21-25 South Esplanade Glenelg SA 5045

I am concerned about the height/number of stories of this apartment block. My main concern with having that many apartments is in relation to traffic flow in and out of Pier St. With St Peter’s Woodlands school on Pier St, the traffic around there and leading up to Brighton Rd is a nightmare around school pickup and drop off times. The traffic banks all the way up on Partridge St at the roundabout on Pier St, and no one can move in any direction because too few cars are able to cross at the lights at Brighton Rd/Pier st. Although it is worst at school times, this section of road can still get blocked up at other times of day. If you add in all the cars that will be traveling down Pier St to/from the proposed apartment block, it will be far worse.

While it sounds like there is a reasonable amount of parking in the proposed building for the number of apartments, I am sure that some will still have to be on the street and I also don’t think it takes into account the number of visitors they will likely have and where they will park. In summer especially, there is almost no parking on the streets around the proposed building. The situation will become even worse if that many new residents are added to the area.

Given the height of the previous Seawall apartments, and the height of the vast majority of other seafront buildings, I think the height of the new building should be similarly lowered - for example, to half (5 stories) of what is proposed.

Finally, I have not read the rules around the destruction of heritage listed properties but it seems to defeat the whole purpose of a listing. Is there not some way that the heritage listed building that remains on site can be incorporated into the design? Even just the front facade or something to give at least a nod to its heritage importance, rather than complete destruction.

And to put my concerns about traffic and parking into context, I live on Moseley St and will be directly affected by the increased traffic.

Thank you for considering my comments.

I would like to invite the planning authority to go to Glenelg on a weekend and try to find a parking spot. It is impossible and in any street.
I totally agree with A Owens comment. The addition of a ten story building to our narrow streets creates an absolute nightmare for traffic flow, pollution and noise.
What about the additional pressure with this add to the infrastructure such as sewage and the dumping of garbage. What about the water table by the ocean?
Is this about the council being able to cash in on the increase council rates they will receive?

Residents in Glenelg and neighbouring councils frequently visiting the area have been very vocal for a long time in their opposition to this proposal. Another Goliath battle. I hope that the State Government steps in with some common sense. This proposal has No regard to the visual appeal, and the removal of large areas of open space has been taken into consideration. The destruction of heritage buildings and removal of trees in glenelg is horrendous. The density of the proposal is too high, the number of floors is too high and should be to a maximum of 5. Pressure on local ammenities including the beach, the traffic congestion and use, the management of the building from rubbish removal, regular fire testing, ongoing trades for maintenance, plus resident traffic, plus residents friends and family traffic is ridiculously out of whack to the size of the streets and available space, it essentially means the enjoyment of the area will be reduced significantly to visitors and locals as nowhere to park, difficulty in navigating the area. We are pushing visitors who come and spend money in glenelg out for residents who spend less. This is an easy fact check on Holdfast council reports showing the incredible value that tourism offers the area. With Taplin building on Jetty road, grand being renovated, we need to look at the area as a WHOLE not individual projects to ensure that the amenity and visual appeal, open spaces, density, design, character, infrastructure are met. I do not believe any of these are. The unnecessary destruction of heritage buildings which were in awesome condition, supporting a viable business where family and friends could come and enjoy the Area in open space with little density is simply greed by the developer, and at the end of the day only benefits a few but negatively impacts many.

https://plan.sa.gov.au/have_your_say/notified_developments/current_notified_developments/submission?aid=5389

hurry up and knock it down and get on with the new development need more modern beachfront apartment

Yes. Hurry up and knock it down. “8” looks fabulous on South Esplanade. Don’t need eyesores like we deteriorating at the moment.
Great for the area is a new build. Sooner the better.

I have already posted the comments in a PDF directly on to the PlanSA website. For information.

Glenelg Development Application 22043211
Chasecrown Pty Ltd C/- Future Urban
Demolition, Residential flat building & Swimming pool, spa pool or associated safety features 21-25 SOUTH ESPLANADE GLENELG SA 5045
22-23 SOUTH ESPLANADE GLENELG SA 5045
24 SOUTH ESPLANADE GLENELG SA 5045
25 SOUTH ESPLANADE GLENELG SA 5045

In the context of various Planning Code Performance Outcomes, I submit that some highly beneficial amendments should be made to this development proposal.

A. TRANSPORT, ACCESS AND PARKING
Planning Code references:
DO1 A comprehensive, integrated and connected transport system that is safe, sustainable, efficient, convenient and accessible to all users.
PO 6.6
Loading areas and designated parking spaces for service vehicles are provided within the boundary of the site.

1. Loading Dock & Parking for Service Vehicles
There appears to be no provision for a dedicated loading dock or designated parking spaces for service vehicles in the current design. This would cause major problems as discussed further below.

The highly desirable solution is to provide a designated loading area and parking spaces for service vehicles within the basement car park, with access from Pier Street.
The most appropriate space for this appears to be by use of the space in the entry level basement now shown as car parks 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27 & 28. This would allow service vehicles to enter and exit the dedicated area in a forward direction, and to load/unload without hindrance to other vehicles.

There would be immediate access to lifts 1 & 2 at the northern end. Access to lift 3 at the southern end would be best provided by removal of one storage enclosure and provision of opening doors on both ends of the lift. Desirably car parks 21, 22, 23 & 24 would also be designated to service activities to allow large deliveries to be moved directly from the loading dock to lift 3 without entering the driveway area.

Head clearance within the relevant entrance and exit pathways and the loading area would need to be increased: possibly to a minimum of 4 metres.

Desirably the relevant areas should be chained off, or have retractable bollards, to prevent unauthorised parking.

A dedicated loading dock area in this space would also allow on-site waste collection by Medium Rigid Vehicles, with immediate access to the southern end refuse storage area. (This is discussed below.)

Current Proposal
Access to basement car park levels 01, 02 and 03 will be via Pier Street with a dual lane two-way ramp. It is said to be for light vehicles.

The visitor car park on the ground level will access via Oldham Road using the Porte Cochere entry / exit. It is said that the largest vehicles using this access point will be 8.8 metre mini-buses. No mention is made of access for commercial vehicles and service deliveries. The only pedestrian ramp entrance is at the Porte Cochere entry.

It therefore appears the only access and loading area for large commercial vehicles will be the Porte Cochere entrance and then transport of large / heavy deliveries through the main entrance foyer to the lifts.

This is likely to cause significant inconvenience and safety issues, and seems extremely inappropriate in a high quality residential complex.

The problems would be exacerbated by the apparent lack of provision of a dedicated goods lift implying residential lifts would have to be used for large and heavy deliveries. This is further complicated by the implicit division of the complex into two developments, a north site comprising 53 apartments and a south site of 19 apartments.

Level 1 (where the main foyer is located) appears to be the only level in which there is cross access between the north and south sites. Therefore at least one residential lift at both ends would need to be used for large deliveries. At a very minimum, the doorway entrance and corridor space providing access from the main foyer to the south site needs to be large enough to allow for this.

Note: With 72 apartments there will be frequent need for access by removal vans and for removalists to unload and then transport bulky furniture, household goods etc. from the vans to the relevant apartments.

The same applies for servicing common property areas, for example supplying large, heavy gym equipment.

Looking to the future, in time owners will want to carry out renovations which will involve transporting building supplies, carpet rolls etc. to relevant apartments.

B. DESIGN IN URBAN AREAS
Desired Outcome that the Development is:
(a) contextual - by considering, recognising and carefully responding to its natural surroundings or built environment and positively contributing to the character of the locality
(b) durable - fit for purpose, adaptable and long lasting
(c) inclusive - by integrating landscape design to optimise pedestrian and cyclist usability, privacy and equitable access and promoting the provision of quality spaces integrated with the public realm that can be used for access and recreation and help optimise security and safety both internally and within the public realm, for occupants and visitors
(d) sustainable - by integrating sustainable techniques into the design and siting of development and landscaping to improve community health, urban heat, water management, environmental performance, biodiversity and local amenity and to minimise energy consumption.

1. Waste Collection
As currently designed, a Medium Rigid Vehicle (MRV) cannot safely manoeuvre in the basement level where the waste storage rooms are located.

As a result, the current proposal for waste collection, described below, is inefficient and labour intensive with potential OH&S risks (due to the extent of manual handling required).

It is also potentially dangerous to pedestrians at the end of Pier Street (a busy area as it provides direct access to the beach) due to the need by the MRV to carry out a 5-point turn for the entry movement to the street loading zone. This will occur at least three times a week.

The highly desirable solution is to provide a designated loading area within the basement car park to provide immediate access to the southern end refuse storage area, with forward entry and exit access in Pier Street, as suggested in the discussion above of the need for a loading dock.

Current Proposal
Waste collection bins will be stored on-site in a specific waste room and wheeled to the southern frontage on Pier Street as required. Private waste collection Medium Rigid Vehicles (MRV) will collect the waste.

The building manager will transfer the bulk bins from the waste rooms to the temporary pick-up area via the driveway ramp using mechanical assistance (e.g. electric bin tug).
The collection contractor will temporarily park in a 10.8 metre long loading zone to the west of the proposed driveway adjacent to the building on Pier Street. They will collect the bins from the temporary pick-up area, empty and then return the bins. The building manager will then transfer the bulk bins back to the waste rooms.

The loading zone will be time allocated from 9:00am – 12 noon Monday to Friday, with the space being available for public on-street car parking outside of these times.

A 5-point turn needs to be conducted by the MRV at the end of Pier Street for the entry movement to the street loading zone.

The development will need a minimum of three regular collections per week.

The current proposal appears to breach several relevant parts of the Planning Code:
Site Facilities / Waste Storage
PO 11.2
Communal waste storage and collection areas are located, enclosed and designed to be screened from view from the public domain, open space and dwellings.
PO 11.4
Communal waste storage and collection areas are designed to allow waste and recycling collection vehicles to enter and leave the site without reversing.
PO 35.5
Where waste bins cannot be conveniently collected from the street, provision is made for on-site waste collection, designed to accommodate the safe and convenient access, egress and movement of waste collection vehicles.
PO 40.6
Provision is made for on-site waste collection where 10 or more bins are to be collected at any one time.

2. Access for People with a Disability & Emergency Services
Level 1 (where the main foyer is located) appears to be the only level in which there is access between the north and south sites. The doorway entrance and corridor space providing access from the main foyer to the south site needs to be large enough to allow for wheelchair access, ambulance officers using a stretcher, and emergency services such as fire officers carrying fire fighting equipment. The current design does not appear to provide sufficient space.

Relevant Planning Code references:
Common Areas
PO 30.1
The size of lifts, lobbies and corridors is sufficient to accommodate movement of bicycles, strollers, mobility aids and visitor waiting areas.

3. Minimisation of Energy Consumption
The beachfront apartment windows/doors face west and will gain high sun load all year round. External shutters or blinds integrated into the building design should be provided on these apartment balconies.

Without such protection residents will run almost constant air conditioning and/or erect inconsistent and irregular window protection.

I am also surprised there appears to be no consideration of installing a rooftop solar PV system to supply electricity to common areas in the building.

I question whether there is sufficient provision of EV charging points (currently two) in a development of 72 apartments, at a time when government policy is to encourage the rapid take- up of EV ownership.

Relevant Planning Code references:
Environmental Performance
PO 4.2
Buildings are sited and designed to maximise passive environmental performance and minimise energy consumption and reliance on mechanical systems, such as heating and cooling.
PO 4.3
Buildings incorporate climate responsive techniques and features such as building and window orientation, use of eaves, verandahs and shading structures, water harvesting, at ground landscaping, green walls, green roofs and photovoltaic cells.
Environmental
PO 14.2
Development incorporates sustainable design techniques and features such as window orientation, eaves and shading structures, water harvesting and use, green walls and roof designs that enable the provision of rain water tanks (where they are not provided elsewhere on site), green roofs and photovoltaic cells.
Residential amenity in multi-level buildings
PO 28.2
Balconies are designed, positioned and integrated into the overall architectural form and detail of the development to:
(a) respond to daylight, wind, and acoustic conditions to maximise comfort and provide visual privacy.

4. Social & Meeting Room, Library
The provision of the communal facilities of a swimming pool, gym and yoga room is noted. However no provision has been made for a communal room, desirably with basic kitchen facilities and a toilet & handbasin, that could be used for social activities, meetings and a library. Such a facility, frequently provided in other high quality multi-storey residential complexes, is highly beneficial to the development of a spirit of community amongst residents. It would be a desirable marketing feature.

Relevant Planning Code reference:
Communal Open Space
PO 39.1
Development is designed to provide attractive, convenient and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal areas to be used by residents and visitors.

5. Building Manager & Concierge Services
A full-time onsite building manager will be required to manage a development of this size and complexity. A dedicated office, with provision for a desk, IT equipment and filing facilities needs to be provided. Currently that does not appear to be the case.

Once formed, the strata community may decide they wish to have an on-site concierge service and reception desk. Provision for this should be incorporated into the design of the main foyer where there appears to be sufficient space.

Submitted by Margaret Ward, 20 February 2023 Contact: 0438 507 926

Brothers and sisters, this development will inspire generations to come with its audacious facades and bold interior.

I hereby give this development my blessing, and my heart.

With love, Benry.

The demolition of the Seawall apartments and proposed development have been approved without adequate consultation with local residents. The surrounding infrastructure will not cope with the increased numbers of vehicles . Safety concerns re school children and lack of adequate forethought given to surrounding residents. In addition the main building is heritage listed and should be incorporated into any development. This is part of our history to gift to future generations. I find it interesting that we travel to countries overseas to see their history and unique buildings…. We will have nothing left except boxes with absolutely no character or indeed longevity.

Development needs to commence on this project asap. Remnants of the dilapidated eyesore should be removed so construction can commence, which will not only complement the historic and contemporary characteristics of the beachside area, but enhance the overall aesthetic with the developers high quality architectural design.

It is infuriating that in current times of limited resources Planning committees are still allowing the demolition of solid well built AND heritage buildings, ignoring heritage which is in place to preserve history These buildings are ripe for repurposing and integrating into a suitable 5/6 level building They are being ignored and mistreated purposely by the current owners to an end which has nothing to do with care to the local residents, the beachfront or heritage
By all means in-fill where it works ie on tram lines etc but not the sensitive beachfront