Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Name of Applicant
One North Terrace (Aust) Pty Ltd
Address 1 North Terrace Adelaide
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO
AGENDA REPORT 2-32
ATTACHMENTS
1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 33-72
2: APPLICATION & PLANS
a. Forms
b. Plans (GHD Woodhead)
c. Planning Report (GHD Woodhead)
d. Response to Government Architect and State Heritage Unit
e. Email outlining amended Plans
f. Legal Advice (Carrington Chambers)
g. Letter committing to Affordable Housing product
h. Heritage Impact Assessment (DASH Architects)
i. Dilapidation Report (Fyfe)
j. Aeronautical Impact Assessment (Ambidji)
k. Construction Methodology and Programme for PANS OPS
Application (ProBuild)
l. Traffic Assessment Report (Wallbridge and Gilbert)
m. Environmental Noise Assessment (Sonus)
n. Vertical Transportation Report (Lucid)
o. Sustainability Report (Lucid)
p. Wind Impact Assessment (Vipac)
q. Waste Management Plan (RAWTEC)
r. Stormwater Management Plan (Wallbridge and Gilbert)
s. Powerline Clearance Memorandum (Lucid)
t. Response to Design Review Comments (GHD Woodhead)
73-568
3: AGENCY COMMENTS
u. Government Architect
v. Adelaide Airport
w. SA Heritage
x. Renewal SA (to be tabled at the meeting)
569-585
Source: GHD Woodhead, November 2015
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
OVERVIEW
Application No 020/A081/15
Unique ID/KNET ID 2015/17647/01 (#9946535v2)
Applicant One North Terrace (Aust) Pty Ltd
Proposal Partial demolition of a State Heritage place and conversion to
a hotel; construction of a mixed use development comprising
retail, consulting rooms and residential apartments, supported
by basement carparking.
Subject Land 1 North Terrace Adelaide
Zone/Policy Area Capital City Zone
Relevant Authority Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Commission of
the Development Assessment Commission pursuant to
Schedule 10(4B) of the Development Regulations 2008:
Development that exceeds $10 m in the City of Adelaide
Council Adelaide City Council
Development Plan Adelaide City Development Plan consolidated 24 September
2015
Type of Development Merit
Public Notification Category 1
Statutory Referral
Agencies
Government Architect, Adelaide Airport Limited, Heritage SA
and Renewal SA
Report Author Concetta Parisi, Senior Planning Officer
RECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to conditions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject land is located within the Capital City Zone, and on the corner of North
Terrace and West Terrace, a significant gateway site to the city. The site currently
accommodates the Newmarket Hotel and nightclub facilities. The Newmarket Hotel as
well as the ancillary ‘outstructures’ are listed as a State Heritage place.
The applicant is seeking to construct two towers above a podium level comprising
residential apartments as well as a range of commercial uses. The highest point of the
building will measures some 80 metres in height.
The proposal will involve the demolition of State Heritage fabric being the ‘outstructures’.
However, the proposed development will also involve repair and conservation works to
return the Newmarket Hotel to its original ‘hotel’ land use.
The applicant will be providing affordable housing products within the complex.
The proposal involves some departures from apartment amenity and bicycle parking but
generally satisfies policy regarding technical matters like vehicle access, waste
management, wind conditions, crime prevention and energy efficiency.
On balance, the proposal is considered to sufficiently satisfy the intent of the zone for an
increase in residential development and activity. It has been recommended that the
proposal be granted Development Plan Consent subject to conditions and a reserved
matter requiring a final decision from DIRD.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Strategic Context
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
In March 2012, the Minister for Planning rezoned land in the City of Adelaide to increase
building heights and provide additional development opportunities that would help
enliven the city and main street precincts. As part of this initiative, policies were
introduced that provide for a more performance based planning approach and place a
stronger emphasis on the overall planning and design merit of an individual proposal. In
particular, the policies place an emphasis on design quality, interface relationships and
remove prescriptive requirements around height and setbacks.
1.2 Pre-Lodgement Process
The proponent entered the pre-lodgement process and undertook 4 Pre-lodgement Panel
meetings and 5 Design Review panel sessions. The application details progressed
positively through these sessions; however the applicant lodged the applications prior to
reaching any pre-lodgement agreements.
Key issues/outcomes from the pre lodgement process include:
heritage demolition (i.e. ‘is it appropriate to demolish heritage fabric in pursuit of
greater gains’ and ‘what is the heritage value of the outstructures’)
location and nature of easements and their impact on site organisation
setback from boundaries to facilitate some outlook for apartments
building mass and separation of the buildings into the two tower elements (whilst
building mass was reduced, height increased to that which is proposed and the
subject of this report).
The applicant has provided a summary of the issues raised throughout Design Review;
this is contained in the ATTACHMENTS.
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Application details are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.
The applicant seeks planning consent to:
construct two towers which will sit above a common podium level. The two towers
will then be linked on the upper five floors of the towers with a corridor finished in
transparent elements
partially demolish a State Heritage place (Newmarket Hotel) and renovate the
remaining building to a hotel use (bar/cafe lounge)
construct basement carparking.
A summary of the proposal is as follows:
Land Use
Description
Mixed use, comprising retail, consulting rooms, residential
apartments (400) in a mix of single, two and three bedrooms
Building Height 116.6 AHD to top of roof slab (81.1 m) and 117.6 AHD to top of
kitchen exhaust (82.1 m)
Description of levels New development:
Basement 1-3: Carparking, bicycle parking with the fire tank,
pump room, switch room located in Basement 1
Ground Floor: market place, residential apartment entries,
convenience store, waste rooms
Level 1: consulting rooms, plant and amenities
Level 2: residential apartments (studio,1-2 bedrooms),
gymnasium, plant room
Level 3: residential apartments (studio, 1-2 bedrooms),
communal space (swimming pool, BBQ)
Level 4: residential apartments (studio, 1-2 bedrooms)
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Level 5-17: residential apartments (studio, 1-2 bedrooms)
Levels 18-22: residential apartments(studio, 1-2 bedrooms)
Level 23 and Loft: residential apartments (1, 2 and 3
bedrooms)
State Heritage Place:
Ground Floor: bar, cafe lounge
Level 1: Function rooms
Level 2: Function rooms
Apartment floor
area (excluding
balconies)
Ranging in size from 32 square metres to 130 square metres
Site Access Vehicle access will be from West Terrace with exit onto North
Terrace
Visitor and resident pedestrian access will be via entries from
both West Terrace and North Terrace
Car Parking 112 carparking spaces spread over three basement levels
Bicycle Parking 200 bicycle parking spaces
Encroachments Canopy encroachment
3. SITE AND LOCALITY
3.1 Site Description
The subject site is located on the corner of North Terrace and West Terrace, Adelaide.
The site is a prime location, terminating the vistas from Port Road and marking a corner
point of the city “square mile”.
The subject site has a frontage to North Terrace of some 48 metres and a frontage to
West Terrace of some 65 metres. The total site area measures some 2,646 square
metres. There is an additional entitlement of approximately 278 square metres but this
parcel is ‘shared’ with a separate allotment.
The site is subject to multiple and a complex arrangement of easements. These relate to
providing vehicle and utility infrastructure appurtenant to abutting sites. The site is
characterised by a slope towards the east.
Lot No Section Street Suburb Hundred Title
Reference 1 D71011 North Terrace Adelaide Adelaide CT6052/235
The subject land is identified in the image below.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Figure 1 – Subject Site
Currently, the site contains the ‘Newmarket’ Hotel; the hotel and ancillary stables is
identified as a State Heritage place. The hotel is considered to act in a similar capacity to
the Botanic Hotel, both being notable ‘bookends’ to streetscapes and major townscape
features.
