Adelaide Oval hotel would risk success of existing and planned hotels, Adelaide City Council says

A proposed 128-room hotel at the Adelaide Oval will risk the success of 77 “existing and planned” hotels, the Adelaide City Council says.

• City Council votes to oppose Adelaide Oval hotel plan
• Detailed plans for Oval hotel released
• Oval boutique hotel gets development planning approval

A proposed 128-room hotel at the Adelaide Oval will risk the success of 77 “existing and planned” hotels, argues the Adelaide City Council in its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the controversial $42 million project.

The council also takes a swipe at the Stadium Management Authority in its draft submission, saying it has been consistently kept in the dark “regarding the further use and development of the stadium”.

However, the SMA hit back, saying the council rejected an updated briefing and that their submission “has been prepared without proper understanding of the proposal”.

In the draft submission, the council argues that because there are 700 hotel rooms under construction and more than 1100 projected, there is no need for a hotel at the Oval.

It also argues the SMA has been given an unfair advantage over other CBD businesses as it doesn’t pay council rates or any government levies for the oval land.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor told The Advertiser the council’s submission, to be refined at a committee meeting on Tuesday, “paints a pretty comprehensive picture” of why the proposal should not go ahead.

An artist impression of the proposed Adelaide Oval hotel.

“The hotel rooms are coming … there is no requirement for intervention in this market, the market is taking care of itself,” she said.

Ms Verschoor said the council believed the hotel was inconsistent with multiple pieces of legislation and questioned “the values that underpin the National Heritage listing” of the parklands.

Australian Hotels Association SA general manager Ian Horne said his members were more concerned about the $42 million given to the SMA by the State Government, who appeared to be “picking winners”.

“There are a number of our members who would have great sympathy with the council’s argument,” he said.

“However, there are members who say having another component at the oval is a great thing.”

An SMA spokesman said it was “disappointing” the council had prepared a submission without taking up an offer made for a further detailed briefing on the proposal.

“Therefore, their draft submission has been prepared without proper understanding of the proposal and includes numerous references to not having information that could easily have been supplied if requested,” he said.

Ms Verschoor — who is expected to address the inquiry next month — said the SMA had been “disrespectful” of the council throughout the “whole process”.

She said she had “never seen a development passed through the system so quickly”.