Residents of Adelaide’s central business district have expressed frustration over planning laws that exclude them from development proposals when the Environment, Resources and Development Court becomes involved. The situation centres on a controversial five-storey structure proposed for 108 Gilbert Street, featuring a car stacker that would overlook both a childcare facility and an eco-friendly community.
The five-storey mixed-use building, if approved, will abut this childcare centre
Initial Proposal Rejection In 2024
Adelaide City Council first notified residents about the development plan in early 2024. A leaflet distributed to the community outlined the initial proposal. The Council Assessment Panel received approximately ten objections from the local populace. Three residents voiced their concerns during an April 2024 meeting before the panel ultimately denied the proposal.
The initial proposal included demolishing the existing structure to erect a six-storey mixed-use building. Ground-level offices would sit beneath residential units occupying the upper floors. The CAP determined the proposal represented excessive height and overdevelopment. The panel cited inadequate site areas and insufficient setbacks from the northern boundary. The boundary in question sits adjacent to the Christie Walk eco-community.
Residents Discover Appeal Through Informal Channels
Approximately a year later, community members discovered through informal channels that an appeal had been filed. The developer lodged their appeal with the Environment, Resources and Development Court. A mandatory conference had taken place in private. The CAP subsequently granted planning approval for a modified proposal. Residents had not received notification of either the court proceedings or the final ruling.
Key Stakeholder Responses To Lack Of Transparency
Peter Brady, a resident of Gilbert Street, remarked that the process undermined democratic principles. He stated the appellant developer could present a new proposal. However, the public with vested interests received no awareness of the court proceedings. Brady noted the ruling remained undisclosed to residents.
Brady added that the system appears contradictory in nature. He stated the system claims transparency while operating like a closed court. The resident expressed concerns about the legislative framework governing such proceedings.
Keiran Snape, the Deputy Lord Mayor and independent candidate for the upcoming state election, shared additional insights on the matter. Snape previously served on the CAP and offered perspective on developer practices. He noted developers often face initial setbacks from councils. They then receive feedback, allowing them to revise proposals. Developers frequently resubmit without informing residents of changes.
Kieran Snape, the Deputy Lord Mayor
Modified Proposal Approved In 2025
The modified proposal underwent review by the CAP during its January 29, 2025 meeting. The CAP granted approval for the revised development on that date. The building’s height fell from six stories to five stories. Parking spaces decreased from twenty-eight to nineteen spaces in total. Setbacks between the first and fourth stories and the northern boundary increased from one metre to over five metres.
However, at ground level, where the car stacker would sit, it remains just one metre away from the Christie Walk buildings. This proximity raised concerns among Christie Walk residents.
Christie Walk was finished in December 2006
Impact On Neighbouring Eco-Community And Accessibility
Geoff Schrader, a resident within one of the twenty-seven homes in the eco-village, highlighted parking and accessibility concerns. The proposed building would sit on Considine Place, a narrow lane off Gilbert Street. Schrader explained the development affects how residents exit Christie Walk.
He noted that if a line of cars attempted to access parking at peak times, congestion would occur. The lane also serves as a pathway for pedestrians heading to and from nearby homeless shelters. This pedestrian access would face disruption from vehicle movements.
Geoff Schrader says the biggest issue with the development is associated with car parking
Government Response On Transparency And Documentation
A representative from the state government stated responsibility lies with the City Council. The council must communicate agreements reached with the developer to residents. The state government representative added the system promotes transparency. Documents remain publicly accessible on Plan SA throughout the process. All access occurs in accordance with legislative and policy guidelines.
Details regarding cases scheduled for hearing in the ERDC appear on the Courts Administration Authority’s website. The state government emphasised this availability for public review.
Also Read: Trump Boat Controversy Overshadows FIFA Peace Prize Ceremony
Council Acknowledgment Of Reduced Third-Party Rights
A spokesperson for the City of Adelaide acknowledged concerns regarding a decrease in third-party appeal rights. Planning reforms introduced by the state government in 2021 created this reduction. The council had voiced these concerns in its submission to the Planning System Review. The council expressed concerns about losing community participation in the process.
Warnings About Future Exploitation Of The Legal Framework
Brady cautioned that a system excluding third parties from appeal rights could face exploitation by developers. He stated developers know the existing legislation thoroughly. While everything occurring here may remain within legal bounds, concerns still arise.
Brady warned residents that circumstances could change rapidly without notice. He described a scenario where residents could enjoy their views from a balcony. Then, by the end of the following year, a demolition crew might arrive. Residents would face shock and disruption to their established community.