3.2 Locality
The locality is characterised by the following features:
North: New Royal Adelaide Hospital, SAHMRI, railway corridor
West: Parklands, associated clubrooms
South: Low scale commercial and retail premises, McDonalds (a 15 storey hotel
was approved on the allotment directly south of the subject site)
East: Commercial, medical, residential development, carpark.
Figure 2 – Location Map
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
In summary, the locality is an evolving area in terms of development, particularly with
the medical precinct north of North Terrace which is seeing a variety of architecturally
finished buildings at varying building heights.
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS
4.1 Adelaide City Council
Adelaide City Council’s administration was informally consulted on the proposal,
specifically with regard to stormwater, traffic and access, waste management, public
realm impacts and the encroachment of the proposed canopies into Council ‘airspace’.
There are no significant concerns raised in relation to the above issues; a number of
stormwater, public realm and lighting related conditions and notes have been
recommended by Council administration; it is recommended that these be imposed
should the development be supported.
5. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS
Referral responses are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.
5.1 Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, (Department
of Environment, Water and Natural Resources)
The proposed development was referred to the Minister for Sustainability, Environmental
and Conservation in accordance with section 37 of the Development Act 1993, as, in the
opinion of the relevant authority, the development directly affects a State heritage place,
in that part of the State heritage fabric will be removed.
In summary, the comments from the delegate of the Minister for Sustainability,
Environment and Conservation include:
The proposed demolition of the two-storey rear wing, the two-storey outbuilding
and the yard wall will diminish the historic integrity and heritage values of the
Newmarket Hotel.
The proposed internal and external works to the remaining three-storey section of
the hotel, and its proposed use, will benefit the heritage values and longer term
care of the place.
The lack of set-back of the northern tower from the eastern alignment of the
Newmarket Hotel is likely to be perceived as visually overbearing, both in views
from the north and in the approach along Port Road.
The design of the two podiums and their interrelationship with the Newmarket
Hotel should undergo further design development.
The height of the proposed development is inconsistent with neighbouring
development, with a consequential increase in its impact on the setting of the
Newmarket Hotel.
The façade design of the north tower is considered appropriate as a visual
backdrop to the Newmarket Hotel in the approach along Port Road.
The comments will be discussed further in the main body of the report.
5.2 Government Architect
The Associate Government Architect has advised that it is supportive of the design
approach in principle, however, has advised that the project will benefit from further
refinement; the areas for further resolution include:
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
further development of apartment layouts that optimise opportunities to provide
better amenity
further information as to the resolution of detail facade design.
The comments will be discussed in further detail in the body of the report.
5.3 Adelaide Airport Limited
The proposed development will penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) by
approximately 52.8 metres. During construction, the crane will penetrate the Procedures
for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surfaces.
Accordingly, the application was referred to Adelaide Airport Limited.
Adelaide Airport Limited has advised that as the proposal will infringe the PANS-OPS
surfaces during construction, the airport is ‘unable to support or comment on whether
the application will be approved by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development (DIRD) until the PANS-OPS infringement is assessed’.
The applicant is aware that the proposal is subject to Commonwealth Legislation. Should
approval not be granted by DIRD, the applicant will be required to lodge an application
for a varied scheme.
It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring approval from DIRD prior to
the commencement of any site works.
5.4 Renewal SA
The applicant has agreed to commit to providing the 15% affordable housing product
within the development. A Land Management Agreement for affordable housing has been
entered into by the applicant.
6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The development is deemed a Category 1 development by PDC 37(a) for the Capital City
Zone. No notification is therefore required.
7. POLICY OVERVIEW
7.1 Zone
The subject site is located within the Capital City Zone of the Adelaide (City)
Development Plan (consolidated 24 September 2015). This zone is the economic and
cultural focus of the State and includes a range of employment, community,
educational, tourism and entertainment facilities.
High scale development is envisaged in the Zone with high street walls that frame
the streets. However, an interesting pedestrian environment and human scale should
be created at ground floor levels with non residential land uses on the ground floor
that generate high levels of pedestrian activity. There is a 43 metre guideline height
limit for this location however as the site meets a number of criteria, a higher built
form is contemplated.
Exemplary and outstanding building design is desired in recognition of the location as
South Australia’s capital. Contemporary juxtapositions will provide new settings for
heritage places. Innovative forms are expected in areas of identified street
character, referencing the past, but with emphasis on modern design-based
responses that support optimal site development. A rich display of art that is
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
accessible to the public and contextually relevant is desired.
The City’s boulevards, terraces and Squares will be developed as follows:
(a) North Terrace will be reinforced as an important pedestrian promenade and cultural
boulevard that provides an important northern edge to the City square mile. (e) West Terrace will be reinforced as the western ‘gateway’ to the City centre and will
form an imposing frontage to the western City edge. Buildings will be constructed to the front and side boundaries, and designed to maximise views through the Park Lands. Corner site at the junctions of West Terrace and the major east-west streets will be developed as strongly defined visual gateways to the City. This will provide an imposing frontage to the western edge of the City, which comprises a mixture of
commercial, showroom and residential development.
The Figure below illustrates the zoning of the property.
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
7.2 Council Wide
The Council Wide provisions provide guidance relating to dwelling functionality and
amenity (through private open space, minimum apartment sizes, access to natural light
and ventilation, outlook and effective deign) and seeks a high standard of design and
appropriate bulk and scale of buildings and contribution to streetscape.
7.3 Overlays
Affordable Housing
The proposal is subject to the affordable housing overlay.
Noise and Air Emissions
This site is located within the designated area for the Noise and Air Emissions Overlay,
and as such requires assessment against Minister’s Specification SA 78B for Construction
Requirements for the Control of External Sound at building rules stage.
8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the City of Adelaide
Development Plan, which are contained in the APPENDIX.
The following elements are considered to be of the most relevance to the assessment of
the proposal against the Development Plan.
8.1 Quantitative Provisions
Development Plan
Guideline Proposed Guideline
Achieved Comment
Building Height
43 metres unless it satisfies criteria outlined in Zone PDC
19
Satisfies 4 of the criteria outlined in Zone PDC 19
YES NO PARTIAL
Refer to Item 8.3
Car Parking No requirement 112 carparks YES
NO PARTIAL
The proposal
includes basement carparking; an assessment of the
access arrangements and carpark layout is provided in Item 8.9.
Bicycle
Parking
Residential
Apartment: 1 for every dwelling with a total floor area less than 150 square metres 1 for every 10
dwellings for visitors
Office: 1 per 200 square metres and 2, plus 1 per 1000 square metres for visitors
Shop: 1 per 300 square metre plus 1 per 600 square metres of gross leasable floor area for visitors
Total Required:
450.2 bicycle parks
200 bicycle
parks within dedicated rooms, with an additional 112 parks provided for in the form of
wall-mounts on
the wall directly in front of carparking spaces
YES
NO PARTIAL
Refer to Item 8.9
Front
Setback
Podium with upper
level setback of 3-6 metres however Zone PDC 17 and 18 desire a continuous built form to frame city edge and ‘city wall’.
