One North Terrace (Aust) Pty Ltd - SA Planning...

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


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


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)


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.


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


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:


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


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


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


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:


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.


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).


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.”


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


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:


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:


17 December 2015

AGENDA ITEM 3.3


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.


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



11 square metres



15 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


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.


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.


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.


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



on-street bicycle



visitors.

Retail Customer 1 per 600 square metres of gross

leasable floor area

Total: .7



on-street bicycle



visitors.

Office Employee 1 per 200 square metres of gross

leasable floor area

Total: 5.11



on-street bicycle



visitors.

Office Visitor 2, plus 1 per 1000 square metres of

gross leasable floor area

Total: 3



on-street bicycle



visitors.


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


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


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


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:


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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

One North Terrace (Aust) Pty Ltd - SA Planning...

Documents

Transcript of One North Terrace (Aust) Pty Ltd - SA Planning...