The Liberal Party said on Wednesday morning that it would support amendments proposed by the state government to the motion, to be debated in the Upper House this afternoon, which aims to pressure the government to protect the historic Crown & Anchor Hotel from development.

First introduced by Greens MLC Robert Simms last month, the motion calls for the government to act to protect the landmark East End venue which under plans by a Singapore developer would be demolished for a 19-storey student housing tower, with two walls kept as a facade as a nod to its local heritage listing.

Part four of Simms’ motion calls for the state government to oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the hotel, to make a submission indicating that position to the State Commission Assessment Panel which will rule on the application, and to move to amend state heritage laws to ensure cultural and social value is considered in the site’s development.

A planned student apartment tower on the Crown & Anchor hotel site. Image: Brown Falconer/Plan SA

The Liberal Party this morning confirmed to InDaily the party intended to back the state government’s amendment, which removes any specific call for government action but “encourages” MPs to  make submissions to SCAP and notes the hotel’s local heritage listing and a nomination to make it a State Heritage Place.

The amendment noted that on April 26 the SA Heritage Council provisionally entered the Crown & Anchor on the State Heritage Register following a public submission, and said the Heritage Council was “also anticipating a second nomination imminently”.

It said the provisional listing protected the site while a heritage assessment was undertaken, with a decision expected in September.

The amendment further noted that that the criteria to list a State Heritage Place was contained in a 1993 Act which “already includes a specific criteria centred around a place having a strong cultural or spiritual association for the community or a group within it”.

Opposition planning spokesperson Michelle Lensink, who stood with Simms to address thousands of people at a “Save the Cranker” rally at Parliament on Sunday, said today that she backed the amendment to delete part four of Simm’s motion.

Lensink told the crowd on Sunday that the Liberals were “working to support Rob’s motion… to put pressure on the government to save the Cranker”.

“My leader David Speirs has already written a letter of support for state heritage listing which will provide a greater level of protection,” she said.

She told reporters that the hotel’s position in the live music sector was “really important” and “something worth fighting for”, but also clarified her party’s position that the hotel could “co-exist” with the proposed apartment block.

The Crown & Anchor hotel would be demolished but its facade would remain as a “heritage” item under plans for a 19-storey student apartment tower. Image: Brown Falconer/Plan SA

“We also believe that development does need to take place. We appreciate the need for student accommodation so our position is that we would like to see some level of coexistence with a live music venue,” Lensink said.

“What overseas student isn’t going to want to come to the Crown and Anchor and stay locally? We think the two can coexist. Keep the building there but build up, or build around that.”

Lensink told InDaily on Wednesday: “From the get-go, I’ve had reservations about part four (of Simm’s motion).”

“The first three [parts] are statements of fact, and I think we can see from what’s happened in the media that part four has confused a lot of people about what the current process is,” she said.

“As a baseline understanding, it’s a motion to Parliament: it has no legal effect. People have been confused by what Rob’s suggesting about the cultural aspect will suddenly becomes law if this passes – and that’s not correct.”

Lensink said the Liberal Party discussed making amendments in the party room on Monday, but the government then approached the Opposition with its own amendments.

Asked whether this was a backtrack from the Liberals’ previous stance, Lensink said any such suggestions were “unfair”.

“Our position has always been… to support coexistence,” she said.

“A lot of people don’t understand the Parliamentary process, and that’s been concerning.

“I think the fault lies with the way the motion has been drafted in the first place. It’s probably confused a lot of stakeholders, and that’s unfortunate.”

She added that the amendments were “designed for a political purpose”, and said the motion would not lose its intended effect without part four.

In a short statement to InDaily, Simms said: “I hope that the Liberals hold their nerve today and resist pressure from vested interests”.

The move to amend the bid to protect the Crown & Anchor comes after the Property Council fired a broadside on Sunday night following the rally.

The association which represents developers warned the state government against “emotionally driven and populist decision” which it said would be “a monumental failure and undermine the independent planning system”.

Photo: Tony Lewis/InDaily

“Political interference would set a dangerous precedent, which would have far-reaching consequences,” it warned.

Property Council executive director Bruce Djite said: “The government must not entertain the idea of undermining the state’s independent assessment process and more broadly the entire planning system”.

“It is not the job of politicians or advocacy bodies to decide what is or isn’t a good development – to do so would set a dangerous precedent and completely undermine a fundamental reason the planning system exists,” he said.

“If politicians are to interfere in the state’s independent planning process, it would materially increase the sovereign risk of investing in South Australia and signal that the state is hostile to business and capital investment. This would be a disastrous outcome during a housing crisis, especially at a time when several projects struggle with feasibility.”

Djite also specifically called out the Liberal Party, saying the Property Council was surprised that it would “consider supporting such reckless policy or decision making”. 

The motion is set to be debated in the Legislative Council on Wednesday afternoon.