On boundary for
majority of proposal
YES
NO PARTIAL
Refer to Item 8.4
Other Setbacks
Council Wide PDC 67 indicates a setback of 3 metres from boundaries with adjacent sites
3 or more metres
YES NO PARTIAL
Refer to Item 8.4
Minimum
Apartment
Studio:35 m2
Studios start
from 32 m2
YES
NO
Refer to Item 8.7
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Sizes 1 bed: 50 m2
2 bed: 65 m2 3+bed: 80 m2 plus an additional 15 square metres for
additional bedroom over 3 bedrooms
1 bedroom apartments start from 43 m2 2 bedroom apartments start
from 56 m2 3 bedroom apartments start from 90 m2
PARTIAL
Private Open Space
Studio: no min requirement 1 bed: 8 square
metres 2 bed: 11 square metres
3+bed: 15 square metres
Studios: start from 8 square metres
1 bed: start from 4 square metres 2 bed: 8 square
metres 3 bed: 10 square metres
YES NO PARTIAL
Dispensation offered where apartments have
access to common open space area. Gymnasium: 78
square metres Swimming Pool and Roof Terrace Area: 600 square metres approx.
Storage
(Apartment)
Studio:6 cubic
metres 1 bed: 8 cubic metres 2 bed: 10 cubic metres 3+bed: 12 cubic
metres
(50% of the storage space should be provided within the unit with the remainder in the basement/communal
areas)
Studio: start
from 4 cubic metres 1 bed: start from 5 cubic metres 2 bed: 7.85 cubic metres
3+bed: 10.8
cubic metres The above figures is provided within the unit. A total of 290.25
cubic metres is available outside of the apartments.
YES
NO PARTIAL
Refer to Item 8.7
8.2 Land Use and Character
The Capital City Zone seeks non residential land uses, such as shops, cafes and
restaurants, at ground floor level to generate high levels of pedestrian activity and
interest. The proposal provides for activated (convenience store, ‘market’ stores) land
uses along the North Terrace and West Terrace ground floor frontages as sought by the
Capital City Zone. The residential apartments at upper levels, which are a mix of studio
and three bedroom apartments, with some three bedroom apartments designed in a
‘loft’ arrangement, are also consistent with the desired land uses of the Zone.
The proposed land use is an acceptable and appropriate form of development within the
zone.
8.3 Height
The subject site is located within a section of the city which is subject to a 43 metre
height limit. However, Principle of Development Control 19 of the Capital City Zone
states:
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
19: Development should generally be compatible with the overall desired city form and not exceed the maximum building height shown in Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2; unless it
meets one or more of the following: (a) The proposed building is located in one of the following areas: (i) Fronting North Terrace, West Terrace or East Terrace and/or the junction of two City boulevards shown in Concept Plan Figures CC/1 and 2; (ii) On an allotment with frontage to Light Square
(iii) Within 200 metres of a high concentration public transport route identified on Map Adel/1 (Overlay 4); (b) The site area is greater than 1500 square metres and has side or rear vehicle access; (c) The development provides an orderly transition up to an existing taller building or
prescribed maximum building height in an adjoining zone or policy area; (d) The proposal incorporates the retention and conservation of a character building.
The proposed development satisfies (a) (i) and (iii), and (b) above and therefore
exceeding the height limit is contemplated.
The question then is, what is an acceptable height?
There are two primary areas of consideration in order to respond to this question:
(1) airport building heights; and,
(2) the proposal’s response to context.
Firstly, the Obstacle Limitation Surface and PANS OPS levels provide an understanding of
maximum building height limits.
Principle of Development Control 171 states:
171 Buildings and structures should not adversely affect by way of their height and
location the long-term operational, safety and commercial requirements of Adelaide International Airport. Buildings and structures which exceed the heights shown in Map Adel/1 (Overlay 5) and which penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) should be designed, marked or lit to ensure the safe operation of aircraft within the airspace around the Adelaide International Airport.
The Obstacle Limitation Surface, (OLS) which is protected airspace for aircraft
operations, is 64.8 metres AHD. The proposed building will measure 117.6m AHD which
exceeds the OLS. Accordingly, an aeronautical study has been undertaken by the Ambiji
Group on behalf of the applicant. During construction, the crane will penetrate the PANS-
OPS. Approval is required from DIRD for the infringement into the OLS and PANS OPS.
This is still outstanding.
The second matter to consider is context.
In relation to context, desired character and relevant policies for the Capital City Zone
and Council Wide section of the Development Plan for City of Adelaide indicates:
Capital City Desired Character Statement (extracts)
The City’s boulevards, terraces and Squares will be developed as follows: (b) North Terrace will be reinforced as an important pedestrian promenade and cultural
boulevard that provides an important northern edge to the City square mile. (f) West Terrace will be reinforced as the western ‘gateway’ to the City centre and will
form an imposing frontage to the western City edge. Buildings will be constructed to the front and side boundaries, and designed to maximise views through the Park Lands. Corner site at the junctions of West Terrace and the major east-west streets
will be developed as strongly defined visual gateways to the City. This will provide an imposing frontage to the western edge of the City, which comprises a mixture of
commercial, showroom and residential development.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Objective 7: Large sites developed to their full potential while ensuring a cohesive scale of development and responding to a building’s context.
The Terraces (North, East and West) PDC 17 Development along the terraces should contribute to a continuous built form to frame the City edge and activate the Park Lands. PDC 18 Development along North Terrace should reinforce the predominant scale and ‘City wall’ character of the Terrace frontage.
Council Wide Built Form and Townscape Objective 46: Reinforcement of the city’s grid pattern of streets through: (a) high rise development framing city boulevards, the Squares and Park Lands (b) vibrant main streets of a more intimate scale that help bring the city to life (c) unique and interesting laneways that provide a sense of enclosure and intimacy
PDC 167: Development should be of a high standard of design and should reinforce the grid layout and distinctive urban character of the City by maintaining a clear distinction between the following: (a) the intense urban development and built-form of the town acres in the Capital City, Main Street, City Frame and Residential Zones;
It is the intent of the Capital City Zone that high rise development is envisaged
along North Terrace and West Terrace but subject to a ‘cohesive scale of
development’ and a design which responds to a building’s context.
In response to the above mentioned policies, the applicant has provided figures
illustrating the ‘future’ development context anticipated for this area. (Please
refer below).
Source: GHD Woodhead, November 2015
The diagrams predict that although there is a 43 metre height limit, development may
take advantage of the ‘overheight’ principles, building up to or close to the PANS OPS.
The Associate Government Architect indicates with respect to height:
“The overall height of the proposal is approximately 80 metres which I support in
principle. However, in order to justify development of this scale on this site it will be
critical to deliver a high quality contribution to the streetscape and good residential and
pedestrian amenity.”
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
With respect to streetscape and residential and pedestrian amenity, the Associate
Government Architect supports the design response to these matters in principle, but
with a request for further information; in particular:
“Overall, I support the approach to apartment configuration. However, at the lower
levels, the narrowness of the smallest south facing studios is likely to result in poor
amenity, particularly in relation to balcony depth and access to light and ventilation for
bedrooms. Additionally, further opportunities exist to optimise the orientation of north-
west corner apartments in the south tower. The Commission may wish to seek further
development of apartment layouts that optimise opportunities to provide better amenity
where possible.”
“I support the expression of the podium level facades and modelling that responds to,
while remaining distinct from, the retained heritage building. However, I recommend
further refinement of the material expression and articulation of the lower levels, in
particular to deliver an expression more integrated with the overall scheme. In my view,
it will be important to achieve a floor to ceiling height at the ground level that offers a
distinctive pedestrian experience commensurate with the significance of this site.”
Given the State heritage place within the context, it is also relevant to consider the
advice from the delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and
Conservation with respect to height:
“In comparison with the known parameters of the hospital under construction and the
approved hotel, (Enigma 8), the subject proposal is of a significantly greater order of
height. In its immediate juxtaposition with the approved hotel development, the subject
proposal presents a considerably greater bulk and silhouette.
