House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Buckingham Arms Hotel Redevelopment Buckingham Arms Hotel Redevelopment Ms HOOD House of Assembly Adelaide Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (15:17): I rise today on an important community win that we have had. A short time ago, the State Commission Assessment Panel published that it has rejected the Buckingham Arms proposed development at 1 Walkerville Terrace, Gilberton, which is a significant win for our local community. The myriad reasons that SCAP rejected this proposal were very extensive, one being the complete overdevelopment of the site. This site has caused a lot of community concern over recent months. The site was rezoned a few years ago up to six storeys. You can imagine the community concern when a proposed development came out that was 10 storeys instead—three 10-storey towers, almost 200 apartments, of which only 24 were affordable, and more than 300 car parks. This development is at an incredibly busy five-arm intersection in my community. For anyone who drives to work or drives home through Northcote Terrace or Walkerville Terrace, you will know the site that I am talking about and how busy that intersection already is. If you can imagine a development of this scale being plonked right on that five-arm intersection, you can imagine the concern of my local community. Yesterday, the community came out in force at the SCAP, which was deliberating the proposal. I was first up to give the views of my community on this proposal. As I was saying earlier, those concerns centred around the excessive scale and mass of the development, the impact on traffic and also the impact that it would have as a gateway or an entry statement to Medindie, Walkerville and Gilberton, character suburbs known for their heritage. We are incredibly pleased with today's outcome, and I just want to list a few of the reasons for SCAP rejecting this particular proposal. Fifteen reasons were published today. They were: 1.	The proposal did not meet performance outcome 1.1 as the proposal was for high-rise development that has not demonstrated high-quality design. 2.	The proposal does not meet performance outcome 1.1 as the proposed built form both dominates and negatively impacts the existing local heritage place through massing, setbacks, scale, design, materials and architectural features. 3.	The proposal does not meet performance outcome 2.1 as the building design does not positively contribute to the public realm through acceptable building design via scale and massing at ground level. Reason No. 5: 5.	The proposal does not meet performance outcome 5.1 as the increased dwelling yield from the proposal does not satisfactorily manage offsite impacts through design quality, and it is considered overdevelopment of the site. 6.	The proposal does not meet the performance outcome 5.2 as it has not been designed to minimise impact to adjacent residential land uses. 7.	The proposal does not meet performance outcome 6.4 as the proposed pedestrian linkages between the underground parking area and the proposed townhouses are not considered safe or convenient. Reason No. 11: 11.	The proposal does not meet performance outcome 12.6 as the proposal is not considered to be durable and able to age without ongoing maintenance required. These are just some of the 15 reasons that SCAP deliberated that this development was completely unnecessary and unreasonable for this particular site. As I said, this site had been rezoned to up to six storeys, and I believe our community understands that it is an important site for development. We understand the need for housing. This site is important because it is close to public transport, to our city, to our Parklands and to our services, and so we very much look forward to more sustainable and sensible proposals being proposed for this site in the future. With my remaining time, I just want to shout out to all the people in my local community: for attending the community meetings, for putting in submissions, for attending the SCAP hearing yesterday. This is a wonderful example of the community coming together to fight for better outcomes for our community. We support development. We understand that development can be positive for a community. It can bring more people to the area, it can create vibrancy and it can support our local businesses. But development should not be thrust upon a community at all costs, and so we very much welcome SCAP's decision today and look forward to more sensible and sustainable proposals for this site in the future.