Development around the Port

Remove this Banner Ad

RussellEbertHandball said:
"The way it sits today is that any development in the Port, such as the Colac Hotel, Dock One, or anything in that area, can not be associated with any form of living. People need to know if they are walking past or driving into an explosion zone. "The Dock One stage of Newport Quays was put on hold in 2011 after Safework SA and the Environment Protection Authority warned the 275-home development should not go ahead because of the risk of explosion from the plant.
Click to expand...
The EPA never expressed a concern about explosion risk, they only suggested that Safework be consulted on the proposal given that the fertiliser plant was so close to the site.

Wouldn't want this happening near my house that's for sure!
 
Rising Power said:
The EPA never expressed a concern about explosion risk, they only suggested that Safework be consulted on the proposal given that the fertiliser plant was so close to the site....
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that because the Advertiser and other media outlets reported on a secret EPA report in 2010. This report is what held up Anton Schmidt, the EPA wouldnt come out publicly and admit it, because it basically meant they had for a couple of decades failed to do their job properly. The Advertiser story from 22nd October 2010

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...shed-development/story-e6frea83-1225941957665
SEVERAL senior State Government ministers were aware of the contents of a secret report warning of health risks and imminent possible explosions at Port Adelaide.

Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway today raised the possibility of the Government paying for either residents or industry to be relocated from the precinct. AdelaideNow today revealed an Environmental Protection Authority report had called for the multi-million Newport Quays expansion to be blocked and raised concerns over toxic air and possible explosions from fertiliser stockpiles in Port Adelaide.

Mr Holloway said he had not read the report but believed "all relevant ministers" had been made aware its contents. The report was handed to the state Development Assessment Commission on July 15 and has been kept hidden despite repeated requests for its release. Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon, Environment and Conservation Minister Paul Caica and Mr Holloway are the ministers most closely associated with the project.

The findings of the report also touch on the portfolios of Health Minister John Hill. Treasurer Kevin Foley is the local member for the affected area. "I imagine all those ministers involved with the project are aware there is an issue. Whether they've read the detail of the project ... in Government you have many, many reports," Mr Holloway said.

Mr Holloway said he had "no idea" what the potential blast zone from an explosion sparked from the fertiliser stockpiles was.

He also challenged the EPA to shutdown or reform industries including Adelaide Brighton Cement, Incitec Pivot and Birkenhead fuel storage plant if they had a damaging impact on human health. "The issues have been there for years. The EPA is responsible for ensuring that the health issues in that are addressed," he said. "If they believe it's unhealthy for people to live there and people shouldn't be living there then get them to go and shut the (Adelaide Brighton) plant down. That's their job." Mr Holloway said it was common for EPA reports to be suppressed until the a development approval had been granted.
......
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...shed-development/story-e6frea83-1225941957665

then later that day this bit was added to the on line article

Explosions risk
Earlier today, the State Government admitted there was a risk of explosions at a fertiliser warehouse at Port Adelaide near the Newport Quays development. Newport Quays has also raised questions about whether existing residents at Birkenhead should be living right next to the Adelaide Brighton Cement smokestack.

Responding to details of a secret EPA report revealed in The Advertiser this morning, Planning Minister Paul Holloway conceded there was a risk of explosion or fire due to large-scale storage of ammonium nitrate at fertiliser warehouses at Incitec Pivot, "The material can be dangerous, it has to be properly handled," he told 891 ABC Adelaide.

He also said the Newport Quays project would "stop" if the environmental issues raised by the EPA were not resolved.

And guess what Newport Quays stopped in October 2011 and went to court in 2012 suing the government
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-31/newport-quays-weatherill-port-river/3610688
and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-23/newport-quays-termination-court/3907636

There was a settlement out of court for $5mil + $3.69mil
 
From Urban Renewal Authority (trading as Renewal SA) 2013-14 Annual Report released last September page 19-20

PORT ADELAIDE RENEWAL PROJECT
Port Adelaide has long been recognised as an area with outstanding urban renewal potential. Its many heritage assets create a unique identity, ripe for new infill and waterfront development creating exciting possibilities for the community. Delivery of the Port Adelaide Renewal Project encompasses a high level of community engagement and the delivery of early activations, precinct plan and business case development, together with residential development land sales. Port Adelaide’s vision is to become a key destination in South Australia, viewed by all as a unique, vibrant and desirable place. Through the consistent implementation of the Precinct Plan, more people will live, work, invest in and visit Port Adelaide to enjoy the historic surrounds, expansive waterways and diverse cultural attractions. The Precinct Plan anticipates 2000 - 4000 additional dwellings and 4000 - 8000 people in the study area generating permanent and construction jobs over the next two decades and envisages a doubling of public open space in the study area.