Its impact on the visual presence of the Newmarket Hotel is exaggerated by the extent
to which it exceeds the zone height limit, compared for example with the hotel, which
exceeds it to only a modest degree.
I consider that the height of the subject development, in pursuing the concession offered
by the various over-height provisions in the Development Plan, has resulted in built form
inconsistent with the scale of neighbouring development, with a consequently greater
adverse impact on the setting of the Newmarket Hotel.”
Firstly, in relation to the heritage related comments, whether a building height is set at
43 metres or more, there will be a level of impact on the setting of the State heritage
place. The context, currently characterised by recent development to the northern side
of North Terrace, will continue to evolve as economic activity increases in the locality,
potentially resulting in substantial development that, in turn, will transform the setting of
the Newmarket Hotel.
In considering the future context and the comments from the relevant agencies
referenced above, it is considered that the height of the proposal is supported and will
move towards creating the ‘city wall’ character envisaged along North Terrace. The
proposed development has also been positioned to reinforce the established and notable
city grid pattern, through the rectilinear form of the two tower elements.
However, as per the advice from the Associate Government Architect, further detailing
around the material expression and articulation of the lower levels is important.
8.4 Setback
According to Capital City Zone Principle of Development Control 11, buildings should be
designed to include a podium/street wall height and upper level setback (in the order of
3-6 metres). However, the prevailing factor in this instance, is the desire for a
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
‘continuous built form that frames the city edge along the terraces’, (PDC 17 of the
Zone). Notwithstanding this, the heritage contextual response is also relevant (PDC 10).
Council Wide
10 Buildings should be positioned regularly on the site and built to the street frontage,
except where a setback is required to accommodate outdoor dining or provide a
contextual response to a heritage place.
The delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation is
concerned with the slight overhang of the northern tower over the eastern wall of the
hotel. In particular:
‘the overhang of the northern tower over the eastern alignment of the hotel (particularly
as it differs so markedly with the southern set-back) will result in a sense of visual
dominance and overbearing’.
However, the Associate Government Architect indicates:
“I support the intent to emphasise and frame the corner while allowing space around the
retained Newmarket Hotel building. I support the approach to the West Terrace frontage
as an address for the ground tenancies and residents of the tower above.
The proposed building will be constructed to the front property boundary of North
Terrace, maintaining the ‘important northern edge’ and ‘city wall’ character envisaged for
the city.
The proposed structures do not meet to ‘frame’ the corner due to the presence of the
State Heritage place. The proposed towers have instead been setback from the ‘airspace’
above the hotel to allow for heritage contextual response.
In relation to the side setbacks, Council Wide Principle of Development Control 67
states:
67: A habitable room window, balcony, roof garden, terrace or deck should be set-
back from boundaries with adjacent sites at least three metres to provide an adequate level of amenity and privacy and to not restrict the reasonable development of adjacent sites.
The applicant has satisfied the setback required by the above policy, and to a degree,
the setback has been governed by the easements that are in place which restrict certain
building development.
Overall, the setbacks for the development are considered appropriate.
8.5 Design and Appearance
The Capital City Zone and Council Wide provisions include numerous policies around
design and appearance, with the zone specifically seeking exemplary and innovative
building in design that responds to a buildings context. Policy also seeks a design
response to heritage; attractive and active ground floor uses, which also offer pedestrian
amenity; facades with an appropriate scale, rhythm and proportion which responds to
the use of the building, appropriate modelling and proportions, materials that are
sympathetic to the design and setting of the new building and overall contribution to the
desired character of the locality.
In relation to the proposal, DASH Architect (Heritage Impact Assessment report dated 4
November 2015) on behalf of the applicant summarises some of the core design
techniques:
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
The two distinct towers approach is more consistent with the scale and footprint
of the Adelaide cityscape than a single building approach. Being two buildings
also affords views through the structure to sky beyond, which assists in reducing
their visual prominence.
The two towers establishes a design relationship, albeit differences in materiality
The southern tower’s upper storey has been differentiated with the lower storeys
to provide visual relief and a transition to the approved 15 storey hotel
development
Design techniques have been adopted to emphasise every second floor plate of
the northern tower to manage visual bulk and establish a visual relationship with
the scale of the Newmarket Hotel
Operable elements in the building facade to soften the visual presentation of the
building by providing it with an irregular texture
The screening panels of the tower facade elements have a design proportion
comparable to that of elements in the heritage building facade
Provision of a podium and a ‘negative interface’ level that establishes a clear
building base and upper component
Provision of a visual separation of the proposed development from the heritage
building (via the use of glazing).
The Associate Government Architect generally supports the design approach but has
identified the need for further refinement of the material expression and articulation,
particularly with respect to the podium and east facing facade level. This
recommendation is supported given that the final details have yet to be finalised through
design development. At this stage, it is known that the structures will be constructed
using precast concrete, with balconies comprising operable glazing and aluminium
screens. Finishes and texture details are still required.
The delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation also
considers that the design of the two podiums and their relationship with the Newmarket
Hotel still requires further refinement. A condition has been recommended by the
delegate.
With respect to the ground level floor to ceiling height, the Associate Government
Architect has indicated:
“In my view, it will be important to achieve a floor to ceiling height at the ground level
that offers a distinctive pedestrian experience commensurate with the significance of this
site”.
The applicant has indicated that with respect to the floor to ceiling height, the height is
some 4.8 metres at the lowest level with a number of double height volumes (as
depicted by the following diagram) and a large three storey lightwell over the laneway
that is being introduced between the new building and the heritage Newmarket hotel:
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Source: GHD Woodhead, November 2015
Notwithstanding the further information required in response to the agency comments,
the podium design is considered to respond positively to the State heritage place in
terms of height and the incorporation of negative joints between ‘old’ and ‘new’.
As the floor to ceiling height seek to mirror the adjacent State Heritage place floor levels,
and because the proposal includes double height volumes, the floor to ceiling height is
also considered acceptable.
Finally, the Associate Government Architect also expressed concern in relation to the
position of air conditioning units on the balconies. Although it is not ideal for air
conditioning units to be placed on the balcony of each apartment, it is proposed to use
fixed screens to minimise the appearance of these structures.
In summary, the proposed development will comprise of strongly modelled facades with
a vertical composition that reflects the proportions of existing frontages. The variation in
materials of the two towers as well as the operable elements is considered to add to the
visual interest of the cityscape. However, whilst the design intent is supported in
principle, further detailing on materiality and expression is required; it will be
recommended that a condition be imposed requiring these details prior to substructure
approval.
8.6 Street Activation/Pedestrian Amenity
There is emphasis by the Capital City Zone that new development should enhance the
public environment through the activation of city streets. In particular, the Development
Plan seeks active and engaging uses at ground floor level to provide surveillance over
the public realm and interest for pedestrians.
The proposal is considered to satisfy the above requirements as it has been designed
with ground level active land uses.
Clear sightlines into and out of the entrance foyer areas for both towers are available to
residents and visitors, with the residential apartment and commercial entrances
separated and clearly identifiable within the overall design of the building.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Canopies are proposed along both West Terrace and North Terrace to enhance
pedestrian amenity.
Council administration has recommended that any works to the public realm be
established in accord with the Adelaide Design Manual standard. Such a note is
recommended to be incorporated.
8.7 Residential Amenity
There are a number of specific relevant policies regarding apartment amenity within the
Adelaide (City) Council Development Plan in the areas of:
Provisions for useable private open space
Minimum unit sizes
Sufficient level of outlook from living areas
Access to natural light and ventilation
Storage availability.
