Adelaide Hills | Developments & News

Developments in Regional South Australia. Including Port Lincoln, Victor Harbor, Wallaroo, Gawler and Mount Barker.
Message
Author
crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 319 times

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#151 Post by crawf » Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Just hurry up and build the god damn thing already!. That large block has been vacant for over 6 years now..

User avatar
mooshie
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Adelaide Hills
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#152 Post by mooshie » Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:13 pm

Never seen a multiple story Big W? I suppose there would have to be car parking though. Would surprise me if Woolworths owns the block that they wouldn't intend to put a Dan Murphys in there too. It is a pretty big space and there s no big box liquor in the whole hills.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 319 times

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#153 Post by crawf » Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:40 am

From my understanding, the upper two levels will be for carparking.

The site is way too small for both a Dan Murphrys and Big W.
Big W part of $40m retail investment
http://thecouriernews.blogspot.com/2011 ... tment.html
A $40m shopping centre planned for Mt Barker's town centre could be open in just over a year, if it gains support from the town's council.
Woolworths has unveiled its plans for a key site fronting Morphett, Hutchinson and Stephen streets years after a retail complex was first earmarked for the site.
That development stalled and the supermarket giant bought the land last year. Its three-storey proposal features a Big W department store - the largest of its kind in the area at 8000sqm - along with 11 specialty shops and extra sales kiosks.
The plan has been lodged with the Mt Barker Council for development assessment.
If it gets the go ahead, it could be built within 12 months, creating over 200 retail jobs.
Two levels of undercover parking will provide over 440 spaces, with shops to face Morphett and Hutchinson streets.

flavze
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:38 am

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#154 Post by flavze » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:28 pm

there was also talk off shutting down most of Hutchinson street between Druids Ave and Morphett Street and turning it into a plaza/mall for cafe's and dining. They would leave open the little bit that gives access to the Coles carpark/Post office. Would be a good idea as the section of road is shithouse and not really needed.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#155 Post by stumpjumper » Thu May 31, 2012 7:29 pm

The 13,000ha Mt Barker rezoning, in which planning consultant Connor Holmes advised both the development consortium pushing for the rezoning and the now retired planning minister who approved the rezoning, will be investigated by the state ombudsman, Mr Bingham, the government announced today.

However the ombudsman's terms of reference specifically exclude examination of the behaviour of Connor Holmes, and the retirement of planning minister Paul Holloway prevents his role being examined closely.

Some government figures are now agreeing that the decision to allow developers to produce building allotments without having responsibility for the non-profitable infrastructure that should go with development of the allotments was flawed.

Thus the government is virtually admitting that it doesn't learn and is led by the development industry to repeat previous errors.

It may turn out to be a repeat of LMC's efforts at Port Adelaide about which the government now admits that it got things wrong with Newport Quays by allowing developers to produce apartments without having responsibility for the non-profitable infrastructure that should go with development of the apartments was flawed.

Thus the government is virtually admitting that it doesn't learn and is led by the development industry to repeat previous errors.

These 'flaws' would be spotted by students doing Planning 101. It's incredible that they are made by the state's highest paid planning officers.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2869
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#156 Post by rhino » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:39 am

Housing plan rolls ahead for Mt Barker
By James Hancock
Updated Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:34am AEDT

A developer has been given approval for the first big housing subdivision at Mount Barker since the South Australian Government rezoned 1,300 hectares of farmland.

The Walker Corporation is planning to create 505 allotments on the outskirts of the Adelaide hills town in stages over the next eight years.

Mount Barker Council's development assessment panel has approved the project, subject to a string of conditions.

Council acting CEO Brian Clancey said the developer had committed to delivering specified infrastructure.

"There's a lot more detailed design work to be done on a whole variety of things, including the degree to which stormwater management will be required," he said.

Brian Haddy from the Mount Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities urged the Government to rethink the extent of the rezoning.

"If you leave it to the developers to provide infrastructure, the community is always going to come up short," he said.

He said SA Government guidelines forced the council to give approval and forecast problems ahead: "The unrolling of the disaster that is going to come to our community."

Work at the site is due to start in the first half of next year.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1265
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 239 times
Contact:

Re: More Development for Mt Barker

#157 Post by ChillyPhilly » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:39 pm

rhino wrote:Housing plan rolls ahead for Mt Barker
By James Hancock
Updated Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:34am AEDT

A developer has been given approval for the first big housing subdivision at Mount Barker since the South Australian Government rezoned 1,300 hectares of farmland.

