Comments made here were sent to City of Holdfast Bay. Add your own comment.
How can this be 13 storey with a sub category of 2 storey?
Chase crown have a reputation from 8 South Esplanade. Beautiful architecture destroyed (la Mancha) woeful neighbour relationships, ridiculous extended build times - years, still have not completed the boundary fence, unsafe practices with onsite work accidents, and stress to the residents from noise pollution, street pollution, pollution running into the drains. Aside from the developers reputation being considered as unfit for this project, the destruction of historical Seawall buildings over some 3,500sqm of land for a 13 story environmental disaster, high density, causing major traffic increase, serious impact to the beach, sand dunes, pollution run off is not supported and does not fit into the area. We should be preserving this environmental shoreline not destroying it further. Greed to benefit a few whilst destroying the environment for all Australians.
I cannot understand the state government and our local government allowing so many of our heritage buildings to be demolished. These buildings have historical significance and add so much value to our local area.
I also have major concerns re traffic in neighbouring streets and lack of sunlight for direct neighbours.
I feel that is all about money and greed without giving thought to the social and environmental aspects associated with developments such as this.
The character of Glenelg is slowly being eroded.
Once again SA councils put greed before the community. High rise are ugly, have very poor environmental outcomes and spoil the aesthetic value of Glenelg. And you can’t pretend it’s for progress. It’s only for the extra rates. Disgraceful.
This area is zoned as 5 storeys, why would the Government even consider 13.
If I was driving 130km in a 50km zone and said it was only a little over the limit, it wouldn’t be overlooked, as this proposal has been.
Government should also consider the local residences and not just the Developers and the gain of extra rates and taxes.
The increased traffic in the area will cause further congestion and exacerbate the existing lack of parking.
The height of the proposed building will cause shadowing to properties to the South of the site. Maybe if the people that approve these buildings lived in the area, they may see a different point of view.
Please put the plan up so we can comment on the plan not just the height issue.
13 story in a 5 story is ridiculously over the planning allowance.
Please note Mr Rau when Minister of Planning instituted 12 storey limit against Council wishes, the 12 storey only covers 50% of the development area, the rest is 5 storey limit....that is why development’s northern end is 12 storeys and southern is 5 storeys.
When Liberal Government won office we (Council) requested heights to be reviewed.....this was not done, zone limit was reconfirmed by Mr Knoll.
Thank you Mikki for your comments. Interesting that some of Mr Rau’s parting gift of ridiculous 12 story planning laws were removed at Glenelg North by the Patawalonga but not in other areas. Seems a little unbalanced, recognising that the number of story’s isn’t appropriate and too high in that area but not at others.
The destruction of the Seawall buildings and such a large land area of 3,500sqm dedicated to 5 at the back and 12 on the front is high density no too ways about it. It does impact shadowing, it does impact neighbours who are not protected by these developments and it does impact the environment which no one seems to care about. Blame Mr Rau all everyone likes, but let’s do something about it and return some common sense planning laws.
Seawall Demolition Opponents & Concerned Residents
Yesterday I delivered 100 flyers in the general vicinity of the Seawall Apartments seeking to form a group to undertake a measured and thoughtful approach against this application. Currently there are several adjoining owners and others interested and I have been in contact with the Premier & Deputy Premier's offices along with Stephen Patterson MP & David Spiers MP to alert them to our concerns. If you wish to join please send an email to karen.decean@live.com.au and we can all arrange to meet to form a plan going forward. Warm Regards, Karen
As a resident of 9 South Esplanade, our experience with the neighbouring Eight (a Chasecrown development) has been dreadful and lessons should be learnt. Aside from the Government's overruling of the Planning Laws, our concerns relating to the building's design were largely overlooked. We now live with a dark brown wall with windows overlooking our internal garden, diesel exhaust pipes are at the level of our homes and with the services area built above the carpark we suffer the constant hum of machinery. I understood that a condition of the build was the restoration of the heritage building on the northern boundary but after three years that it still a mess. Our front garden has not had the damage done by the build repaired. The new building has won the inevitable architectural award citing attention to detail - certainly not all the details! We need better protection from our Government and Council (though the latter have tried) and more attention to the local environment. Stop riding roughshod over us!
I am really disappointed at all the negative comments on here about the building Chase Crown has just finished.
The beachfront at Glenelg has been very tired for a long time with nothing new for almost 20 years.
South Australia is unjustly regarded as a backwater by other states in Australia but new developments like the one proposed will help bring us into the 21st Century, particularly if it up to the standard of 8 South Esplanade.
Not only that it will provide jobs, increase tourism and generally lift Glenelg.
I'm all for it.
Jett Matthew - Seawall apartments won numerous state, Australian and GLOBAL awards for best accomodation and location. Umm yeah high rise doesn’t equal beauty, experience. Short term gain for employment for the destruction of the very environment that it protects. Your opinion of the foreshore is tired - agree noone is saying that - develop it the right way not high density that destroys the very reason why it’s beautiful, clean beach and area. This isn’t about stopping development it’s about doing it right.
