping trees down without considering the broader impacts that stem from destroying the tree's ecosystem, and its shade and cooling value. Sure, the tree isn't that big and it's all about corporate greed, but we have to stop chopping down our trees and finding another way. I remember 10 years or so back when there used to be a beautiful fragrant native frangipani - metres tall - very close to that intersection. It got the chop for unknown reasons, and was never replaced. Don't let the same happen to this tree.

This proposed dwelling is located in the Hills Neighbourhood Zone in Encounter Bay. As per Plan SA, the maximum building height in this zone is 2 building levels up to a maximum height of 9 metres. The proposed dwelling exceeds both criteria. Current plans up for approval say this dwelling is 3 building levels and height 10.26 metres. Why has this application even got to this stage of planning? Thank you.

Beware of this building application, they don't build what you are told is planned to be built.
There is a childcare centre at around 492 Milne Rd, Redwood Park. The area was residential so that had to be changed before this monstrosity could go to council planning for the building approval.
The Milne rd building that was approved after community consultation was built but not to the images and statements that were on the consultation plans. The only resemblance to what we were told was the size. The consultation plans showed a large building with a brick fence at the front was brick with a smallish amount of Weatherboard cladding at the front and front side. The brick work was shown as darkish and the weatherboard cladding was of a colour that blended in. The building although very large in a residential area did come across as a reasonable looking building that would blend in with the surrounding area.

What was built was an enormous WHITE building, no bricks just all white including all fences that were all colour bond white. The building does NOT blend in with the area which required 3 large trees to be removed.

One other thing, the main play area is on the top level which has a angled cover over it. This cover will act similar to an amphitheatre projecting the noise across the nearby area.

Hello,
We were led to believe that it would be a 4 storey complex with normal housing and small amount of low income,which we were all ok with.But NOT a 6 storey with it being ALL housing trust AGAIN!!I also believe only a single car park per unit??This will lead to congested streets we won’t ever get a space out the front should we need one for visitors .I would like to ask the question why if I build a home it has to have garaging for cars and enough space behind the garage to accommodate more cars and because it’s council there are different rules??
I DO NOT approve this new proposal and happy to sign whatever is needed to stop this new proposal going ahead.
I live right across the road on Cromer.Also our bin contractor will have issues accessing our bins with more cars parked on that street.
Unhappy Alana

The removal of 43 regulated and significant trees is in violation of the Unley Council Tree Policy, will significantly reduce the amenity of existing and future residents of the area, and should not be approved without an undertaking that suitable mature specimen replacement trees will be planted and then maintained.
The provision of car parking is insufficient and will inevitably lead to staff and visitors parking on Fisher Street and surrounds. This has flow on effects for resident safety and amenity. Given the scale of the development, underground parking should be considered to ensure green space can be maintained, adequate parking is provided including for nursing staff, and the impact upon the community minimised.

I like this application in theory, and I hope it's a banger of a design. I also hope council commissioned a local/SA artist for this project. (A former long-term resident in the Burnside Council area, with continuing family connections.)

It is infuriating that in current times of limited resources Planning committees are still allowing the demolition of solid well built AND heritage buildings, ignoring heritage which is in place to preserve history These buildings are ripe for repurposing and integrating into a suitable 5/6 level building They are being ignored and mistreated purposely by the current owners to an end which has nothing to do with care to the local residents, the beachfront or heritage
By all means in-fill where it works ie on tram lines etc but not the sensitive beachfront

Development needs to commence on this project asap. Remnants of the dilapidated eyesore should be removed so construction can commence, which will not only complement the historic and contemporary characteristics of the beachside area, but enhance the overall aesthetic with the developers high quality architectural design.

Since this building appears to be less than 50 metres from adjoining creek what type of sewage disposal is envisaged?

Unley Council is very clear that they want to improve tree canopy and every council rates notice includes percentage of tree canopy, this proposal removes one tree and damages another? There must be a work around..

I think this would be a great as addition to Prospect!

I live on Myrtle St, and I am 100% in support of having a pub in Prospect.