Useable Private Open Space
Each apartment, including the studio apartments, will be provided with a private open
space area albeit short in some instances. The private open space areas are proposed in
the form of ‘wintergardens’ which are essentially a balcony area that can be enclosed or
opened via screens and bi-fold doors. This is intended to provide occupants with the
ability to use the screens during strong afternoon summer sun.
In particular:
Apartment Type Development Plan Policy
for Private Open Space
Proposed development
provision
Studio apartments:
no min requirement
Start from 8 square metres
1 bedroom apartments:
8 square metres
Start from 4 square metres
2 bedroom apartments:
11 square metres
Start from 8 square metres
3 bedroom apartments:
15 square metres
Start from 10 square metres
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 59 allows for a shortfall providing a
communal open space area is provided. The proposed development will provide a
generous (some 678 square metres) common open space area and gymnasium which
will provide occupants with a choice between access to a ‘private’ area or a ‘common’
area to socialise.
In addition, no private open space is required for studio apartments; however, the
applicant has offered a balcony space for these studios as an alternative to a common
open space area.
Apartment Sizes
The majority of the apartment sizes are short in satisfying the criteria of the
development plan; namely:
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 70:
70 Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should provide a
high quality living environment by ensuring the following minimum internal floor areas:
(a) studio (where there is no separate bedroom): 35 square metres.
(b) 1 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 50 square metres
(c) 2 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 65 square metres
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
(d) 3+ bedroom dwelling/apartment: 80 square metres plus an additional 15 square
metres for every additional bedroom over 3 bedrooms. Note: Dwelling/apartment “unit size” includes internal storage areas but does not include balconies or car parking as part of the calculation.
More specifically:
Studio: 100% of the studio apartments are short by a maximum of 3 square metres
1 bedroom apartments: 54% are short by a maximum of 7 square metres
2 bedroom apartments: 66% are short by a maximum of 9 square metres.
All 3 bedroom apartments satisfy the minimum apartment size.
Whilst the size of the majority of apartments (studio to 2 bedrooms) are short of
satisfying the minimum apartment size, this is offset by the access to the generous
communal areas for some break-out space, which will be complemented by an outlook
towards the Parklands.
The Associate Government Architect indicates:
“Overall, I support the approach to apartment configuration. However, at the lower
levels, the narrowness of the smallest south facing studios is likely to result in poor
amenity, particularly in relation to balcony depth and access to light and ventilation for
bedrooms. Additionally, further opportunities exist to optimise the orientation of north-
west corner apartments in the south tower.”
Whilst is acknowledged that the lower level south facing studio apartments will have a
poorer amenity once a development is constructed on the property to the south, the
studios have been setback from the boundary by more than 3 metres which is consistent
with the Council Wide principle of development control 67. In addition, these apartments
have been offered with a balcony space that is not required by the Development Plan.
Outlook, Light and Ventilation
Each apartment has been offered with an outlook. Each apartment has access to natural
light and ventilation with no bedrooms relying on borrowed light. Although the Associate
Government Architect has expressed concern about the amenity for the studio
apartments (facing south in the south facing tower), the proposal has been setback
sufficiently to satisfy the Development Plan policy (Council Wide Principle of
Development Control 67).
Storage
Storage space (within apartments) for some 244 apartments (61%) is short up to a
maximum of some 3 cubic metres. The short supply of storage space is not outweighed
by the size of the apartments as these are undersized also in some cases. Although
there are common storage areas proposed on Level 2 (measuring a total of 290.25 cubic
metres thus providing an additional 1.18 cubic metres for each of the 244 apartments),
this provision does not compensate completely for the shortfall. The proposal does not
satisfy this component of the Development Plan.
Apartment Entries
Apartment entries have been off set slightly from one another in that the doors are not
positioned directly opposite one another. There are in instances where the entries are
located opposite a lift entrance which is not ideal; bedrooms are however not positioned
in the direct line of sight.
8.8 Heritage
The subject site accommodates the Newmarket Hotel which is identified as a State
Heritage place; the diagram below illustrates the extent of heritage listing.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Source: DASH Architects, Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated November 2015
The applicant seeks to demolish a portion of the heritage fabric, of which is illustrated in
the diagram below:
Source: DASH Architects, Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated November 2015
Relevant Council Wide policies of the Development Plan include:
General
136 Development of a heritage place should conserve the elements of heritage value as
identified in the relevant Tables.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
137 Development affecting a State heritage place (Table Adel/1), Local heritage place
(Table Adel/2), Local heritage place (Townscape) (Table Adel/3) or Local heritage place
(City Significance) (Table Adel/4), including:
(a) adaptation to a new use;
(b) additional construction;
(c) part demolition;
(d) alterations; or
(e) conservation works;
should facilitate its continued or adaptive use, and utilise materials, finishes, setbacks,
scale and other built form qualities that are complementary to the heritage place.
The applicant engaged DASH Architects to assess the heritage value of the outstructures
and the proposal’s design response to the retained heritage place.
DASH has indicated that whilst the outstructures are of some heritage value, a re-
assessment of their integrity and heritage values concluded that they are of medium to
low significance and integrity. Further, ‘these structures are representative of only one
aspect of the sites multi-facetted significance (being representative of a hotel dating
1883 in the City of Adelaide) and are not, in themselves rear or uncommon’.
While the removal of the ‘outstructures’ will have a negative impact on the heritage
value of the Newmarket Hotel, other aspects of the proposed development will have a
positive impact, including:
Internal conservation and restoration works, in particular to the central spiral
staircase and skylight
Removal of the later unsympathetic fit-out, and repair and conservation of the
building facades including reconstruction of facades where previously removed.
The proposed development will see a reinvestment in the historic hotel, not only
financially, but also socially and culturally.
The delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation advise
that it does not support the partial demolition of the State Heritage.
However, it is acknowledged that other than the proposed demolition of the State
heritage fabric, the proposed development is generally beneficial in its direct impact on
the fabric of the retained State heritage place. The delegate of the Minister for
Sustainability, Environment and Conservation generally concurs with the assessment of
the works as having a positive impact on the heritage values of the place.
The delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation has
recommended conditions should the Commission support the proposal.
Ideally, State Heritage fabric should be retained as per the Council Wide principles.
However, when balancing the intent of the Capital City Zone for an increased population
and high scale development, together with the benefits of rejuvenating the historical
hotel use as a result of the proposed new development, the demolition of the
‘outstructures’ is supported, subject to the conditions recommended by the delegate of
the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.
8.9 Traffic Impact, Access and Parking
According to the objectives outlined by the Development Plan for Adelaide (City), access
to and movement within the City should be easy, safe, comfortable and convenient with
priority given to pedestrian and cyclist safety and access.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
The proposal will provide a total of 112 carparking spaces for the residential component
of the development. There is no minimum vehicle parking requirement for the Capital
City Zone.
In relation to accessible carparking spaces, the Development Plan, Table Adel/7 – On site
carparking provisions, does not specify accessible parking requirements for the Capital
City Zone. Accordingly, Council Wide Principle of Development Control states that
parking should be provided for people with disabilities in accordance with the
requirements in the Building Code of Australia. The BCA does not specify disabled
parking requirements for residential developments and because no parking will be
provided for the commercial component of the site, no accessible bays are required.
Notwithstanding, the applicant has provided two disabled bays on each basement level,
located in close proximity to the lifts.
In relation to bicycle parking, the proposal is short in satisfying the Development Plan
policy as demonstrated in the table below:
Land Use Development Plan Requirement Proposal
Residential
Development
1 for every dwelling with a total floor
area less than 150 square metres
Total: 400
312 bicycle parks
Visitors for
Residential
Development
1 for every 10 dwellings
Total: 40
It is proposed by the
applicant to provide
on-street bicycle
facilities for the office,
retail and residential
visitors.