I concur with Jett Mathew’s comments. I have lived in Glenelg as a resident for 30 plus years, and agree wholeheartedly with Jett that the South Esplanade needs updating. We can not preserve the foreshore as a museum of properties that no longer serve the future of Glenelg foreshore as vibrant destination.
Hear Hear Gary, really feel peole have to embrace change for SA to move out the shadows to provide growth & opportunity for our next generation. Being a expat living in QLD for many years , Glenelg should be an attraction to live and visit .. so development is progession toward this. Seawall is ripe for such a development - hardly a preservation asset in my eyes.
Thank you Mikki for your comments. Interesting that some of Mr Rau’s parting gift of ridiculous 12 story planning laws were removed at Glenelg North by the Patawalonga but not in other areas. Seems a little unbalanced, recognising that the number of story’s isn’t appropriate and too high in that area but not at others.
The destruction of the Seawall buildings and such a large land area of 3,500sqm dedicated to 5 at the back and 12 on the front is high density no too ways about it. It does impact shadowing, it does impact neighbours who are not protected by these developments and it does impact the environment which no one seems to care about. Blame Mr Rau all everyone likes, but let’s do something about it and return some common sense planning laws.
I believed that the Government and Council had decided not to let Glenelg, or any other SA beach side suburbs, become like in the Gold Coast, and would therefore limit further high rise and protect the historic nature of the existing buildings that give us our particular local identity.
With this application and the previous high rise on The Esplanade there is evidence that this decision was only a token to achieve votes, and due to the continuing failure to protect the environment and those who live in this area I am writing to object to this new plan to build over the restricted limit with the hope that the People directly affected are being heard.
Very interesting to hear the comments of Susan Jones, as a resident living next to a high rise building. Less interesting to hear those who are calling for “development” with no safeguards. I suspect these comments come from those who live nowhere near high density and/or profit from similar. Also why on earth are these same residents concerned about the perception of SA from other states? Seems odd, when all around us, people are clamouring to get into SA!
If Seawall were to be demolished, it may be possible to save the historic mansion at 23-25 Esplanade, (with some sensitive restoration) and build something suitable on the remaining land that complements it. However for the developer to get maximum bang for their buck, they obviously wish to utilise every square inch. The developers look at this project through short term business eyes, whilst genuine residents are looking at quality of life and environmental concerns, whilst attempting to preserve history. Due to this, the developers can generally outbid any other potential purchaser. This is where the heritage listing is supposed to protect the property!
If the Council and Government are serious about preserving these historic properties for future generations, perhaps they need to seriously look at how to offset the onerous maintenance costs of same. It also appears that any historic building can now be razed, as all are uneconomical to maintain when it comes down to it. However, amazing how many of them still stand, compared to construction in recent times.
Its very easy to say yes to any development that doesn’t directly affect you. If people passing comment on and allowing approval lived directly next to such buildings, I suspect the outcome would be vastly different.
I also note 8 South Esplanade were to have a green wall covering the entirety of the building facing St Johns Row. There is an enclosed garden area becoming evident but which department is responsible for ensuring that the remaining greenery is installed and maintained? It seems to be common that initial plans show a plethora of greenery in such developments which are never implemented. The developers must also be fairly confident their plans will be approved before the purchase, therefore it would be interesting to hear what goes on in this process!
These was an article in yesterdays Sunday Mail (7th Feb) on this development for those who haven’t seen it.
Very interesting to hear the comments of Susan Jones, as a resident living next to a high rise building. Less interesting to hear those who are calling for “development” with no safeguards. I suspect these comments come from those who live nowhere near high density and/or profit from similar. Also why on earth are these same residents concerned about the perception of SA from other states? Seems odd, when all around us, people are clamouring to get into SA!
If Seawall were to be demolished, it may be possible to save the historic mansion at 23-25 Esplanade, (with some sensitive restoration) and build something suitable on the remaining land that complements it. However for the developer to get maximum bang for their buck, they obviously wish to utilise every square inch. The developers look at this project through short term business eyes, whilst genuine residents are looking at quality of life and environmental concerns, whilst attempting to preserve history. Due to this, the developers can generally outbid any other potential purchaser. This is where the heritage listing is supposed to protect the property!
If the Council and Government are serious about preserving these historic properties for future generations, perhaps they need to seriously look at how to offset the onerous maintenance costs of same. It also appears that any historic building can now be razed, as all are uneconomical to maintain when it comes down to it. However, amazing how many of them still stand, compared to construction in recent times.
Its very easy to say yes to any development that doesn’t directly affect you. If people passing comment on and allowing approval lived directly next to such buildings, I suspect the outcome would be vastly different.
I also note 8 South Esplanade were to have a green wall covering the entirety of the building facing St Johns Row. There is an enclosed garden area becoming evident but which department is responsible for ensuring that the remaining greenery is installed and maintained? It seems to be common that initial plans show a plethora of greenery in such developments which are never implemented. The developers must also be fairly confident their plans will be approved before the purchase, therefore it would be interesting to hear what goes on in this process!
These was an article in yesterdays Sunday Mail (7th Feb) on this development for those who haven’t seen it.
