Paul Starick: Were high-rise apartments at old RAH development behind the failed deal?

ANALYSIS: More than a decade of lamentable indecision on the city’s most prized development site is wounding the State Government less than six months before an election.

• $10m demand as old RAH plan fails
• $1 billion old RAH development collapses
• Failed offer to scrap apartments at $1 billion old RAH redevelopment
• Redevelopment plan for old Royal Adelaide Hospital site revealed

MORE than a decade of lamentable indecision on the city’s most prized development site is wounding the State Government less than six months before an election.

The unceremonious dumping of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital’s preferred development consortium on Tuesday appeared calculated to avoid the political pain of defending plans for expensive high-rise apartments during the heat of an election campaign.

Labor is hopeful of winning the seat of Adelaide from the Liberals next March and is fearful of a repeat of the pro-Parklands campaign which scuttled the Victoria Park grandstand proposal in 2008.

Scrapping private residential apartments from the plans shows the Government has caved in to the perceived threat of a campaign branding the development an enclave for silvertails living in penthouses, on a site that technically was once Parklands — more than 160 years ago.

The veiled attack on the “private developers” for proposing these apartments — in a joint statement from Premier Jay Weatherill, his deputy John Rau and Urban Development Minister Stephen Mullighan — is an attempt to rewrite history.

Artist impressions of the redevelopment plans of the old RAH site.

The consortium of Commercial & General and John Holland was the Government’s preferred developer to deliver its vision — and offered substantially more money than competitors.

Having courted and now dumped the consortium, the Government will face demands for a costly divorce settlement. This is likely to be $10 million to avert the prospect of legal action.

Labor should be ruing its vacillation on what the Premier and his ministers say is “arguably Australia’s most premium development site”.

“The Government is now taking control of the redevelopment of the 7ha site, ensuring full control over all elements of the project remain in public hands,” the joint statement says.

The site has been controlled by the government since a hospital opened on the site in 1856. The new RAH development was announced in June, 2007.

It is reasonable to wonder what has been achieved in the subsequent years, other than aborted masterplans and a shelved design competition.

Labor is open to Opposition Leader Steven Marshall’s unusually adept attack that it has created a $1 billion black hole on the old RAH site.

Mr Marshall is right to question how much public money has been squandered on failed proposals.

But he also should ask the Government to detail precisely how taxpayers will benefit financially from a state-run development, as opposed to one managed by the private sector.

Publicly funded demolition of the site will take two years and cost more than $150 million. It will be a long time before the state starts getting a return on this investment.