SkyscraperCity banner

661 - 680 of 685 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
We will erect a statue of you atop the building in memory, this will also add an extra couple of meters to the height and probably a fine from CASA.
I actually think we can nab some high records with that statute of gerryt1:



But you know, the unions are going to be a pain already I can tell:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
^^

F......unions better not start muckin with me way up there because they won't really know where I've gone to. Where there's smoke there's fire and my delightful remembrance is sure spewing a lot of fire. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,498 Posts
I'm of the belief that Brisbane needs more aesthetic buildings because Brisbane has enough mediocre buildings in the CBD already.

I don't think we need the real "out there" looking buildings like the Elenberg-Fraser designed towers in Melbourne (Lighthouse, Eq. Tower, etc) but I don't want to see any more of the bland white painted concrete highrises like Oaks Casino Towers, for example.
Agree that Casino Towers is pretty awful - but I cannot agree that Lighthouse or EQ towers in Melbourne are much better - that hideous purple glass of Lighthouse - hurts my eyes. Awful.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,957 Posts
As the basement piles run close to the tunnel, it would probably make life easier for them if starting after the CRR tunnel was complete. But engineering wise, the basement works could proceed prior to tunneling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
No signs of progress, but WCL are facing an ongoing legal case from neighbouring property owner Orb Holdings regarding the closure and annexation of Beatrice Lane, according to InQueensland. They're calling it the "Battle of Frog's Hollow."

Battle of Frog's Hollow: How legal stoush has unearthed a century-old land dispute
The unassuming Beatrice Lane, which cuts its way between Margaret and Albert streets in the Brisbane CBD, is protected by a heritage listing. It is also hotly contested real estate, writes Sean Parnell

Last week, the Queensland Court of Appeal paved the way for a civil trial brough by Orb Holdings against a neighbour, WCL (Qld) Albert Street, over the historic laneway between their properties.

WCL blocked off the lane in preparation for construction of a 91-storey tower, as tentatively approved by Brisbane City Council in 2016, prompting Orb Holdings to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Orb Holdings argued Beatrice Lane was a public road, dedicated as such in the late 19th century, and could not be considered part of WCL’s site. Current development plans have WCL’s tower overhanging the lane, with access almost entirely in the company’s control.

Orb’s case was dismissed last year, prompting an appeal, which was successful. The matter is far from decided, however, with the trial set to pore over more than a century of changes to ownership and planning to determine the future of the lane.

According to Brisbane City Council, the lane was built around 1887 to service buildings on Margaret Street and by 1895 had been extended to Albert Street. Stonework was laid in two rows to provide a carriageway for the wagons and drays that used the lane, with a section of the stonework still visible at the Margaret Street entrance.

“This part of the CBD, bounded by George, Edward, Elizabeth and Alice Streets, was known colloquially as ‘Frogs Hollow’ because it was low-lying, swampy ground,” council has said.

“It also possessed a dubious reputation due to the presence of brothels and opium dens.

“However, given its proximity to the expanding wharf facilities located on the Town Reach of the river, the area rapidly developed as a warehouse and light industry precinct from the 1880s onward. The expansion of the business also reflected the economic boom of the 1880s. “The population of Brisbane almost tripled in this decade, which no doubt contributed to an increased demand in the goods and services offered by the many businesses that had access to Beatrice Lane.”

The area is set to undergo another revival with plans for a new Albert Street train station to service the Cross River Rail. Land underneath WCL’s site has already been acquired for the rail project and WCL – also known as World Class Land – will need to take the tunnels into account in its final plans.

The site at the centre of the legal stoush was originally owned by trustees of Brisbane Grammar School, who purchased land bounded by Margaret, Albert and Alice streets in 1874. Various planning changes followed – Beatrice Lane was a name only recognised late in the process – and in 2008 the land was sold to a developer before being sold again.

However, Justice Philip McMurdo found, and two other judges in the Court of Appeal agreed, that the trustees had left the lane in public hands. McMurdo questioned how a planning change in 2012 could have affected the lane, known as lot 11.

“Its purported effect was to close a different area of land, which had been marked on a previous registered plan as roads, by amalgamating them with what was then a single lot bounded by Margaret and Albert Streets, and Beatrice Lane,” McMurdo wrote.

“The boundaries of the subject land, lot 11, were not altered. It appears that the judge saw it as relevant that there was no note of a ‘Right of Way’ shown on lot 11, and that Beatrice Lane was shown as ‘the Reserve’. However, as I see it, the plan indicated that ‘Beatrice Lane’ was the land in question, rather than the Reserve. Be that as it may, the registration of this plan could not have divested the Crown of its ownership of lot 11.”

The council notes that Beatrice Lane is the last of its kind, with bitumen laid over any stonework on other lanes, if the lanes have not already been completely developed.

“From the late 1980s onwards, many of the CBD’s lanes were lost or reduced in size to make way for redevelopment of those parts of the CBD that they serviced,” the council has said.

“The clearing of the Roma Street Markets precinct (later to become the site of the new Magistrates Court) saw the demise of Little Roma Street. Parbury Lane was lost to the Brisbane Riverside Markets and Riparian Plaza redevelopment. Patrick Lane went with the construction of Admiralty Towers beside the Brisbane River. Old Burnett Lane disappeared when the Criterion Hotel was redeveloped as a high-rise building.