Retail Employee 1 per 300 square metres of gross
leasable floor area
Total: 1.4
It is proposed by the
applicant to provide
on-street bicycle
facilities for the office,
retail and residential
visitors.
Retail Customer 1 per 600 square metres of gross
leasable floor area
Total: .7
It is proposed by the
applicant to provide
on-street bicycle
facilities for the office,
retail and residential
visitors.
Office Employee 1 per 200 square metres of gross
leasable floor area
Total: 5.11
It is proposed by the
applicant to provide
on-street bicycle
facilities for the office,
retail and residential
visitors.
Office Visitor 2, plus 1 per 1000 square metres of
gross leasable floor area
Total: 3
It is proposed by the
applicant to provide
on-street bicycle
facilities for the office,
retail and residential
visitors.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Wallbridge and Gilbert were engaged by the applicant to undertake a traffic and parking
assessment of the proposal. Wallbridge and Gilbert have indicated that the bicycle
parking rates prescribed in the Development Plan for residential development ‘are more
applicable to lower density development’. Accordingly, Wallbridge and Gilbert have
referenced the ‘Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 11: Parking, Table C2.7”
which recommends a bicycle parking rate of 1 space per 4 lodging rooms for residents
and 1 per 16 lodging rooms for visitors.
Notwithstanding the above, it is the intent for city development to include bicycle
parking sufficient to cater for future residents; this also supports Council’s ‘Smart Move
Transport and Movement Strategy’ which seeks to improve conditions for pedestrians,
cyclists and those using public transport. Accordingly, upon discussion with the applicant,
it was agreed that an additional 112 bicycle parking spaces will be provided on the wall
above the carparking bays. This still leaves a shortfall of 88 bicycle parking spaces for
the residents and 50 bicycle parking spaces for the commercial uses.
Although the confirmed 312 bicycle parking spaces is still under the total required
amount, the shortfall is considered reasonable in this instance, given the direct and
convenient access to public transport facilities (tram and bus). The applicant is also
willing to investigate opportunities for on-street bicycle parking with the Adelaide City
Council during design development of the public realm works.
Council administration has reviewed the access arrangements for vehicles. The applicant
has designed the access to accommodate an 8.8 metre service vehicle. In addition, the
trip generation will have minimal impact on the adjacent road network. It is
recommended that the car park ramp width is increased to meet AS2890.1 and that a
kerb is installed along the circulation roadway. Council administration is supportive of the
findings and recommends the conditions as per the report prepared by Wallbridge and
Gilbert.
8.10 Environmental Factors
8.11 Crime Prevention
Council Wide provisions seek to minimise criminal and anti-social behaviour through
tangible environmental and urban design outcomes.
The following measures will seek to assist with crime prevention:
It is anticipated that the ground floor food retail space and heritage licensed
premises hotel will be open for extended hours aligning with the user
requirements of the adjacent new hospital precinct, during which hours the
premises will have staff supervising both the internal public realm and adjoining
external areas.
These are public areas providing an added layer of discrete supervision from the
users during the extended opening hours.
There are a number of residential apartments that overlook the south and east
rear laneways adjoining the development – these provide discrete supervision,
supported by laneway lighting and formal CCTV provision.
The Northern and Western public areas are along major urban boulevards that
have consistent 24 hr passing traffic.
Council administration has noted that it is important for CPTED to be addressed in the
configuration of access to the near service lane. The applicant has proposed that the
laneways will be equipped with sensor controlled light fittings and CCTV cameras at the
south-east corner of the building.
8.12 Noise Emissions
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Sonus Pty Ltd was engaged by the applicant to undertake a preliminary environmental
noise assessment associated with the proposed development at 1 North Terrace,
Adelaide, in particular, in relation to the following noise sources:
traffic on the surrounding roads into the development;
mechanical plant operation at the proposed development; and,
loading bay use and waste collection at the proposed development.
Acoustic treatments have been recommended to be reviewed as the project progresses
against the project criteria. It is recommended that a final acoustic report be lodged
prior to substructure approval.
8.13 Waste Management
The Development Plan contains a number of Council Wide provisions around Waste
Management, namely objective 28 and PDC 101-103. 101 A dedicated area for on-site collection and sorting of recyclable materials and refuse
should be provided within all new development.
102 A dedicated area for the collection and sorting of construction waste and the recycling of building materials during construction as appropriate to the size and nature of the development should be provided and screened from public view.
103 Development greater than 2,000 square metres of total floor area should manage
waste by:
(a) containing a dedicated area for the collection and sorting of construction waste and recyclable building materials; (b) on-site storage and management of waste;
(c) disposal of non-recyclable waste; and (d) incorporating waste water and stormwater re-use including the treatment and re-use of grey water.
The applicant has submitted a waste management plan (by Rawtec) as part of the
application. The waste management plan details the nature of capture, storage and
collection of waste from the site. In essence, waste chutes are provided on each
residential apartment floor level which lead to a consolidated waste collection area at the
ground floor level. Separate waste chutes for the office component are provided as well
as a separate food waste area to support the ‘market’ place.
Waste will be appropriately collected by the contractors. Council administration supports
the Waste Management Plan for the proposal.
8.14 Energy Efficiency
The proposal seeks to achieve the sustainability objectives with the following initiatives:
Wall, floor and roof insulation to meet best practice guidelines
High performance glazing
Effective shading overhangs, with operable screens on west facade na dnorht
facade affording residents with individual control of shade and privacy
Winter gardens
Natural ventilation meeting the requirements of AS1668.4 Natural Ventilation
Operable external windows to common corridors to facilitate air movement
Low enery luminaires and LED fittings
Lighting controls using motion sensors
High efficiency lifts with LED lighting
Variable speed drives and carbon monoxide sensors to control carpark exhaust
fans
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Water efficient fittings and fixtures
Rainwater harvesting for irrigation of vegetated areas at Level 3 and ground level
Low volatile organic compound paint
Provision of bicycle parking for each resident.
8.15 Wind Analysis
The applicant provided a wind assessment report prepared by Vipac Engineers and
Scientists (dated 4 November 2015). The findings of the study can be summarised as
follows:
The proposed development would not generate wind conditions in excess of the
criterion for safety
The ground level footpath and building entrances would be expected to have wind
conditions within the recommended criteria
The seating areas near the west entry would be expected to have wind conditions
over the sitting criterion, windscreen or box planters have been recommended to
shelter these areas
The amenity areas of Level 3 would be expected to have wind conditions within
the recommended criterion. However, Skyroof-type sheltering has been
recommended should some areas require more stationary wind conditions
The high level terrace areas are expected to experience wind conditions close to
or above the recommended walking criterion. As a general statement, educating
residents about wind conditions at high level balconies and terrace areas during
high wind events and tying down loose lightweight furniture is highly
recommended.
Vipac recommends a scaled wind tunnel study in the detail design stage to verify the
predictions and determine the optimal wind controls, wherever necessary. This should be
recommended as a condition.
Accordingly, the proposal has been designed in a manner which will not compromise the
ability to enjoy the full potential of the building.
8.16 Site Contamination
The Development Plan provisions seek the following:
Contaminated Sites Objective 29: A safe and healthy living and working environment. 105 Where there is evidence of, or reasonable suspicion that land, buildings and/or water, including underground water, may have been contaminated, or there is evidence
of past potentially contaminating activity/ies, development should only occur where it is demonstrated that the land, buildings and/or water can be made suitable for its intended use prior to commencement of that use.