The Walker Corporation is planning to create 505 allotments on the outskirts of the Adelaide hills town in stages over the next eight years.

Mount Barker Council's development assessment panel has approved the project, subject to a string of conditions.

Council acting CEO Brian Clancey said the developer had committed to delivering specified infrastructure.

"There's a lot more detailed design work to be done on a whole variety of things, including the degree to which stormwater management will be required," he said.

Brian Haddy from the Mount Barker Coalition for Sustainable Communities urged the Government to rethink the extent of the rezoning.

"If you leave it to the developers to provide infrastructure, the community is always going to come up short," he said.

He said SA Government guidelines forced the council to give approval and forecast problems ahead: "The unrolling of the disaster that is going to come to our community."

Work at the site is due to start in the first half of next year.

One of the biggest facepalms in the history of the state, easily.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
Uncle Monty
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide Hills
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#158 Post by Uncle Monty » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:25 pm

SA Ombudsman finds clear 'conflict of interest' in Mt Barker zoning

Renato Castello
adelaidenow
March 05, 20136:01PM

The SA Ombudsman says there was a conflict of interest in the State Government's decision to rezone Mt Barker, to double the population of the town. Source: The Advertiser

A PRIVATE planning firm that undertook a major rezoning study of Adelaide had serious conflicts of interest that were ignored by the state's planning department, the State Ombudsman has found.

In a report tabled in Parliament today, Ombudsman Richard Bingham found Planning SA had hired consultants Connor Holmes to investigate land for future housing - including Mt Barker - despite the firm working on behalf of developers who stood to gain from the rezoning process.

He noted that Connor Holmes were making "concerted representations" to the (Planning) Minister on behalf of five developers to expand and rezone Mt Barker, as part of the state-wide Growth Investigation Areas study.

"Both before and during the procurement, as well as at the time of being awarded the consultancy, Connor Holmes were making concerted representations to the minister on behalf of five developers, the Mount Barker Consortium, to expand and rezone Mount Barker," Mr Bingham said.

"Connor Holmes were clearly conflicted between this role and their GIA consultancy.

"The department knew of these representations, but failed to identify Connor Holmes' conflict of interest during the procurement.

"This failure tainted the probity of the procurement process."

Mr Bingham found that despite that conflict of interest, Connor Holmes was requested to 'fast-track' analysis of Mt Barker as a growth investigation area by December 2008.

"It was not until after the commencement of this analysis that it was formally recorded that Connor Holmes were conflicted," he said in his report.

The Growth investigation Areas report began in 2008 to identify land on Adelaide's fringes to be rezoned for new housing.

The Government contracted the planning consultants Connor Holmes to undertake this work.

Mr Bingham found that while Connor Holmes and other potential consultants had identified, during the bidding process, that they had undertaken projects in potential population-growth areas, Planning SA did not record any of those concerns in procurement documentation.

"In my view, where the government chooses to engage consultants to assist in achieving its planning objectives, the community is entitled to expect that rigorous and accountable procurement processes will be followed - including ensuring consultant probity and identifying and dealing with conflicts of interest," he said.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the residents of Mt Barker will feel "vindicated, but devastated" by the report.

"This report shows what people in Mt Barker have known for years - that the rezoning of farmland for housing was tainted by conflict of interest," he said.

"It beggars belief that the Government thought it was acceptable to use the same consultants who were representing the property developers to also give impartial advice to Government.

"The process always had a strong smell about it, which the Ombudsman has now confirmed is rotten."

He said the report backed Greens claims made since 2009 that there was a "clear conflict of interest" in the use of Connor Holmes to investigate possible land for future housing, while at the same time the planning firm was working for private property developers.

The Opposition's leader in the Upper House, David Ridgway, said the state had been tarnished by the government's approval process.

"The Government must now – that is, today – release the Growth Investigation Areas report in line with the Ombudsman’s findings," he said.

"I believe that the corruption of process relating to planning approvals in SA is an epidemic which has infected the whole of government."

TIMELINE

April 2008 - Connor Holmes writes to then Planning Minister Paul Holloway on behalf of a consortium of developers expressing the "urgent need to review the boundary of the Mt Barker township".