Project commenced: 2012
Forecast project completion: Post 2025

PROGRESS 2013-14
• Precinct and Implementation Plans completed;

• Early activation package one works completed including:
o façade restoration works to the Visitor Information Centre and Customs House;
o landscaping, regional playground at Harts Mill;
o establishment of a weekly market at Hart’s Mill;
o inner harbour loop Path; and o angle parking in St Vincent Street.

• A further six vacant shops were occupied under the Renew Adelaide program; and
• A number of successful community events and festivals including the Tall Ships Festival with 35 000 attendees, the annual St Jeromes Laneway indie music festival with over 6000 ticketed attendees, and the Port Adelaide Foodies’ Weekend, held to celebrate the Hart’s Mill works with almost 4000 people visiting the event.

TARGETS 2014-15
• Business case approved and future funding for the Port Adelaide Renewal Project secured;
• Work with the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure (DPTI) to complete the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) for Port Adelaide;
• St Vincent Street embellishment and finalise interpretive signage of the loop path;
• Deliver the Early Activation package two works with a focus on streetscapes and improvements;
• Contract the sale of residential sites at 6-10 McLaren Parade and Divett Street.
• Completion of due diligence and concept plan for the four hectare Dock 1 residential development site;
• Introduce brand awareness marketing campaign for Port Adelaide; and
• Continued focus on increasing visitation to the Port Adelaide Renewal Project with four significant activation events and a range of smaller monthly activities to be delivered during 2014-15.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RussellEbertHandball said:
Anthon Schmidt and others were blocked because the EPA said the fertilizer factory made it too dangerous to let people live there in case their was an explosion. Its BS over the top OH&S thinking but as I posted on the previous page the story at the start of 2014 about the SA government moving the Incitec Pivot plant will change all that - when it finally is moved.

From Inside Daily story in February 2013

Port dock development back on after EPA shifts on pollution
Thursday, 14 February 2013

Kevin Naughton
THE once-rejected Dock One residential development at Port Adelaide is back on the agenda after a change of position by the Environment Protection Authority.

At least one other project looks set to benefit from the change of advice relating to air pollution – a three-storey 10 apartment mixed use development of the old wool stores across the road from Dock One in the heart of Port Adelaide.

The wool stores have been vacant for more than 30 years.

Developer Anthony Schmidt wants to turn the three storey warehouse into a bowling alley, restaurant and art studio with 10 apartments on the top level.

A previous attempt to build residential development in the area was stymied by the EPA’s concerns about pollution from nearby industrial sites, including a fertiliser factory.

The area in question is near the recently proposed State Government and Port Adelaide Enfield Council’s joint $7.9 million project for a temporary beach at Cruickshank’s Corner, markets at Hart’s Mill and a walking and bike path around the inner harbour.

Properties and businesses within the air-pollution exclusion zone are expected to become more valuable under changed EPA advice relating to the conflict between residential developments and nearby chemical manufacturing at Incitec Pivot.

The EPA refuses to confirm or deny its changed position on air quality in the area.

However, the council and developers say the EPA has changed its mind, and RenewalSA says that concerns about air quality in the area have eased.
The changed position emerged after Indaily queried the removal of a development application from the Port Adelaide Enfield Council’s website late last month.
It is understood the application for change in the use of land to accommodate a mixed use development was set to be rejected by the council’s Development Assessment Panel after a recommendation from council officers that it be refused after what council documents referred to as “informal advice from the Industry Services Division of the EPA”.
Thatadvice, given in an email dated 13 November 2012 from Shengfu Fang in the EPA’s Industry Service divisionstates “this DA is similar to Dock One development” and referred council staff to the EPA’s previous advice on Dock One.

