South Australian Policy Online



News & Opinion

You are here: South Australian Policy Online > News & Opinion  

Port dock development back on after EPA shifts on pollution

Thursday, 14 February 2013
Author: Kevin Naughton, Indaily

Full Image (107.49K)

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.

To view the full article visit:


Indaily (email)
Solstice Media
4 Cinema Place
Adelaide 5000
Business: 8224 1614