Adelaide Caravan Park Redevelopment

Verbal presentation to the Council Assessment Panel 29 January 2026

The boxed sections are taken from the NPSP Staff report on the development

The SPRA has concerns this application contravenes multiple provisions of the P&D Code and the Concept Plan for the site and should be refused.

Density

The staff report says that the land division criteria should be considered as a Row Dwelling built form.

The Row Dwelling argument is fallacious as they will still be detached dwellings.

The allotments will be sold, perhaps to individuals or perhaps to developers.

The purchasers may decide not to build boundary to boundary, and even if they do, they will still be Detached Dwellings needing a minimum site area of 330m2 and not the average proposed of 175m2.

The homes erected could be of completely different architectural design to each other, and not the neat uniform buildings shown by the applicant on the plans.

Even if the Row Dwelling approach is taken, the average area of 175m2 is still well below the 200m2 minimum desired.

All the 43 smaller allotments fail to meet the requirements of DPF 2.1 for detached dwellings, being between 73m² to 255m². Most also fail the 200m2 requirement for Row dwellings.

The application should be refused on this basis alone.

Six-Story "Co-Living" Building

The 2 components must be considered separately, as the residential apartment building is on own site. It will be retained & operated by applicant.

Other allotments are to be sold off for individual development

Apartment building.

The 78 apartments on the site create a density of 370 dwellings / Ha, well above the upper 70 for medium density.

Grossly High Density.

Even for the whole development combined it is 122 dwellings / ha and that is certainly High Density and not the desired medium density.

Disagree that being adjacent parks & river is a reason to support the proposal.

The Code TVN specifies 2 levels for the site, and the Concept Plan envisages between 1 and 4 levels.

The Concept Plan also envisages that the higher components are in the centre of the site, and not at the interface with Richmond Street and Old Mill Reserve.

Clearly this conflicts with the desired outcomes.

Botaniq / Hackney Hotel precedent.

The application proposes that the building can “complement the height of nearby buildings”, specifically the Botaniq development.

The 6 level Botaniq development nearby should not be used as a precedent for the proposed Residential Flat Building because: -

The Botaniq development site is zoned differenty as Urban Corridor (Boulevard) which encourages a greater height and density.

The Botaniq was approved by the Development Assessment Commission in 2021, and not by the NPSP CAP or the earlier DAP, and under different planning rules.

The DAC took other factors into account when allowing 6 levels.

The Botanic current UC(B) zoning has a 4 level /15 metre height TVN. This development is over 23 metres.

The UC(B) TVN has an interface envelope of 30 degrees measured at 3m above natural ground at the boundary. The effect of a similar TVN on this site means that 6 storeys is only achieved in the back third of the building. See page 1089

The Botaniq six level building is in the centre of the site, some 20 metres distance from the surrounding Richmond Street, Hatswell Street and Hackney Road. This proposal has the higher component only 10.5m from Richmond Street and one metre from Old Mill Reserve

The closest corner of the 6 level Botaniq is some 80 metres from the closest corner of the proposed Residential Flat Building.

Parking

While café may not need 64 spaces as many will be on foot or cycle or park on Old Mill Reserve, the apartment building has insufficient car parks.

The bus stop about 300 metres away is not a good reason for a low provision of car parking.

Developer should not be able to claim the publicly owned Old Mill Reserve as its own

The Code requires 78 spaces for the apartment building alone, and not the 16 claimed needed by the applicant or the 44 proposed for all uses.

The building is intended for short to medium term accommodation.

It is a modern version of the cabins currently in use by Aspen on the site, where occupants may be local holiday makers, people coming from the country for medical appointments, or family celebrations, or interstaters attending Womad, or interstate buisness people in Adelaide to manage a project with a hire car.

While some may stay without cars the majority will require parking

44 is clearly inadequate.

Shared Use Path

Not an ideal solution to the problem of no easy interconnection of the Linear Park paths between the north at the low level bridge and the path on the south at Old Mill Reserve.

Cyclists coming down from the north must get cycles up the staircase -about 10 metres, while those travelling upstream must get their bikes down the stairs.

The solution is neither convenient nor safe.

Shared path should be wider than 2.5m.

Some driveways will cross the shared path.

Applicant should contribute to the new paths on Council reserves.

We ask the Panel to refuse the application in its current form.