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.