Hello to Wendy Lee, the developer of the two storey dwelling at the back of 25 The Grove, Lower Mitcham. Would you please move the CCTV camera that you have had installed above the garage which looks over my 1.8m high boundary fence into my bedroom. Would you please move the camera lower down the wall so that it does not look over my fence. You will still be able to keep an eye on your property without invading my privacy. I would like to be able to sleep in my bed with the window open without you filming me. I am really worried that you will be jeopardizing my safety if you leave it there.

YiZhong Zhuang, there was full approval to remove the tree. It was a two stage application. Stage one - approval to remove tree. Stage two - development approval for the renovation. Under no circumstances was the tree removed prior to proper consent. These trees have invasive root systems and damage pipes and building structure. There is intent to plant 10 trees to replace the one removed.

I disagree with the proposed development of a childcare facility on 63, Just Road, Sellicks Beach. Childcare facilities are generally built within kilometres to a kindergarten and/or a school. This facility would be 8 km away from the closest school. There is no work security in Sellicks Beach, commute is generally 20 minutes or more. I also refer to the 2021 Sensis that indicates that there is an estimated 2700 people that live in Sellicks Beach 707 of those are not part of the labour force and only 698 work full time. Only 150 were between the ages of 0 to 4 living in Sellicks Beach at the time.
I believe a childcare facility in Sellicks Beach will not be of any convenience or benefit to most of the locals that reside here .

Hi , the netball / tennis courts need more off street parking , possibly bitumen between the existing in front of the courts , up to near the public toilets , and also 6-8 carparks cut into the footpath on Cliff Street for users of the new playground to park in . People are parking all over the lawned areas now because of the lack of off street parking . Thanks , Alan Heffernan.

There are no buildings at that cross road so why the need for a changing room .?

I have to agree with the above comments. It's difficult turning right into that street these days from Prospect Rd with the increase of cars parking there. PORT ADELAIDE ENFIELD council couldn't care less about the parking problem. They are quite happy to approve development after development but have zero thought for the issues that are created by the increase in houses and people and cars. It's all about money in their coffers. Hell they dont even fix footpaths anymore when a new house that is being built and they approved damages the existing footpath. It's up to the home-owner to fix it. Anyway they know what they are doing....apparently

As mentioned above, the Western end of Manuel Ave is becoming more and more hazardous due to parked cars. I have also written to the council asking for more parking controls here, and received a stock response. Perhaps residents of the area need to present a petition outlining our concerns?

I am pleased this caravan company is expanding and their business is doing well.
But, can the Caravan retailer please allow onsite parking for their own staff also their own customers on their own property.
Their staff continuously park on both sides of the western end of Manuel Avenue.
This has become a dangerous problem since their earlier expansion.
Too many aggressive drivers are trying to enter Manuel Avenue from Prospect Road or exit from Manuel Avenue onto Prospect Road. This narrow access is dangerous for all pedestrians and oncoming cars. Courtesy has gone out the window. The Port Adelaide Council does not care. Their opinion is even though cars are parked on both sides of the street, all day, the access is wide enough and safe enough and one hour parking signs are not needed. The council staff do not live in this street. The Caravan retailer staff do not live in this street. But residents need to dodge unsafe narrow access on a daily basis.

It’s great to see modern improvements of such a high standard that enhances this property whilst respecting the heritage.

Another case of buying a historical home in an area of heritage value, only to knock it down. Should not be allowed.

Where are visitors to the four homes going to park? Urban infill new builds rarely have room for a decent-sized garden shed. Consequently, too many residents fill up their garages with junk and park in the driveway (and use the street when it's a 3-plus car home). Given the parking restrictions already in place on the side street (which already supports visitors to the public park, and captures overflow from the Arkaba Shopping Centre, and the various medical, retail and hospitality venues at the GO/Fullarton corner), perhaps the council can confirm that it has considered parking availability - not forgetting the ever-increasing traffic flowing from the SE Freeway and new estates up beyond Belair/Blackwood, the destruction of an existing, solid family home. This really feels like a money grab for council and developers.