Submission Date Reached

 The submission date for the AEU development has been reached. Please follow this blog and we will provide updates as they are available. 

Submit Objection via Email

Thank you for your interest, the submission date has been reached, and we have therefore closed the automatic email creation form.

We are happy to say that over 60 submissions were made through this by residents!

Please keep following this blog for further updates.

Key Objections to the AEU Site Development

You can use these points below to help in preparing your reponses

1. Excessive Height and Massing

• The proposed 10-storey development is completely out of scale with the existing low-rise residential area, where most buildings are 1-2 storeys.
• The Urban Context Report claims that the height aligns with the precinct’s built form​, but this is misleading given the dominantly suburban character of Parkside.
• The development will create an overpowering visual presence, dwarfing surrounding homes and significantly altering the skyline.
• Such high-density construction is more suited to CBD areas rather than a heritage-adjacent residential suburb.
• The bulk and massing of the structure will make it stand out negatively rather than blend into the existing built environment.

2. Overlooking and Overshadowing

• The architectural plans show that numerous balconies and windows will have direct views into private backyards and living spaces of homes on Porter and Montpelier Streets​.
• The developer claims that setbacks will mitigate privacy issues, but the proposed distances are too small given the height of the development.
• Shadow diagrams indicate that significant portions of surrounding properties will be overshadowed for much of the morning and late afternoon​.
• Reduced natural light access will negatively affect existing homes, lowering their value and reducing quality of life for residents.
• Outdoor areas and gardens will receive far less sunlight, impacting their functionality and vegetation growth.

3. Traffic and Congestion

• Montpelier Street is narrow and residential—not designed to handle the expected increase in vehicle movements from the development​.
• The Transport Impact Assessment downplays congestion concerns, stating that traffic levels will remain “acceptable”, yet does not adequately address peak-hour volumes​.
• Council has raised concerns over the validity of traffic data, as the site was previously used for office space rather than high-density residential​.
• The increase in traffic will exacerbate existing bottlenecks, particularly at intersections such as Montpelier Street, Regent Street, and George Street.
• Pedestrian and cyclist safety will be compromised, particularly given the proximity to schools and community spaces.
• Emergency vehicle access could also be affected due to restricted manoeuvrability in narrow local streets.

4. Inadequate Parking Provision

• The development only provides 196 car parks for 202 apartments plus commercial office space​.
• There is no dedicated visitor parking, meaning residents and guests will be forced to park on surrounding streets, which are already at capacity.
• The developer’s reliance on bicycle parking and car-sharing as a way to reduce dependency on cars is speculative and untested​.
• Street parking in Parkside is already heavily used, particularly by commuters and local businesses, leaving little room for additional demand.
• Overflow parking from the development will spill onto surrounding residential streets, frustrating existing residents and reducing access for locals.

5. Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services

• The Planning Report claims that local services “have sufficient capacity”, yet no formal commitments from relevant authorities have been provided​.
• Water supply, sewage, and electricity infrastructure in Parkside was not designed for high-density residential development.
• Public transport availability is limited, and bus services in the area are already overcrowded during peak periods.
• Local schools and medical facilities are at risk of being overburdened, as the increased population will place pressure on enrolments and healthcare availability.
• There is no clear strategy to ensure that existing infrastructure can sustain the additional residents, businesses, and traffic load.

6. Noise and Environmental Pollution

• The Acoustic Assessment predicts that noise will remain “within acceptable limits”, but fails to properly consider the impact of cumulative noise sources, including:
  • Construction noise (potentially lasting years).
  • Increased vehicle traffic and underground car park noise.
  • Noise from communal areas, including gym, pool, and entertainment spaces​.
• Additional vehicle emissions will contribute to air pollution, impacting local air quality and public health​.
• The Sustainability Strategy Report does not sufficiently address long-term environmental impacts, such as increased carbon footprint from heating, cooling, and traffic.

7. Heritage and Character Concerns

• The Heritage Impact Assessment recognises that the development contains a locally heritage-listed dwelling, but the scale of the new structure will completely overwhelm it​.
• The modern design and materials proposed do not align with the traditional architectural fabric of Parkside.
• Claims that the development “enhances heritage character” are unfounded, as the large-scale design clashes significantly with nearby homes​.
• This sets a dangerous precedent for further inappropriate high-rise developments in historically significant suburbs.

8. Loss of Green Space and Tree Removal

• The Arborist Report confirms that multiple trees will be removed to accommodate the development​.
• These trees provide essential shade, air purification, and biodiversity benefits—their removal will have long-term environmental consequences.
• The Landscape Plan suggests replanting, but newly planted trees take decades to match the ecological value of mature trees​.
• Loss of urban greenery will reduce habitat for local wildlife, making Parkside less environmentally sustainable.

---

Conclusion: Why This Development Should Be Rejected

• The scale and density of the proposal do not align with Parkside’s low-rise, residential character.
• Significant negative impacts on privacy, overshadowing, traffic, and local infrastructure will harm the liveability of the area.
• Parking shortages and increased congestion will disrupt the existing community.
• The heritage character of Parkside will be irreversibly damaged by a dominant high-rise that does not belong in this area.
• The proposal should be rejected or significantly modified to:
  • Reduce height and density.
  • Increase setbacks and privacy protections.
  • Provide better traffic and parking solutions.
  • Address environmental and heritage concerns.

