 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move:
That this Council express its concern at the proposal for the demolition of a historic wall in Union Street and Grenfell Street and urge the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning to use her discretionary powers to retain the 1930s wall arches, as well as ensure that a development be designed that provides for shops at street level and preserves the heritage character of the East End Precinct.
To look at the East End precinct of Adelaide has been an interesting study over the past, I suppose, 15 years. I recall that there were some early proposals for virtually complete demolition of most of the old buildings on Rundle Street east-in particular, in the market precinct- and proposals for some quite hideous office buildings to be constructed on that site. At that time, it would be fair to say that the Rundle Street east precinct was looking fairly tired, although perhaps the more observant (I would not claim to be one of them) would note that already there were just the first seeds of the resurgence that we later saw in that area.
People who raised concerns about the demolition of the frontages associated with the market, in particular, as well as the shops fronting Rundle Street east, were accused (as so often happens in the city) of being anti-development. Indeed, I have to say that they were showing a great deal of vision as to what this city could become. I think there is no question that much of the resurgence that we are seeing in the City of Adelaide-in the so-called square mile of Adelaide-is based on the success of what happened in Rundle Street. The resurgence of Rundle Street east and the success of some far more sympathetic development on the market site, which maintained the facade of the market, has made city living look a lot more attractive to South Australians than it probably did in the past.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I agree. I am not saying that what has happened there is perfect, but what we have there is a lot better than was going to happen. In the whole precinct, the one thing, if anything, that has gone badly wrong has been this one rather high, nondescript building that has been put in the south- east corner of that market precinct. Other than that, for the most part it has been done fairly tastefully to show that you can have development and that it can be sympathetic with the maintenance and protection of heritage. What is more encouraging is that it has helped lead a resurgence in the city more generally. People have looked at it and said, `This is buzzing, this is happening; I would like to be a part of it.'
The Hon. Carolyn Pickles interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Let's not take this debate too wide right now. I note even now that Grenfell Street, the next street over from Rundle Street, is now starting to show similar signs of the resurgence that we saw in Rundle Street East 10 to 15 years ago. There are a couple of interesting new restaurants opening up there, and we could well see a spread of the sort of development we have seen in Rundle Street East where we have residences and new businesses coming in, and it is all being done in sympathy with the heritage of the area.
Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but one would hope that one could learn from it. After having developers saying, `It is not possible for us to develop this area. These old buildings are just a nuisance, and there is nothing we can do with them,' experience tells us that the very value of the development hinged upon the maintenance of the heritage values.
I would not be the only one in South Australia who was under the impression-and I now know that it was the mistaken impression-that the walls around the market on Union Street and going around into Grenfell Street were heritage listed. I had simply assumed, as had many members of the public, that there was a heritage listing. I know now that I was wrong and that there had been opportunities for heritage listing and that, for reasons I will not even explore, were not taken up. All I can do as both a member of the public and a representative of the public in this place is say that I am bitterly disappointed that a heritage listing was not given to that section of the market development.
I will quickly refer to the background of the wall to which the motion refers. The history of the market frontages was first documented in the East End Markets Conservation Plan Building Inventory 1987, pages 26 to 36, prepared by McDougall and Vines, Conservation and Heritage Consultants.
According to the Adelaide City Council assessment books, the buildings were dated at 1931 and were constructed after the Adelaide Fruit and Produce Exchange had purchased the land from Spencers, a car body and carriage works manufacturer originally located on this corner.
Initially, these frontages were identified in a streetscape character study undertaken for the council in 1988. This study aimed to identify significant streetscapes in the city. The results of this study were exhibited as the townscape of Adelaide in 1989-90. During 1990 and 1991, the City of Adelaide plan was reviewed and the process of townscape protection was discussed closely. Public consultation in various forms followed and the ACC requested interim control for townscape frontages from the Minister for Planning. This was not forthcoming, as a state-wide planning review was in train and the minister apparently wished to implement a consistent planning process.
Due to concern over perceived inequalities in the proposed townscape listings, those places where owners had expressed concern were reviewed by McDougall and Vines from May 1992. During this review period, in December 1992, the terminology was changed from `townscape' to `local heritage' places. Under the City of Adelaide Development Control Act this was done at the instruction of the City-State Forum, a panel established in October 1992 by the Minister for Planning to resolve townscape issues.
Owners who had objected to either townscape or local heritage listing were invited to prepare submissions expressing their reasons for opposition to listing. These were heard by a panel of city councillors, council planning staff and consultants, and recommendations were made. (It sounds a bit like our regional assessment panels.) However, these were not acted on, and in March 1993 the City- State Forum established a Local Heritage Review Committee to re-review the objections to local heritage listing in the City of Adelaide. This committee made recommendations to the minister in April 1994 to retain a large number of places on the list where objections were overruled, as the places had genuine local heritage value.
The 1931 corner frontages of the AFPE buildings were not included as local heritage places within the City of Adelaide plan, although they had twice been assessed as having both streetscape and local heritage value. That is important. It is not just a matter of what we might think in this place: the fact is that, twice, they had been assessed as having both streetscape and local heritage value and, unfortunately, despite that, the final act was not done and listing was not given.
I do not think it is particularly constructive at this point to set about laying blame. I am not saying that is not a worthwhile thing to do in terms of who should have done what in the past: all I can note is that I am told that there was a ruling today which effectively clears the way for the wall to be felled, so it is not a time now for recriminations. I guess we do that after the wall comes down, if it does. I hope that all members in this place share the view that the wall is worth saving and that we should express that view. My personal request to the minister is that, if she has any remaining discretion, because this is an exceptional circumstance, I hope that she is prepared to exercise it. If we can get this motion passed in time, I also seek to have the motion referred to the developers as a final plea to them to reconsider their plans.
If one stands on Union Street, one notes that a facade has been maintained on the western side directly in front of a car park. I do not think it has been maintained in a particularly sympathetic form, and I am surprised that some developer has not seen an opportunity: there is enough space behind the facade to put in some sort of small cafe operation, or whatever, which would make it far more attractive than the existing wall with steel beams running to the car park.
Nevertheless, it is still there and, for a person who looks down Union Street, we still have most of the original streetscape maintained on both the eastern and the western sides. If this 1931 wall goes down, then there is a major hole-an irreparable hole, I believe-in the streetscape and a major change in character. I do not understand why it is that, in terms of development, some people take a view that it is a good thing to replace old with new. European cities do not seem to have that same pressing need.
Amsterdam has probably the most successful economy in Europe at the moment in terms of growth. Schiphol Airport, as I understand it, is rapidly approaching the size of Heathrow, and it has a name for being the busiest airport, which is a reflection of the economic success of the Netherlands and Amsterdam. Yet, as you go through the inner city, you have a streetscape which is centuries old and which is being protected most vigorously. It shows that you can have a vibrant, successful economy despite-perhaps not despite but perhaps in part because of-the streetscape, because I do not think it is any accident that it is also a very attractive city for tourists to visit.
I do not intend to prolong the debate; I simply ask all members of this place to support the motion. As I have said, this is not a place for recriminations but for a strong statement of the desire of this Council to see the wall at Union Street and Grenfell Street maintained. I hope that there is an opportunity for this to be voted on either today or tomorrow. I would not gain a great deal of satisfaction in having such a motion voted on and passed after the wall has gone down, and I hope that other members feel the same.
