106-108 Unley Rd Unley SA 5061

I am supportive of development in the area and on that site in particular.
I am not supportive of development which fails to conform to the Unley council planning guidelines of max 5 storeys, sight lines/setbacks and tree cover.
This development should be redesigned to be compliant with the Unley councils planning framework for high density mixed use multi storey buildings.
Approval of non compliant buildings by going to the state government planning body undermines the strategic planning the unley council undertakes and demonstrates a failure of local and state government collaborative strategic planning.

Unley Road is struggling with excessive traffic now and more multi storey developments like this one and opposite The Cremorne add nothing to the area but more congestion. Are there plans to support or develop infrastructure if more multi storey buildings are going to be built to increase the local population numbers? If the building proposed doesn't follow the planning regulations, then why hasn't it been rejected?

I wonder what "public realm improvements" means? A development that exceeds the local council's development guidelines cannot be improving our public realm. Why do we bother having development guidelines if a developer can make their plan to be in excess of guidelines, thus becoming a significant development, and therefore goes straight to the State Planning for a decision? I have no issue with apartments being built along main arterial roads if they adhere to guidelines and enhance the area and solutions are included to advert local traffic problems (eg more than enough parking onsite).
I agree with the comments from other contributors; this process undermines Unley Council's strategic planning process and shows the lack of collaboration between State and Local governments. Back to the drawing board with this one, please

Resubmission of previous comment to be compliant with:

All submissions need to include the following, as stated in the e-mail below:
be in writing
outline the reasons for the representation
include your name and address
state if you wish to speak at the hearing where they will make a decision about the development. If you are unsure if you wish to attend, then please say yes.

I am supportive of development in the area and on that site in particular.
I am not supportive of development which fails to conform to the Unley council planning guidelines of max 5 storeys, sight lines/setbacks and tree cover.
This development should be redesigned to be compliant with the Unley councils planning framework for high density mixed use multi storey buildings.
Approval of non compliant buildings by going to the state government planning body undermines the strategic planning the unley council undertakes and demonstrates a failure of local and state government collaborative strategic planning.
I do not wish to speak at the state planning commission.

Generally, I am supportive of development along Unley Road, provided it is strictly in accordance with the Unley overlay which was adopted when the planning process was moved to the State Government in 2021.

Unfortunately the proposed development is not in accordance with the current plan and should therefore be modified so that it is consistent with the Unley Overlay. In addition, although the proposed plan indicates that there are no traffic issues, the included traffic report is lacking in many regards and these issues should to be addressed before allowing 67 car spaces exiting into a 5.5m wide lane.

Height and Overlooking Issues

The planning overlay states that buildings in this zone should not exceed 5 storeys (including ground floor) and 18.5m. The proposed building is 7 storeys (including ground floor) and 24.2m - (not including the height of any rooftop structures (eg plant)). The plans don't indicate whether the rooftop area will only be accessible to tradespeople while they maintain the plant. The plans should stipulate that the roof top can never be used for commercial purposes or functions of the residents/commercial tenants.

This zone is also meant to have a 30 degree raking of the height measured from 3m above the closest residential boundary - which in this case is 3 Hughes Street.

The proposed plans clearly shows that half of the top 2 floors are outside of this envelope and should therefore be removed - not only because they exceed the zoned height, but also because they fail this 30 degree raking requirement. In addition, if the development were to proceed at the permitted 5 storeys, a portion of the Western side of that floor should be removed to achieve the 30 degree raking.

The proposal suggests that overlooking will not be an issue because of sympathetic planting in planter boxes which will obscure vision over neighbouring properties. The plans show extensive planting on the upper levels including trees like jacaranda. While this looks impressive - it can not be mandated. What would prevent a resident from planting a herb garden rather than a screening plant that would restrict their views of a sunset?

In addition, there are few examples of multi-storey building where such plantings have eventuated (including the comparison sites at Opey and Hart Ave provided in the plans).

Plants die. Plants at height are subject to more severe elements eg wind. Overlooking prevention should not rely on ephemeral planting. Consequently the plans should be amended so that in addition to the planter boxes permanent physical structures that prevent overlooking should be installed..

The proposal also suggests that overlooking will not be a concern due to a 5 storey proposed development at 1 Hughes Street. Any development at 1 Hughes street will also be required to have a raked profile based on 30 degrees from 3m above the boundary of 3 Hughes St. The proposed plans show a 5 storey box situated at 1 Hughes St - which is misleading as the plans are not approved and are not in accordance with the Unley Overlay.

Traffic Management Issues

The carpark has spaces for 67 car spaces ranging from residents, and visitors (and presumably patrons of the commercial enterprises?).

The traffic report accompanying the proposed plan appears to be lacking - and has not considered several aspects of the site.

Charles lane is not designed for through traffic. It is NOT a street it is a lane. At the exit point it is only 5.5m wide.

Residents leaving the site can not turn right onto Unley Road. I understand that there was consideration for Mary Place to be closed across Charles Walk - so what route would these vehicles take? Unley Council is already trying to deal with the Rat Run that occurs along Palmerston Place and the crossing of Charles Walk to Charles Street. The Traffic report makes no mention of the impact of 67 more vehicles on this issue.

In addition South bound traffic on Unley Road is unable to turn right into Charles Lane. Residents coming home from the city will be unable to access their car park unless they turn onto Hughes Street or Charles Street - and wind their way through the narrow lane ways - exacerbating this issues mentioned above.

To prevent further congestion in the lane ways, residents leaving the site should be directed to turn left onto Charles Lane and enter Unley Road. They should also be only able to enter their car parking via Charles Lane from Unley Road. But the traffic plan is silent on this issue.

Comparison to Similar Height Buildings

The plans highlight similar buildings in the Unley area to justify their contravening the current planning requirements for that site. It points to two 7-storey residential complexes between Hart and Opey Street - as well as a proposed 9-storey building adjacent to the Unley Shopping Complex at 170 Unley Road. The latter comparison site is irrelevant as it is located in a commercial area where residential housing is some distance away and has not been approved or built.

The two 7-storey developments are similar - but I am unsure as to whether they were approved before the Unley Overlay came into place. Nevertheless, just because two 7-storey buildings have been built doesn't mean that every building along Unley Road should disregard the Unley Overlay requirement limit of 5 storeys in this zone.

It should be noted that the western face of these two 7-storey buildings have balconies - and there are no plantings that screen overlooking into neighbouring residents open spaces.

These 2 developments have parking which exits onto streets - not a 5.5m wide lane. Both of those streets have left and right hand turns on Unley Road. Both of those streets run the length between Unley Road and King William Road. The proposed site has vastly different traffic issues to the comparison sites.

We approve of development along Unley road provided it meets the current planning rules. This development clearly breaches these rules. There is no point in making these rules if at a stroke of a pen they can be overridden. The parking access is also of major concern given the very limited access off Unley Rd particularly in the peak hours.