The proposed development will be built to all site boundaries. This limits the likelihood
of the proposal creating pathways between potential contaminants within soil for
example and sensitive receptors (users of the land).
The above being the case, the primary site contamination risks to be managed are those
to do with construction activities (such as disturbance of sub-surface soil and
groundwater contaminants). This is compounded by the proposal involving the
excavation of the basement levels.
To manage these risks it is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be the
subject of a condition requiring the preparation of a construction environment
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
management plan prepared in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority
guidelines regarding site contamination.
8.17 Affordable Housing
According to Principle of Development Control 1 of Overlay 1 – Affordable Housing,
within the Council Wide section of the Adelaide (City) Development Plan, ‘development
comprising 20 or more dwellings should include a minimum of 15% affordable housing’.
The applicant has entered into a Land Management Agreement to provide affordable
housing. (Refer to ATTACHMENTS for a copy of the agreement). The proposal satisfies
the affordable housing provision.
8 CONCLUSION
The proposal involves the establishment of a land use that is wholly in keeping with the
objectives and desired character of the Capital City Zone. In addition, the proposal is
providing a community benefit via the provision of affordable housing.
It is acknowledged that the proposal is challenging height limits in this locality, and will
also impact on the State heritage fabric of the existing Newmarket Hotel However,
respectively, height is justifiable on the basis of over-height policy and re-
use/refurbishment of the hotel use will see a reinvestment in this historic hotel.
Whilst not ideal, departures from policy regarding minimum apartment sizes is seen to
be mitigated by its location relative to the Parklands and .Storage areas are also short
for the majority of the apartments, however, each apartment has been provided with a
storage area.
Bicycle parking for visitors to both the residential and commercial components of the
development is not provided however the shortfall is justified due to the proximity to
public transport facilities (tram and bus).
In this light, it is ultimately considered that the proposal exhibits sufficient merit to
warrant Development Plan Consent subject to conditions and reserve matters regarding
detailed design and refinement of materiality.
9 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:
1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the
policies in the Development Plan.
2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the
proposal meets the key objectives of the Capital City Zone.
3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by One North
Terrace (Australia) for Partial demolition of a State Heritage place and conversion
to a hotel; construction of a mixed use development comprising retail, consulting
rooms and residential apartments, supported by basement carparking subject to
the following reserved matters and conditions of consent.
RESERVED MATTERS
1. Pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the following matters shall
be reserved for further assessment, to the satisfaction of the Development
Assessment Commission, prior to the granting of Development Approval:
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
1.1 Approval by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
for the infringement into the Adelaide Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface
and the Procedures for Air Navigation services – Aircraft Operations
(PANS-OPS) surfaces.
PLANNING CONDITIONS
1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by
conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict
accordance with the details and following plans submitted in Development
Application No 020/A081/15:
Drawings/Plans by GHD Woodhead Architects:
Reports/Correspondence:
Planning Report by GHD Woodhead dated 4 November 2015
Waste Management Plan by Rawtec dated November 2015
Traffic Assessment Report by Wallbridge and Gilbert dated 3 November 2015
Wind Impact Assessment Report by Vipac Engineers and Scientists dated 4
November 2015
Heritage Impact Assessment report by DASH Architects dated 4 November
2015
Aeronautical Impact Assessment report by Ambidji dated 3 November 2015
Construction Methodology and Programme for PANS OPS Application
prepared by ProBuild dated 30 October 2015 UNLESS where varied by the
Reserved Matter
Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Wallbridge and Gilbert dated 3
November 2015
Sustainability Report by Lucid Consulting Australia dated November 2015
Dilapidation Report prepared by Fyfe dated 7 September 2015
Vertical Transport Report prepared by Lucid Consulting Australia dated
October 2015
Environmental Noise Assessment report by Sonus dated November 2015
Land Management Agreement for Affordable Housing dated 2015
Email dated 9 December 2015 by GHD Woodhead
Plan Number Date
A100 4/11/2015
A101 4/11/2015
A102 4/11/2015
A103 9/12/2015
A104 9/12/2015
A120 4/11/2015
A121 9/12/2015
A122 4/11/2015
A123 9/12/2015
A130 4/11/2015
A131 4/11/2015
A132 4/11/2015
A140 4/11/2015
A150 4/11/2015
A160 4/11/2015
A900 9/12/2015
A901 4/11/2015
A902 9/12/2015
A903 9/12/2015
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
2. The applicant shall submit, for approval by the Development Assessment
Commission, a final environmental noise assessment that ensures that there are no
unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the apartments and that the development
itself will not unreasonably interfere with other land uses in the vicinity. Such a
report and its recommendations shall be lodged prior to substructure approval being
granted.
3. The applicant shall submit, for approval by the Development Assessment
Commission, further information as to the resolution of the detail facade and podium
design and final details of materials, finishes and colours, in consultation with the
Government Architect, prior to final Development Approval for substructure.
4. The on-site Bicycle Parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with Australian
Standard 2890.3-1993 and the AUSTROADS, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
Part 14 – Bicycles.
5. The proposed car parking layout and vehicular entry points shall be designed and
constructed to conform to the Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 (including clearance
to columns and space requirements at the end of blind aisles) for Off Street Parking
Facilities; Australian Standard 2890.6-2009 Parking facilities – Off street commercial
vehicle facilities and designed to conform with Australian Standard 2890.6:2009 for
Off Street Parking for people with disabilities.
6. That all external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, shall
be designed and constructed to conform with Australian Standards and must be
located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss
of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.
7. Mechanical plant or equipment shall be designed, sited and screened to minimise
noise impact on adjacent premises or properties. The noise level associated with the
combined operation of plant and equipment such as air conditioning, ventilation and
refrigeration systems when assessed at the nearest existing or envisaged noise
sensitive location in or adjacent to the site shall not exceed 50 dB(A) during daytime
(7.00am to 10.00pm) and 40 dB(A) during night time (10.00pm to 7.00am) at the
most affected residence when measured and adjusted in accordance with the
relevant environmental noise legislation except where it can be demonstrated that a
high background noise exists.
8. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and
implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA
publication “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” - to minimise
environmental harm and disturbance during construction. The management plan
must incorporate, without being limited to, the following matters: a. air quality,
including odour and dust b. surface water including erosion and sediment control c.
soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of soil
contamination d. groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination e.
noise f. occupational health and safety.
For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA
Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?':
www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/guide_sc_what.pdf A copy of the CEMP shall be provided
to the Development Assessment Commission prior to the commencement of site
works for both the hospital and car park.
9. The applicant shall submit, for approval by the Development Assessment
Commission, a scale wind study undertaken in the detail design stage to verify the
predictions and determine the optimal wind controls, where necessary. Such a report
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
and its recommendations shall be lodged prior to substructure approval being
granted.
Conditions from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources
10. A detailed photographic record of the side wing, yard wall and stables (structures to
be demolished) shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage architect and
provided to the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources for their
records, prior to works commencing on site. Stonework is to be salvaged for reuse in
conservation works to the main hotel building where appropriate.
The heritage listed structures to be demolished shall also be recorded by laser point
cloud scanning internally and externally, and the data provided to the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources for their records. The laser scan and
digital photographic record shall be capable of amalgamation into a 3D photographic
model. Prior to photographic and laser recording, all accretions around and abutting
the historic structures shall be removed.
Reason for condition: A suitable archival record of the demolished structures allows
for future interpretation and understanding of their contribution to the heritage
values of the State heritage place.
11. Internal refurbishment works, including general repairs, new joinery, colour
schemes, services integration, new finishes, repairs to staircases, compliance
upgrades, and mural exposure, shall be further detailed and to the satisfaction of
the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources prior to Development Approval being
granted for any work to the retained State Heritage place. Works are to be informed
by a suitably qualified heritage architect.