June 2008 - State Government announces 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, and fast-tracked rezoning of land for houses

June 2008 - Connor Holmes writes to Mr Holloway to request Mt Barker expansion be progressed as "either a Ministerial Development Plan Assessment or a Major Development", saying it would be "difficult to attract the support" of Mt Barker Council

July 2008 - Connor Holmes meets with Planning SA

August 2008 - Connor Holmes submits to Planning SA its capability statement in a bid to win the Growth Investigation Areas project, central to the 30 Year Plan project

August 2008 - Then Planning Minister Mr Holloway writes to Connor Holmes and says he is very encouraged the "industry is able to ... provide options such as the Mt Barker proposal" and says land at Mt Barker would be part of the GIA project

August 2008 - Connor Holmes responds to letter expressing concern about "timelines for delivery of new land" and says "urgent action" is required to redress residential land supply shortage at Mt Barker

October 2008 - Connor Holmes wins consultancy to conduct the GIA project

October 8, 2008 - Connor Holmes accepts recommendation as GIA consultant

October 8, 2008 - The same day, Connor Holmes and Planning SA advise Mr Holloway, in writing, that Connor Holmes represents the Mt Barker consortium. The minute to the minister does not mention Connor Holmes had tendered for the GIA project, nor that they were the preferred consultant for the project.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2869
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#159 Post by rhino » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:30 am

We should be hearing from stumpjumper pretty soon, I'm guessing. You have the right to say "I told you so!" :)
cheers,
Rhino

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#160 Post by Waewick » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:49 am

honestly, I don't think it is a big of a deal as the media is making out.

The process was always going to happen.

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1898
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#161 Post by claybro » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:57 pm

And already the greens are jumping on this.But what is the real gripe here? Is it actually the process, or what is proposed? So they dont want housing in Mt Barker. They dont want housing in Freeling/Gawler/Willunga. They dont want housing at Cheltenham. They dont want highrise on arterial roads.(going by the story on Today Tonight..sorry I did watch the show :( ) .....The vocal minority groups are unfortunately not such a minority in this state. I'm beginning to think it is actually a majority of poeple in Adelaide who think like this. How did we get this way? LAst one out...please turn out the lights.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5510
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 476 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#162 Post by Will » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:07 pm

claybro wrote:And already the greens are jumping on this.But what is the real gripe here? Is it actually the process, or what is proposed? So they dont want housing in Mt Barker. They dont want housing in Freeling/Gawler/Willunga. They dont want housing at Cheltenham. They dont want highrise on arterial roads.(going by the story on Today Tonight..sorry I did watch the show :( ) .....The vocal minority groups are unfortunately not such a minority in this state. I'm beginning to think it is actually a majority of poeple in Adelaide who think like this. How did we get this way? LAst one out...please turn out the lights.
These groups are definitely not the majority. They are just loud, and although I'm generalizing to a degree, due to their age, they have plenty of time on their hands.

There are plenty of examples of NIMBY groups existing in other places.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#163 Post by stumpjumper » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:16 am

Hi Rhino. It's not the development that's the issue with the Ombudsman's finding, it's the process. Certainly, the Greens don't like the development, and that may have driven their actions here, but that really doesn't matter.

The issue is the conflict of interest that arises when an expert adviser is representing both sides in a debate and accepting a fee from both. If it were clearly in the interest of one side to have the largest possible allotments, say, and in the interests of the other party to have the smallest allotments, in whose interest should the expert adviser act? They have what's known as a conflict of interest.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2869
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#164 Post by rhino » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:38 am

Hi Stumpjumper, I agree totally with what you have stated in the post above.

Claybro, bear in mind that each of the vocal minorities you mention doesn't care about what's going on in the the other peoples' back yards. The NIMBYs at Mount Barker are more than likely quite happy to have hi-rise along our arterial roads and housing on the old racecourse site at Cheltenham. The NIMBYs of Burnside would rather the prospective tenants of hi-rises along their arterial roads moved out to what is currently farmland at Mount Barker. I have no doubt that those with the ultimate say are quite aware of this. :)
cheers,
Rhino

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1898
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mount Barker | Developments & News

#165 Post by claybro » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:29 pm

I guess then it is the media in this state that feeds this, but i am not so sure. A friend of mine went to a paid survey group and the subject was developement. A of a largish group of poeple in the survey group, he was the only one who was pro developement, in particular, higher building heights. He said the others in the group where almost baying for blood, when he put forward his pro developement points. With this almost vigilante approach of the naysayers in our community, it is unfortunate that the pro developement lobby are not more vocal and grab more media attention.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest