RECEIVED From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scott Salisbury DPTI:PD Development Policy Advisory Committee morphett@parliament.sa.gov.au; spatterson@holdfast.sa.gov.au Glenelg District and Residential high density Zone review Thursday, 4 February 2016 12:08:22 PM 0406_001.pdf P002 04 Feb 2016 DPAC Glenelg District and Residential high density Zone review The approach from the Government to alter the planning conditions in Holdfast Bay to suit a 30 year plan proposal for South Australia is a correct strategy to provide for future residents of Holdfast Bay. However the massive single shot approach is far from suitable and has been proven time and time again to result in disjointed and inappropriate outcomes. The first area of concern is the data that DPTI have produced so an informed intelligent decision can be made; the information says that existing buildings are of a certain size which is incorrect. That begs the question about the remainder of the report. There are so many development topics that need to be addressed when deciding on such an amendment, my approach for my representation is to highlight my fundamental concerns that I believe will give the reader a clear understanding of my position. Before I get to that I would also highlight that the proposal in my view does very little to achieve the need for the amendment as stated in the Executive Summary. The summary fails to consider the any need required for the amendment that adds any value, amenity or improvement for the constituents of The City of Holdfast Bay. I would hope that the Council and the Government would consider that those needs are the greatest reason to make an amendment. My concerns are; 1.Why is the revision so large in area and not centralised? 2.What data shows demand and growth? 3.What reasons is there to justify such a large increase in heights of buildings? 1. Throughout the world cities and towns have grown organically from the centre outwards, they grow because of DEMAND is a systematic way from the centre. They do this because of the amenity and infrastructure already existing in the town centre. In this way the new developments add value to their residents but also add value to the existing residents and amenity. The proposed amendment makes it possible to develop in areas detached from the centre of Glenelg, which in turn dilutes the amenity and economic success of both areas. This has been highlighted to South Australians on numerous occasions, the silo effect of older apartment building at Glenelg and most disappointing is the example of Jetty Rd Glenelg versus Holdfast Shores Development. For almost two decades they have competed for consumers and residents, there has been little growth in Glenelg and SA and these two regions have for 18 years just diluted each other s potential. Now these two regions are only separated by 400m, they add no value to each other or the community by being separated. New Port Quays is another recent example of allowing development to be separated from the centre of amenity and infrastructure. Planning should force development to be strategically placed so that it always build on the amenity and success of existing infrastructure. The Government should reduce the size of the proposal so that it directs new development outwards from the centre of Glenelg. As demand grows the government can always increase these boundary to suit the demand of that time. Let s not have silos of large scale developments as we have in the past. 2. There has been very limited growth in SA for the past two decades and there is no solid data to show that will change. Currently there are empty apartments, townhouses and homes in Holdfast Bay, there are empty shops and hotel rooms and businesses growth does not change significantly. My interpretations may seem negative and could be slightly wrong, however we know SA has not performed well over the past
few years and forecasts do not show any change. There has been a number of apartment buildings approved and cancelled due to a lack of demand, there is however a demand for new housing/townhouses and smaller apartment style buildings. That demand should be encouraged to grow and planning should make amendments to facilitate this demand, they should be planned for the out areas of the Governments rezoning and large scale development should be focussed firstly on Jetty Rd, then Moseley St and then Anzac Hwy. When that demand is satisfied then we should consider extending into the suburbs. 3. I can see no social, economic, political or consumer demand for 12 storey buildings it can only be due to the benefits(profits) of a developer. With so many available properties to develop in the Glenelg area and no demand for 12 storey s, there is no logical reason to allow such intrusive and sensitive developments to be allowed. The development of 3, 4 or 5 storeys would surely satisfy demand and lessen the intrusion and devaluation of exiting residents, rather than increase the fortunes of others. Building heights must be measured in metres not storeys and must have a bench mark to work from. The latest proposal for the massive development at the Haven Marina Motel has been presented to the government, the council, the residents and the broader community as being a 12 storey development in fact it is 15 storeys high. Apart for the misrepresentation the guidelines should always refer to the actual overall height in metres. There is no data that indicates consumers want HI Rise developments, yes they may want smaller affordable dwellings and apartments. This can easily be achieved in Low rise particularly given the very little demand for this type of product. The beneficiaries of Hi Rise development are the Developers themselves, the resident and community are left to live with the result. I believe that result would be detrimental if the extent and heights of the proposed amendment are approved and in the case less is more! The government has a duty of care to do what is best for the people of SA and in this proposal the people of Holdfast Bay, particularly those who will be immediately affected by those changes. It s great to talk about growth, changes for the future, to get a plan together and have some direction; the people engaged to do this would no doubt be convinced emotionally that it is appropriate. However I see a different picture, I see the need for a plan that is more short term, that meets demand and adds ONLY value to the residents of Holdfast Bay for today and the future. We have made many mistakes before we should learn from them, seek the true facts and make informed unbiased decisions. Attached is a response given to me about the Haven Marina Motel proposal, this is an example of how a developer will take advantage of these new guidelines. There is no benefit to the community with this development it is in fact detrimental to the community and its economic success, a snatch and grab by the developer who will be the ONLY winner. Kind regards, Scott Salisbury Managing Director
t 08 8376 6555 f 08 8376 9875 PO Box 2075 Morphettville SA 5043 474b Anzac Highway Camden Park SA 5038 www.scottsalisburyhomes.com.au MBA SA Excellence in a Renovation or Addition $200 to $400k Winners 2015 MBA National Excellence in Building Award Winners 2014 MBA SA Excellence in a Display Home $500k to $700k Winners 2014 MBA SA Excellence in a Contract Home up to $300k Winners 2014 MBA SA Excellence in a Renovation or Addition up to $200k Winners 2014 This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return email or telephone 08 8376 6555 and destroy the original message. Scott Salisbury Homes does not accept liability for the views expressed in this email or for the consequences of any computer viruses that may be transmitted with this email. This email has been scanned by the "outbound" Symantec Email Security.cloud service at SSH