How to make a submission on the Planning SA website

A local resident has prepared these steps on "How to make a submission on the Planning SA website "

Flyers

 Here are our flyers - graphic below and PDF available from our Google drive folder

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15HO5-Uz9qv8hdrogwQbgpb9nsE5fZqbR?usp=sharing

Additional documents

Further documents have been made available and can be downloaded here from Google drive folder

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18Ypd9ITyQPn9gxvdKxk2u410ycLt1h9z?usp=sharing

Referral and Response Documents:

• DIT Referral Response​: This provides feedback on the development from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, focusing on traffic and infrastructure implications.
• EPA Referral Response​: The EPA outlines considerations related to site contamination and environmental impacts.
• ODASA Referral Letter​: The Office for Design and Architecture SA comments on design aspects, including massing and open space.
• City of Unley Response​: The local council highlights key planning issues and requests further analysis on certain aspects.

Summary of key points 

1. DIT Referral Response (Department of Infrastructure and Transport) – 17 January 2025​

The DIT has raised serious concerns about the traffic impacts of this massive development, yet it fails to adequately challenge the increased congestion it will cause. The response acknowledges that traffic volumes will increase, particularly on Montpelier and Porter Streets, yet does not demand stronger mitigation measures.

Key issues include:

• Increased Traffic & Congestion: The development will flood local streets with vehicles, worsening already problematic conditions. Despite this, the DIT’s response lacks firm opposition or demand for significant changes.
• Parking Concerns: The proposed multi-level car park may not be sufficient to meet demand, leading to overflow parking in surrounding streets. This will have a direct impact on residents.
• Lack of Public Transport Integration: While the response suggests public transport should be incorporated into the design, there are no concrete commitments to ensure this happens.

👉 Residents’ Concern: The DIT is allowing this project to proceed without properly addressing the inevitable traffic chaos, which will diminish quality of life for those living nearby.

---

2. EPA Referral Response (Environment Protection Authority) – 31 January 2025​

The EPA has identified significant environmental risks associated with this development, yet its response fails to demand stricter conditions or reject the proposal outright.

Key concerns include:

• Site Contamination Risks: The site has a history of industrial and commercial use, and contamination risks remain. The EPA calls for remediation, but there are no guarantees this will be done properly or that the site will be safe for future residents.
• Stormwater & Pollution: The development will dramatically increase stormwater runoff, putting pressure on local drainage and risking pollution. The EPA suggests mitigation but does not impose strict requirements.
• Noise & Air Quality Impacts: The increased density, construction, and additional vehicle traffic will lead to significant noise pollution and reduced air quality, affecting the wellbeing of existing residents.

👉 Residents’ Concern: The EPA has identified clear environmental risks, yet it is failing to enforce strong enough conditions or protections. This project should not proceed without guarantees that contamination, pollution, and environmental damage will not occur.

---

3. ODASA Referral Letter (Office for Design and Architecture SA) – 31 January 2025​

The ODASA acknowledges that this is largely the same proposal that was already rejected in 2023, yet instead of calling for its outright refusal again, it merely suggests minor refinements.

Key concerns include:

• Minimal Design Changes: The developer has made only token adjustments to the original rejected plan, including reducing the height by just one level and adding a small amount of communal space. This is not enough.
• Heritage Impact: The development still overwhelms the adjacent heritage-listed building, undermining the historic character of the area.
• Massive Scale & Bulk: The sheer size of the development is completely inappropriate for Parkside, yet ODASA does not demand a significant reduction in scale.
• Lack of Meaningful Oversight: Unlike the previous rejected proposal, this version was not even reviewed by the Design Review Panel, meaning there has been even less scrutiny this time around.

👉 Residents’ Concern: The ODASA should have rejected this application outright, given that it is nearly identical to the one previously refused. A few minor tweaks do not make this overdevelopment acceptable.

---

4. City of Unley Response – 16 January 2024​

The City of Unley has rightfully identified multiple serious problems with this proposal, yet its role is limited to providing comments rather than having the power to reject it.

Key concerns include:

• Heritage Destruction: The proposal disrespects the local heritage character of Parkside, overshadowing and undermining the existing heritage-listed building.
• Traffic Nightmares: The increase in residents, cars, and visitors will clog local streets, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and significantly increasing travel times.
• Loss of Trees & Green Space: The development will see the removal of significant trees, further reducing green space in Parkside. The "landscaping improvements" are just a smokescreen to distract from the loss of mature trees.
• Community Impact Ignored: The concerns of residents have been repeatedly dismissed in favour of developer interests, with little meaningful engagement.

👉 Residents’ Concern: The City of Unley’s concerns confirm what we already know—this development is inappropriate, too large, and damaging to the area. Yet, despite these issues, the developer is being allowed to push forward.

---

Overall Community Perspective

This development is clearly an overreach, and despite multiple government bodies identifying serious issues, there has been no outright rejection of the proposal. This is unacceptable.

• Traffic will get worse and make local streets unsafe.
• Environmental risks remain, with no certainty of proper remediation.
• The heritage of Parkside is under threat, with an oversized, intrusive development.
• Residents' concerns are being ignored, and small tweaks to a previously rejected plan do not justify its approval.

👉 Call to Action: The community must demand that this development be rejected outright. We cannot allow government bodies to "note concerns" without taking real action to stop this inappropriate development.

AEU proposal documents

The AEU proposal documents can be downloaded from our Google Drive folder below

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6jMJxNnmFbPa4gSYT4NAhB5iKWfyx9X?usp=sharing