Reason for condition: The detailed design of interior works is yet to be undertaken.
12. Details of the following proposed works to the Newmarket Hotel facades shall be
detailed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted to any of the proposed
works to the Newmarket Hotel:
façade cleaning methodology, composition of repointing mortar, and stone
selection for façade reinstatement;
proposed colour scheme of painted areas;
details of interface and junctions of the new development to the southern
and eastern walls of the Newmarket Hotel. In particular, the design and
construction should minimise intervention into historic fabric and be
reversible. Consideration should also be given to pitching the link glazed
roof away from heritage building to reduce risk of stormwater damage to
heritage fabric; and
treatment of existing ground floor opening on the western side of the
southern façade.
Works shall be informed by a suitably qualified heritage architect.
Reason for condition: The detailed documentation of conservation works is yet to
be prepared.
13. Details shall be documented of the proposed podium and entry link to the
satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources prior to final
Development Approval being granted. Particular consideration should be given to:
establishing a compatible materials palette with the heritage building (noting
replication is not being sought);
the design and configuration of proposed louvres; and
detailed studies of key alignments of horizontal features of the heritage
building to inform the alignment of key features of the proposed podium.
Reason for condition: The limited level of detailed design resolution at this
planning application phase of the podium, and its materiality, means that several
aspects of the design response important to the setting of the heritage place are yet
to be resolved.
14. A desktop site history for the land affected by this application shall be prepared by a
suitably qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for site excavations to
uncover archaeological artefacts of heritage significance.
In the absence of a desktop site history prepared by a suitably qualified
archaeologist finding that the land affected by this application does not contain any
potential for archaeological artefacts of heritage significance, a Work Method
Statement shall to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources outlining measures to monitor excavated material up to nominally 1.5m
below ground level. This Work Method Statement should include these excavations
being undertaken in the presence of a suitable qualified archaeologist and proceed
with appropriate caution to enable the identification and salvage of any material of
potential archaeological significance. The Archaeologist is to report to the
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources on any findings of
archaeological significance.
Reason for condition: With reference to Note (i) below, the Heritage Places Act
1993 carries obligations in relation to archaeolgical artefacts of State significance.
15. Prior to the commencement of work on site, detailed demolition drawings shall be
prepared and submitted to the Development Assessment Commission for approval,
in consultation with the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.
Reason for condition: The extent of demolition within the Newmarket Hotel is not
yet documented for assessment of heritage impact.
ADVISORY NOTES
a. The development must be substantially commenced within 3 years of the date of
this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development
Assessment Commission.
b. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 3 years of the date of this
Notification.
c. The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by this
Notification must be completed within 5 years of the date of the Notification unless
this period is extended by the Commission.
d. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed
on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
e. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development
Court within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as
the Court may allow.
f. The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located
in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 8204
0289).
g. The applicant is asked to liaise with the Adelaide City Council on additional bicycle
parking opportunities in the public realm.
Notes from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
h. Any changes to the proposal for which planning consent is sought or granted may
give rise to heritage impacts requiring further consultation with the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources, or an additional referral to the Minister
for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. Such changes would include for
example (a) an application to vary the planning consent, or (b) Building Rules
documentation that incorporates differences from the proposal as documented in the
planning application.
i. To ensure a satisfactory heritage outcome, the Development Assessment
Commission is requested to consult the Department of Environment, Water and
Natural Resources in finalising any conditions or reserved matters above.
j. The applicant is advised of the following requirements of the Heritage Places Act
1993.
(a) If an archaeological artefact believed to be of heritage significance is
encountered during excavation works, disturbance in the vicinity shall cease and the
SA Heritage Council shall be notified.
(b) Where it is known in advance (or there is reasonable cause to suspect)
that significant archaeological artefacts may be encountered, a permit is required
prior to commencing excavation works.
For further information, contact the Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources.
k. The applicant is advised of the following requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act
1988.
(a) If Aboriginal sites, objects or remains are discovered during excavation
works, the Aboriginal Heritage Branch of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation
Division of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (as delegate of the Minister)
should be notified under Section 20 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
Notes from Adelaide City Council
Stormwater:
l. The proposed extension to the protuberance in West Terrace will require the
installation of a new stormwater inlet pit on the West Terrace kerb at the newly
created low point. Therefore the four proposed chequer plate drains along the West
Terrace frontage should be combined into a single underground connection into the
new inlet pit.
m. An additional stormwater inlet pit will be required to service the low point created by
the proposed protuberance in West Terrace adjacent to the southern boundary of
the site. Stormwater discharge from the proposed grated strip drain can be disposed
to this inlet pit.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
n. The discharge of stormwater runoff from the adjacent property (open air carpark)
across the property boundary and through the property development to West
Terrace is not acceptable. While this is a matter between the two property owners to
resolve, Council encourages the separation of stormwater disposal for both
properties and is confident that a practical solution can be found.
o. Given that surface flows on the adjacent carpark fall to the north west corner of the
property towards the existing easement (for underground electricity services), one
such solution to the above matter which would be acceptable to Council, is the
creation of an additional easement over the existing easement marked G (RTC
11318356) for the purpose of discharging collected stormwater runoff from the car
park property through the easement to West Terrace.
p. Council encourages the retention and reuse of stormwater runoff from the property
for irrigation of landscaped areas, toilet flushing and other appropriate uses.
Lighting
q. The proposed development works will impact on the public lighting within the
proximity of the development site. The existing public lighting on North Terrace,
Newmarket Street and Rose Street consists of stobie columns with o/h cabling and
street lighting mounted to the columns. On Rose Street there are also street lights
mounted the façade of the Empire Building that are owned and maintained by
Adelaide City Council. The 2 off luminaires for floodlighting of the Empire signage
are not owned by Adelaide City Council.
r. If temporary hoarding or site works require modification of existing Council and/or
SA Power Network’s public lighting (including associated infrastructure such as
cabling etc) shall meet Councils’ requirements. The works shall be carried out to
meet Councils’ requirements and all costs borne directly by the developer.
s. All modifications requiring temporary removal/relocation/provision of temporary
lighting/reinstatement of existing Council and/or SA Power Network’s public lighting
(including associated infrastructure such as cabling etc) shall meet Councils’
requirements. The works shall be carried out to meet Councils’ requirements and all
costs borne directly by the developer.
t. All damage to ACC’s infrastructure, including damage to public lighting and u/g
ducting etc caused by projects works or loading of site crane onto pathways will be
repaired to meet Councils requirements and the cost of the developer.
u. If new canopies are to be constructed as part of these works, then lighting to meet
ACC’s under veranda requirements shall be installed.
Urban Elements
v. Any urban elements assets created or existing assets affected (requiring relocation,
removal or temporary storage) by this development requires the approval of the
Asset Manager Urban Elements prior to any works commencing. ACC will provide an
invoice for the works and it must be paid prior to any work commencing. Note the
assets are the property of ACC and only ACC or its representatives can carry out the
work.
w. Please note that there is a street name plate on the corner of North Tce and West
Tce.
x. Any works that impact on the public street are to be to Adelaide Design Manual
standard and consistent with the North Terrace Master Plan and approved by ACC.
Development Assessment Commission
17 December 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3.3
For example proposed checker plate drains will not be supported and stormwater
must connected underground to stormwater system.
y. The applicant is encouraged to apply the established North Terrace Master Plan
paving palette to the exterior spaces to create coordinated outcome on this
important Civic Boulevard.
Concetta Parisi
SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE