Motions

Crown and Anchor Hotel

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that Singapore-based developer Wee Hur Holdings Ltd has made an application for partial demolition and adaptive reuse of the site of the Crown and Anchor Hotel, which was first licensed in 1853 and has been a cornerstone of Adelaide’s live music scene for over three decades.

2. Acknowledges an online petition signed by over 15,000 people opposing any attempts at demolition or change in the use of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

3. Recognises that Adelaide is a designated UNESCO City of Music for the vibrancy of the city’s music culture, including its live music venues.

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to:

(a) oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor Hotel;

(b) make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel indicating that position; and

(c) move to amend state heritage laws to ensure that cultural and social value is considered in the development assessment of heritage sites like the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

(Continued from 10 April 2024.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:20): I rise very briefly to support this motion in support of the Crown and Anchor. It has been moved by my Greens colleague the Hon. Robert Simms and I welcome him. He is the portfolio holder for the Greens in planning. I am the portfolio holder for arts, so we both have a great affection for the Crown and Anchor and a great commitment to ensuring that the culture and the vibrancy that the Crown and Anchor has provided to the South Australian community for so long continues unthwarted by developers' dreams—or nightmares.

I will not go into too much detail, but I just wanted to put on record that I have been going to the Cranker since the 1990s, possibly the 1980s. I was trying to remember earlier today. I have seen wonderful bands there, such as King Daddy and Babydoll and so many more. I have danced on a weeknight to DJ Trip on not just dozens but probably hundreds of occasions. There is no place like the Cranker.

I have been to weddings there: not the actual weddings but receptions on the balcony, which had dubious catering, but anyway. There were Jaffas involved; I do not know why. The Cranker is a place that I continue to go to and feel comfortable in. You can go there, as Walter Marsh has noted in The Guardian, in a suit or as a goth. In fact, the 'Where will the goths go?' banner at the rally on the weekend really hit home to me, because Enigma has gone, The Coffee Pot has gone, Proscenium has long gone, but the goths are still at the Cranker.

The reason they are still at the Cranker is that everyone is welcome at the Cranker. Whether you are in a suit, whether you are a goth, whether you are a rocker or whether you are simply wandering in from the LIV Golf tournament on the weekend, you go to the Cranker and it is accessible, affordable, alternative. It is a place of beer and live music. It is as simple as it gets, and it is the epitome of what a public house is and should be.

It has a much-loved place in the music culture of this state, because we are the Festival State. Unless we are doing homegrown bands, those festivals will become, as was said again at the rally, fly-in fly-out performers coming to entertain us; they will not be our own. They will not be the wonderful acts that we have seen grow and develop through the Cranker.

I have had friends work at the Cranker behind the bar or as band booking agents. I have launched feminist magazines in the band room. I have run campaigns for responsible alcohol service. Indeed, the signs that 'Alcohol is not a lubricant' may have been put on the backs of the toilet doors back in the early 2000s through an organisation that I used to work for, called the YWCA of Adelaide, which ran a safe women's partying program and series of events and a campaign, and the Cranker was one of the first venues to throw their arms around and support women's right to be safe in our night-time life and in the life of our wonderful pubs.

We are losing too many pubs. We have lost too many live music venues already in this capital city. The planning laws are rigged against places like the Cranker because they are on prime real estate, but they also have a very special place in the heart of our culture. The East End would not be the East End without all the pubs and the live music that developed it well beyond the time of it being an east end market.

The East End will suffer if we let this development go ahead. There are so many other little bits of land that would happily host student accommodation in high-rise developments without sacrificing the very heart and the very culture that in fact those students will be attracted to stay in Adelaide to enjoy. Finally, to wrap it up, as I thought the most appropriate sign at the rally said, the Cranker is already home to students. It is home to so many more than students, but it will be home hopefully to students for many generations to come if we save the Cranker.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:25): I move an amendment to the motion:

Leave out paragraph 4 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

4. Encourages any member in this place to make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel by 11.59pm on Friday 10 May 2024 to enable them to make an informed decision when the application is considered.

5. Notes that the Planning and Design Code under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 can designate a place as a place of local heritage value and local councils may seek to initiate amendments to the Planning and Design Code to designate a place as a place of local heritage value and that the Crown and Anchor was designated as a local heritage place on 1 November 2001.

6. Notes that on 24 April 2024 the Heritage Council received a nomination from a member of the public to make the Crown and Anchor a State Heritage Place and that the council is also anticipating a second nomination imminently.

7. Notes that on 26 April 2024 the Crown and Anchor Hotel was provisionally entered on the state Heritage Register as a State Heritage Place by the Chair of the Heritage Council under section 17 (2)(b) of the Heritage Places Act 1993 which is essentially a determination that a place should be protected while an assessment of its heritage significance is carried out and that an assessment will now be carried out with a decision to be made on the validity of the nomination at a future meeting of council likely in early September.

8. Notes the criteria to list a place as a State Heritage Place is contained within the Heritage Places Act 1993—this means that any future considerations to amend the criteria would be a matter for the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water as the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993 and that the act already includes a specific criteria centred around a place having a strong cultural or spiritual association for the community or a group within it.

Having said that, moving on to my comments, the state Malinauskas government understands the importance of protecting our heritage places, which provide important character to the city. The Planning and Design Code, under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, may designate a place as a place of local heritage value. Local councils may, and indeed do, seek to initiate amendments to the Planning and Design Code for such places and designate them as places of local heritage value. The Crown and Anchor, as I have mentioned in my amendment, is such a place.

The Heritage Places Act provided for and promoted the conservation of places of state heritage significance. The Heritage Places Act 1993 contains a range of criteria for a place to be recognised as just such a thing. I think the comments of the Hon. Ms Franks in regard to her memories of such a place may meet either cultural or spiritual association, depending upon how that flows down through how they are going to consider it.

The Crown and Anchor Hotel being nominated as a State Heritage Place by a member of the public can meet exactly those standards. Indeed it has been provisionally entered by the chair of the Heritage Council under section 17(2)(b) as mentioned in my amendment. Where development applications propose to alter state or local heritage listed places, including those provisionally entered on the register, they have to be assessed by the relevant provisions of the Planning and Design Code. This assessment will ensure that the heritage and cultural values of the buildings and structures proposed to be altered are maintained at least to a standard as intended by that committee.

The Planning and Design Code also requires that development applications for the demolition or partial demolition of a state or local heritage listed place undergo public notification. This ensures that the wider community has a fairly wide opportunity to comment on the proposed demolition, and indeed I am pretty certain that has occurred here.

In addition to this, applications for the demolition of State Heritage Places must also be referred to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water as the minister responsible under the act. That minister can then direct that the development application be refused or, should it be approved, that it be subject to more stringent and specified conditions.

The existing mechanisms in place to protect places of both state and local heritage seek to strike a balance between protecting our state's culture and heritage while also providing the ability for landowners to progress with development of property they have purchased. As the Minister for Planning has already outlined, he has no ability to intervene in the decision-making process for the application.

The development application will be assessed by the State Commission Assessment Panel as a delegate of the State Planning Commission. I think it is important that the State Commission Assessment Panel remain an independent committee to assess and determine development proposals in South Australia and not be influenced by the parliament and its politics.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:31): I rise to put some remarks on the record in relation to this motion. I thank the Hon. Mr Simms for bringing this motion to the parliament, and particularly congratulate the board and the organisers of Save the Cranker. A number of us attended the rally on Sunday, and I would have to say it was conducted very professionally and respectfully. I think everybody certainly got to have their point of view heard.

The position of the Liberal Party is that we do support state heritage listing of the Crown and Anchor. The leader of the Liberal Party wrote a letter in support on 17 April, which I will read onto the record. He says:

I write in support of the nomination to enter the Crown and Anchor Hotel onto the South Australian Heritage Register.

The Heritage Places Act 1999 provides for the protection of places which are of heritage significance—including where it has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a group within.

The Crown and Anchor Hotel was first licensed in 1853, underwent a complete re-building in the 1880s, with further remodelling in the 1920s. Since this time, it has largely remained unchanged physically—continuing to be recognised today in largely its original form. Although it has had a varied history as a place of accommodation and as a pub, it has consistently been a place for community connection and congregation.

For the past two decades, it has been a place of particular importance to the live music scene in the Adelaide CBD. It is much loved by both artists and audience alike, ensuring that live music continues to be encouraged at smaller venues, supporting emerging artists who perform across a variety of music genres. The Crown and Anchor Hotel is regarded for being an inclusive venue for professionals and youth alike, which cannot be easily replicated and speaks to the breadth of the community which are connected to the venue.

Often, the places and items which are recognised for being of heritage significance on the South Australian Heritage Register, are places that have lost their relevance to a modern society and are relegated to become places of a time gone by. The Crown and Anchor Hotel is an exception to this, as a place with enduring relevance today.

I support the nomination of the Crown and Anchor Hotel for entry on the South Australian Heritage Register and trust that the Heritage Council will give appropriate consideration to the nomination.

Yours sincerely

David Speirs MP

Date: 17 April 2024.

I lead with that. I cannot speak as extensively as the Hon. Tammy Franks about her personal experiences at the Crown and Anchor. As I often tell people, I do not get out very much, but I do appreciate that there are a lot of people who over many years have enjoyed that venue and still continue to enjoy that venue as a very unique place, particularly for live music and for the capacity of a range of artists to be able to perform there when a lot of other opportunities do not exist.

I think that is very important to this, and this is why we have been supporting the campaign for that aspect of it to be retained. Indeed, we support coexistence. As I have said several times, I cannot understand why overseas students who might choose to study in Adelaide would not love to stay at a place which has a live music venue just below.

So we have been keen to support this motion of Hon. Mr Simms. The first three parts, which are statements of fact, were very straightforward. Paragraph 4 was getting into territory where, as we do appreciate with the rules that we have, planning decisions are made by independent merit assessment; in this situation it is through the State Commission Assessment Panel. That is a robust process which has the capacity to not approve or approve, and approve with conditions.

Having looked at some of the decisions that have been made by SCAP, they certainly do take into consideration a lot of the different views that are put to them; therefore, it is my view that I strongly encourage people to make submissions to that process, and I am very confident that they will be heard.

At the end of the day, it has to be assessed on the rules, but certainly in the decisions I have looked at where, for instance—it is a different context—there are things in the suburbs where locals have had concerns about height or overhang or additional cars in the street and those sorts of things, SCAP will quite specifically make conditions with any sort of approval to ensure that any of those concerns are addressed.

Our support for state heritage listing predated the rally and predated the calling of this motion to a vote, so we are pleased that Sandy Verschoor is looking at that interim heritage listing. Again, it is very important to go through that particular process, and I am sure that will be given due consideration.

I suspect we will be passing this motion. I am sure that Hon. Mr Simms would prefer it to remain unamended. It has been my position that I think we need to be very clear about what the process is. I think there has been some confusion in the community, particularly in relation to subparagraph 4(c), that if this motion is passed unamended rules will be changed overnight.

I think it is very important to note as well that this is a motion of the parliament; it does not have legal effect. Particularly in the context of changing our laws, we are hopeful that the government will live up to its promise through the response to the expert panel to look at the issue of where local listings and state listings sit in different pieces of legislation. I think it has been a universal view across the parliament for some time that those laws need to be harmonised. I do note that under state heritage listing—and I think it is in the government's amendments to this motion—that particular aspect can be taken into consideration when the Heritage Council considers listing.

We certainly do need to ensure that live music in South Australia is kept vibrant. We also often talk, in the context of development and particularly development in city areas and areas of very high density, about livability, dynamism and all those sorts of things; therefore, I believe that the Crown and Anchor certainly fits within that aspect of a city that has unique places. It provides activation on the ground floor, which is important for security and for people who are moving about. It provides activities for people to engage with, rather than some of the buildings that we see in the city which are just office buildings and do not allow for people who live within the CBD to fully enjoy all of the dynamism and activities that we would otherwise expect.

With those comments, I do commend the motion. We will be supporting the government's amendments, which are technically very correct. I thought they were extraordinarily detailed for what is a motion of intent in the parliament, but they are factually correct. I do urge anybody who has an interest in this matter to engage with the SCAP by 10 May and also seek to make deputations at the appropriate point. I commend all the people who have campaigned for this issue because it is so important that we have an eye to making sure that we have live music retained in Adelaide for generations.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Michelle Lensink, are you moving your amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, Mr President, I will not be moving my amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:41): I will keep it short. I must commend the Hon. Robert Simms for his performance. He has pulled a full house here tonight, so who knows if he can pull a full house at the Crown and Anchor after this is over.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Can he sing?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: He may well make it as a roadie, I think. Congratulations to the Hon. Robert Simms, who has led a pretty active campaign that has actually highlighted the need for having live music venues like this and for them to stay alive. As other members have pointed out, there are many pubs that have gone by the wayside. We know how important pubs are for live music and also for local bands to get exposure. Back in my day when I was a teenager, it was very difficult for—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Very recent.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It was a long time, but it was very difficult in those days for some performers who became icons, really, in the Australian music industry to find suitable venues for them. Pubs were often loath to make their venues available to them. There have been some that have survived, and some iconic ones here in Adelaide. The Crown and Anchor is one. The Wheatsheaf Hotel is another, and I hope that continues for a long time to come. I will even chuck the Arkaba Hotel in there. The Arkaba has been a venue for many live performers over the years and has been a part of the music scene here.