Council documents summarised the discussions with the EPA as:
“The EPA advice…contained in a letter dated 15 July 2010, brought attention to the proposal’s non-compliance with the 500 metre recommended separation distance between chemical storage development and residential development.”

In its conclusion, the council’sdevelopment application assessment document states;
‘The proposal’s incorporation of 10 residential, units at the 2nd level is problematic given the site’s proximity 240 metres south of the Incitec Pivot fertiliser facility…”
“Recommendation; refusal,” it said.

The council’s concerns had earlier been challenged by the developer of the wool stores site, hotelier Anthony Schmidt.

In a letter dated 26 November 2012, Schmidt’s town planning consultant Phillip Brunning told council’s senior planning officer Tim Hicks he had obtained data from the EPA’s Air Quality Strategy Pilot Project.

“I have obtained and reviewed data associated with this program for the last 16 months period, as recorded at Birkenhead, which demonstrates that (particle levels) only exceeded the EPA’s Air Quality Index measure on one occasion.”

Brunning said the tests showed air quality to be little different to that at other locations in Metropolitan Adelaide.

Both Brunning and Hicks confirmed to Indailythat the withdrawn development application was now being reviewed and would most likely reappear on the council’s DAP agenda for the meeting scheduled for February 27.

Asked if the EPA advice on residential development in the area had changed, Hicks said; “Yes, it has…and we have asked the developer if they want to resubmit the application.”
Brunning said he expected it to be re-posted on the council’s agenda and website by February 25.

It follows what Indaily has been told were “high level meetings” between the State Government and fertiliser manufacturer Incitec Pivot in recent weeks.

The State Government, Indaily understands, has paid at least $125,000 towards a study being conducted by consultants Connor Holmes to re-assess the issues relating to the Port precinct around Incitec Pivot’s fertiliser facility.

The office of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Ian Hunter, has not responded to our requests for confirmation of the meetings nor the funding of a study.

RenewalSA, the former Land Management Corporation, however, did confirm the study and a shift in the official view of air pollution around the area.
“All the issues about air quality have pretty much been debunked,” Renewal SA project director Andrew Crust said.
“The issues with air quality that used to exist don’t at all now. So it’s largely a perception issue.”

His CEO Fred Hansen then confirmed the study and how he sees the area’s potential.

“7 Santo Parade (the wool stores) is a private development that is currently under consideration by council,” he said.
“In general terms, Renewal SA supports mixed use development applications of this type where there is re-use of an existing building and the result will contribute to the revitalisation of the Port.

“Renewal SA and Port Adelaide Enfield Council are jointly funding a range of early activation projects to a total of $7.95m to support the State Government’s vision to have more people working, living, investing and spending time in the Port.

“Renewal SA have recently awarded a consultancy to Connor Holmes to undertake the preparation of a Precinct Plan for the project area (within which 7 Santo Parade falls) and it is expected that this will be completed by the end of June 2013.

“The Precinct Plan will, among other things identify the constraints that exist, consider their current relevance and identify mechanisms for addressing those that remain. The outputs from the Precinct Plan process would inform any Development Plan Amendment process that might follow in the future.”

While the EPA and State Government remain silent on what has led to their change of heart about air pollution and residential developments in the area, it resurrects the plans first announced in March 2010 and later rejected by the EPA.

“A waterfront park and a 9.5m wide promenade form the centrepiece of a $110 millionNewport Quays residential development of Port Adelaide’s Dock One,” media reported at the time.

“With 275 two and three storey townhouses planned, the Dock One precinct is expected to bring 500 new residents to the Port town centre. The 3.5ha site bounded by the southern edge of Dock One and Wauwa Rd, St Vincent and Jubilee streets will become the third stage of the $2.1 billion waterfront revitalisation project when work starts later this year.

“Newport Quays Consortium spokesman Todd Brown said the decision to build on the Port Adelaide side of the Port River reflected difficulties in sourcing finance for larger precincts and a desire to speed up revitalisation of the town centre.”

