Rundle Street Development

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (15:08): I rise today to speak on behalf of local constituents in the CBD in relation to concerns with the proposed development on East Terrace near Rundle Street. I would like to first acknowledge the residents in the Speaker's Gallery today from the Botanic Apartments on East Terrace, who have taken time out of their busy schedules to be here in the parliament to show their collective support as a community on this issue.

Melbourne developer Pelligra lodged plans in October last year to construct a 67.8-metre tower at 292-300 Rundle Street, adjacent to Botanic Apartments. The 21-storey tower proposed 27 apartments, a penthouse, office spaces, a function space and car parking across four levels. The development did not include provision for affordable housing.

The proposed development site is situated over two planning zones, which prescribed maximum heights of 53 metres and 34 metres respectively. This proposed development attempted to push this envelope by more than 33 metres. Several residents and lot owners spoke at the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP), raising concerns about the extreme mass and scale of the proposed building, its lack of affordable housing and the four levels of car parking, pointing to the fact that it did not include basement car parking.

Another significant issue was the inevitable traffic congestion, given that the proposed development suggests that residents would enter and exit in their vehicles from the same laneway that Botanic Apartments residents exit from. This is despite the fact that the proposed development would have access to its own laneway, suitable for vehicles, just a few metres down.

In April, the proposed development was rejected by the SCAP for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the excessive mass and scale being considered likely to diminish the value of this area. The SCAP minutes read, and I quote:

The proposal does not positively respond to the local context of the site and locality.

The proposal is considered to negatively impact on the characteristics of the local context including the existing built form and heritage buildings of relatively consistent scale and massing.

It was also opposed by the state government's heritage agency, Heritage SA, which argued the apartment block would, and I quote:

…dominate and unduly impact the low-scale setting of the various…heritage places in the vicinity.

Despite the SCAP's comprehensive reasons for rejecting the proposed development, the developer has appealed the decision and it is now a matter for the ERD Court. As a community, we are left to await the outcome.

Because residents cannot be part of this process, I want to speak on their behalf today to ensure their voices are heard. As a former CBD resident myself, my local constituents and I understand that development in our CBD is part of a growing and thriving city, and local residents understand it is inevitable that development will occur at this site.

But the fact is that our East End is one of our premier dining and retail precincts. It draws visitors and tourists to our CBD, particularly as the government brings our city alive again with more events and festivals. For such an important area of our CBD, it is critical that any development should be sustainable and well designed, positively contributing to the vibrancy and heritage character of this precinct and to the city's livability, rather than impose itself on this precinct and its residents at any cost.

I once again would like to thank the Botanic Apartments residents for their advocacy and taking the time to come in today. It was a pleasure to join them in their courtyard a couple of weeks ago to discuss this important issue—for some, even over a nice glass of wine. It is a really important thing to do to come together to show our collective support for the community on this important issue while we await the outcome. We can only hope for a positive result.