The member's intent here is that, under planning laws, the cultural significance of a place is also recognised. I think that is important, because that is what heritage really is all about: having a place like the Crown and Anchor survive in its current state, rather than just having a bland facade and nothing else behind it. I think that would really take away something from that part of the city. There are so many examples around the world of venues that are so closely aligned with the culture of their cities. Can you imagine the uproar in Liverpool if the iconic Cavern Club was going to be demolished? I think at one point there was talk of getting rid of it. That has been the venue for so many great artists—of course, as we know, The Beatles and other Merseyside performers.

Then you look at other places around the world. One place that I made a point of visiting when I was in Nashville was The Bluebird Cafe. In New York, another place that was a must on my bucket list was the Apollo Theater, an incredible venue that has been there since 1914. I went to New York before COVID had it closed, and I had to go past the Copacabana, which is another historic venue.

These cities protect and encourage these venues to remain as part of their culture in their cities. We can learn a lot from those cities like that, and I think we have here in Adelaide. Again, I commend the honourable member for bringing this motion forward. I will support his amendments, and we will go from there.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:45): I want to thank all members who have spoken on this motion: the Hon. Mr Hanson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Crown and Anchor campaign, the Cranker campaign, for the amazing work that they have done in mobilising so many people in our community on this issue. This motion is not the end of this campaign; in fact, it is just the beginning. It is just the beginning of a new movement that is campaigning to reform our planning laws in South Australia and ensure that we have a planning system that actually listens to the views of the community rather than being captive to the interests of developers.

It is clear that there is momentum to fix South Australia's broken planning system and to actually listen to the views of the community. I am disappointed that paragraph 4 of this motion is being struck out, because the government's amendments take all of the verbs out of the motion. The motion actually called on the government to form a position opposing this redevelopment of the Crown and Anchor, and it called on the government to support the social and cultural elements of heritage as well, and to ensure that that was appropriately recognised through our planning laws.

I am disappointed that the Liberal Party seems to have changed its position on that. It seems to be a case of saying one thing on the steps of Parliament House on Sunday and doing something a bit different here in the parliament, and that is a shame. I fear that there may be some members here who are capitulating to the views of the Property Council, and that is a shame, because if the Property Council had their way, then our planning laws would not be about people at all. It is a bit like those uni chiefs who talk about unis being great places if not for the students.

The Property Council seems to think that our cities would be great places to live if not for the people who are actually in them. They seem to think that our planning system should not involve any emotion, should not actually consider the views of the residents and the community. Well, our cities are not simply soulless concrete jungles. They are about people—that is what they are about—and the community should have a say in planning the neighbourhoods in which we live. These decisions should not be outsourced to unelected committees, committees of so-called experts. These decisions should be made by communities and involve their local councils.

I do just want to say that one of the deep flaws in our planning system and our heritage laws that has been exposed here is the fact that we have a planning regime and a heritage regime that is really shallow in terms of the protection that it provides to our iconic buildings. It is simply not acceptable that a developer can protect the facade and gut the interior of our iconic buildings. We need to change our planning laws so that that cannot continue to happen. We need to change our planning laws to ensure that a venue like the Crown and Anchor cannot be converted into a soulless building.

This is not the end of this campaign; it is simply the campaign moving into another phase. If this motion gets up in an amended form tonight, that will be a good outcome for all those who have been out there rallying and campaigning, because it demonstrates that the parliament takes this matter seriously. But there is still a lot more work to do, and I want to make it very clear that the Greens stand shoulder to shoulder with all those people in our community who want to see a planning system that actually works for people and not developers. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments, but we will support, of course, the substantive motion should the amendments be successful.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 17

Noes 3

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

Sitting suspended from 17:54 to 19:46.