But that plan was about to go pear-shaped.

In October 2010, the EPA said it did not support the next stage of the Newport Quays development because of a range of issues, including unacceptably high levels of dangerous micro particles from nearby industries.

The EPA said residential development in the heart of the port was risky because it was too close to the fuel storage depot, the Incitec Pivot chemical plant and the Adelaide Brighton Cement factory.

It said air pollution exceeded safety guidelines at a nearby monitoring station and any future residents would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of particles.

It also claimed that despite the fact that companies have been reducing emissions there are limits to the improvements industry can make.
The EPA’s position was a major factor in the struggle Urban Construct had in advancing its Newport Quays project.

By November 2011, the State Government had found a solution.

It paid $5.9 million to buy Urban Construct out of the Newport Quays development agreement and promised to draw up a new masterplan for the port.

Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown said at the time the consortium was disappointed by the decision.

"The majority of the issues that have stalled the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment – such as the global economic downturn and local environmental problems – have been outside the control of the consortium," he said.

As Indaily reported in September this year, Incitec Pivot has no plans to move out of the port.

So what’s changed?

For their part, the EPA is staying quiet.

After refusing to answer specific questions put to the agency by Indaily, it then accused us of an “aggressive email”.

For the record, here’s the text of what we asked the EPA;

Does the EPA acknowledge that it no longer opposes residential development in the area?
Click to expand...

I know it's been nearly 2 and a half years since this article but I was having a look at the new EPA website (...related to my current job) and just now came across the EPA's response to it. I won't post the text as it's fairly lengthy but make of it what you will:

Link to the pdf: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/files/47786_response_indaily.pdf

Link to the page with the link to the pdf: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/business_and_industry/environmental_planning
 
EPAs across this nation are out of control and out of their minds

we all recognise the environment is very important. So why do we allow watermelons to run our EPAs who have agendas other than how to best manage our environment?
 
Power Raid said:
EPAs across this nation are out of control and out of their minds

we all recognise the environment is very important. So why do we allow watermelons to run our EPAs who have agendas other than how to best manage our environment?
Click to expand...

I've been their enemy once or twice in my time
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SgtSchulz said:
Can someone give me monies, I wanna buy 293 St Vincent Street.
Click to expand...

Where is that? Not the old DMH building at the East end ...its asbestos ridden
 
Quadzilla said:
Where is that? Not the old DMH building at the East end ...its asbestos ridden
Click to expand...

Sssh don't tell 'em that they might actually buy it.

As far as I know 293 St Vincent Street is still owned by the State Government, as you suggest Quady the talk around the traps was that the building contained large amounts of asbestos but I have never seen that in any official documents. You have to wonder because the building,which was built in the mid 1970s, has been idle for many years. As Sgt Scultz implies it is a building that is crying out for redevelopment and you have to wonder why that has not happened.

The Port has been badly let down by pollies over the years as the former Treasurer appeared more interested in other issues and Susan Close has not rocked the boat much either. Both Foley and Close have made announcements about major redevelopment around the Port but these never seem to happen. hopefully the latest round of mouthing off from the State Government will come to something.

PS- I have not been to the Port for a few months so can anyone update me on the progress at the Old Customs House ? I know that Bob Barreau has bought the Lighthouse Hotel opposite and I am told it is being renovated.
 
raptalia said:
Sssh don't tell 'em that they might actually buy it.

As far as I know 293 St Vincent Street is still owned by the State Government, as you suggest Quady the talk around the traps was that the building contained large amounts of asbestos but I have never seen that in any official documents. You have to wonder because the building,which was built in the mid 1970s, has been idle for many years. As Sgt Scultz implies it is a building that is crying out for redevelopment and you have to wonder why that has not happened.

The Port has been badly let down by pollies over the years as the former Treasurer appeared more interested in other issues and Susan Close has not rocked the boat much either. Both Foley and Close have made announcements about major redevelopment around the Port but these never seem to happen. hopefully the latest round of mouthing off from the State Government will come to something.