“Alvis Lane, running off Charlotte Street was also lost to high-rise redevelopment. The unnamed lane running between Queen and Elizabeth streets was resumed for the Myer Centre. The L-shaped service lane running off Queen Street in the block between George Street and North Quay, and the T-shaped lane running off Turbot Street in the block between George Street and North Quay have also been lost.”

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
^^ Long story short, WCL annexed Beatrice Lane as they considered it as part of their property (a private driveway), but Orb Holdings are contending that Beatrice Lane was actually crown land and declared a public road in the late 19th century, which means WCL's annexation of the lane was incorrect, and the lane would have to be reopened.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #672
ffs, what do they want.
the news doesn't look positive
As annoying as it is, if it's a public road reserve it should maintain public access unless the appropriate road closure applications have been submitted, processed appropriately, and approved.

An example of why this matters, what if an access off Beatrice Lane significantly improved the redevelopment potential of Orb Holdings land, they should absolutely be compensated if that access was made private. I assume the Orb Holdings land is located at 127 Margaret? If so, the laneway is likely to be critical for access, especially if the site has heritage buildings and they want to create an active frontage to Margaret Street.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
As annoying as it is, if it's a public road reserve it should maintain public access unless the appropriate road closure applications have been submitted, processed appropriately, and approved.

An example of why this matters, what if an access off Beatrice Lane significantly improved the redevelopment potential of Orb Holdings land, they should absolutely be compensated if that access was made private. I assume the Orb Holdings land is located at 127 Margaret? If so, the laneway is likely to be critical for access, especially if the site has heritage buildings and they want to create an active frontage to Margaret Street.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think they most likely are the owners of 127-129 Margaret Street (Watson Brothers Building). With Beatrice Lane closed, the only vehicle access is through the front of the building.

It sounds like this has been going on for a while - the original case was found in WCL's favour, but then Orb appealed and the appeal was allowed, so that brings us to now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
As annoying as it is, if it's a public road reserve it should maintain public access unless the appropriate road closure applications have been submitted, processed appropriately, and approved.
Speaking as someone who sold in Camelot Court to the developers prior to WCS taking over, Beatrice Lane is not a road reserve. It is a freehold lot since 1994, and the part that goes from Margaret street is heritage listed. We had issues in the building as our rear access was from Beatrice lane, and the freehold was owned by a different landholder at the time, who threatened our access. The developers who bought us out also bought out the laneways freehold owner. the lots were never amalgamated however, due to the heritage listing.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #676
^^Isn't that what the court proceedings are about though? Would they have won the appeal if it were so clear cut?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
^^Isn't that what the court proceedings are about though? Would they have won the appeal if it were so clear cut?
As far as I can tell from what’s been published, the court proceedings aren‘t trying to overturn the freeholding of the road reserve. What they are saying is that because it was public access from presumably the 1800s until 1994, there should be a public right-of-way over it i.e. an easement in gross and that access be maintained.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #678
Well, they managed the appeal, so, there must be something there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts

Planned 91-storey CBD tower tries to navigate Cross River Rail headache

Developers have asked Brisbane City Council to give them more time to begin work on a 91-storey apartment tower on Albert Street, despite earlier concerns that it would impinge on the Cross River Rail tunnel.
The planned 857-apartment and retail tower at 30 Albert Street, close to the Botanic Gardens, was approved by council in 2016, but delays have meant construction is yet to begin.

With the current permit to begin building work set to expire in June 2021, developers WCL (QLD) Albert Street Pty Ltd have asked council to give them more time by extending all the approvals needed until 2024.
The project hit problems in 2018 when a request to increase the number of basement carpark levels put the tower's foundations in the Cross River Rail tunnel envelope, which did not exist when the tower was first approved.

The difficulty continued in 2019 when the developers asked council to give them an extension on the development approval to 2023.
The state government's development assessment department wrote to the council at the time saying the tower would "present an unreasonable risk" to the underground railway.
But council approved the extension request, giving WCL until December 2023 to begin construction.
In December 2020, the developers lodged another request to extend a separate building work permit for the site, which was set to expire in June this year.

"As a consequence of the technical details associated with the interface between the approved basement and the Cross River Rail tunnel, it has slowed down the ability for the applicant to commence construction," a letter submitted to council on December 3 says.

The letter, by Mewing Planning Consultants on behalf of WCL, notes the developers submitted a building work application to the State Assessment and Referral Agency to resolve the conflict between the Cross River Rail and the tower's foundations.
"It is understood that a structural solution can be developed to manage any potential impact on the tunnel, and this will be suitably resolved through the building work application process," the letter says.
A Department of State Development spokesperson said an application seeking approval for building works associated with the proposed tower's basement was lodged with the State Assessment and Referral Agency in October 2019.

"SARA is a referral agency for the application and is working together with the applicant, the Cross River Rail Development Authority and the Department of Transport and Main Roads to agree on an appropriate and safe interface with the adjoining Cross River Rail tunnel," the spokesperson said.
A Cross River Rail Development Authority spokesman said the "volumetric land required to construct Cross River Rail, including that of 30 Albert Street, has been acquired in line with the Acquisition of Land Act 1967".

"The proponents seeking to develop 30 Albert Street will need to take the Cross River Rail project into account with any proposal it puts forward for the site," he said.
Council has not yet responded to the application. WCL was contacted for comment.
 
661 - 680 of 685 Posts
Top