PS- I have not been to the Port for a few months so can anyone update me on the progress at the Old Customs House ? I know that Bob Barreau has bought the Lighthouse Hotel opposite and I am told it is being renovated.
Click to expand...
Lighthouse has been done up and renovated. Fantastic pub
 
cmpower said:
Lighthouse has been done up and renovated. Fantastic pub
Click to expand...

Yeh by Burrow or whatever they are called, the daughter and partner are running it.
Prices have been increased. Happy hours have been cut back etc. Lots of regulars aren't happy.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Some of you wont get this but a strong viabrant Port Adelaide area and Lefevre Peninsula means a strong PAFC. Some fantastic news earlier today.

First look at Port revamp

123261-port-adelaide.jpg


The first glimpses of a revitalised Port Adelaide . The plans propose new open public spaces around Harts Mill and Dock1 featuring BBQs and play areas, and a bike and walking path around the inner harbour


DESIGNS for a revamped Port Adelaide have been released, showing lawns and low-level housing surrounding Dock One and the Hart's Mill precinct.


The State Government released the images this week ahead of a community open day on Sunday, October 7, to discuss the plans.

Other ideas include a playground and motorhome park at Dock One.
It means a previously proposed upgrade of Black Diamond Corner, which featured a town square-style precinct, would be delayed, if the public agree.
Port Adelaide MP Susan Close (ALP) said the Government was considering housing up to three or four storeys high around Hart's Mill and Dock One.
122615-port-adelaide.jpg


........



The Port open day will feature free family entertainment and tours of sites identified in the plans, including Hart's Mill and Cruickshank's Corner.
The open day will be held at a marquee under the lighthouse, at the end of Commercial Rd, on Sunday, October 7, from 9am-4pm.
View the plans online at www.portadelaiderenewal.sa.gov.au
First look at Port revamp
Click to expand...
That looks really nice
 
FPPF said:
How is it going to benefit the club? Potential sponsor?
Click to expand...
A strong Port Adelaide means there are more businesses who will get involved with the club from junior development sponsorship to potentially the Major sponsorship level at the Power, although it it will probably be one level down that it maxs out at.

It means when Timmy G or other corporate team members go looking for $5k, $10k, $20k sponsorship packages in the local area, businesses are feeling good about their future that they open up their cheque book.

$600mil expenditure means a lot of local businesses will get to provide work. The multiplier effect in full swing. A strong and vibrant Port Adelaide as a result of more work being around, means more people around the place, and more development. That all can tie back to the club, even at a simple level of more local people having a meal at the Port Club or the Princes, because they have a few more $$$ in their pocket.
 
Last edited:
If you read KT's answer to Doctor Feel's question in Lockhart Road's Q&A with KT thread you get an idea how important the relationship between the club and area is and therefore how both benefit from further development.

Doctor Feel
Hammer mentioned on Triple M that he believes there are 'big plans' at Alberton when quizzed about the chances of us moving away from our home. Are you willing to divulge any hints to us as to what this may be?

KT: "The Port Adelaide Football Club is staying in Alberton. I regard the club as the beating heart of Port Adelaide, the beating heart of the heartland. We are the district's greatest ambassador and intend to stay that way. Any move towards the city just wouldn't work for us."
 
For those that are interested, 2016 is the 100th anniversary of the opening of the railway bridge over Commercial Road and the diversion of the railway line away from the centre of the Port.

Prior to 1916, the railway line ran into what later became known as Port Dock station and out onto St Vincent Street and across the Jervois Bridge to Glanville.

The construction of the bridge and diversion of the line was controversial at the time and you can find maps from that period that showed alternative plans to keep the line through Port Dock and build a rail bridge over the river close to where the lighthouse is now.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Development around the Port

Similar threads

Interstater
AUKUS nuclear waste to be stored in Port Adelaide
2
Replies
39
Views
842
Interstater
Interstater
Ford Fairlane
Opinion Port Board 2024 Paris Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC
HugeJohnson
Port AdelAI
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC
raptalia
Mpox: did the world learn anything from Covid ?
Replies
2
Views
251
OneGreatClub
OneGreatClub
B
Stupid temporary "trends" etc over the years
Replies
3
Views
1K
edgie
edgie

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top