Politics first, good planning last

[stumpjumper]

Two recent projects - the proposed hospital at the Trans Adelaide site and the redevelopment for housing of Cheltenham Racecourse are going ahead without any planning study; no analysis of alternative sites or developments or impact on traffic and so on.

In each case I have requested from the relevant minister's office a copy of any planning study which guided the minister's decision and have been told that no study exists. I checked with Terry Walsh of Urban Design Institute of SA and Bob Hart of the Planning Institute of SA and both told me that they are not aware of any urban design study in either case.

Using good contacts in the public service, I have discovered that the decision to build a new RAH on the public land presently leased to Trans Adelaide was Kevin Foley's. Foley's decision was sent downwards with no supporting rationale. My informant told me that the only available reason for choosing the TA site over Keswick, Glenside or Bowden etc was that unlike those sites which would either have to be bought, or which could be sold if already owned, the TA site was available at no cost (other than remediation) and could not otherwise be sold (it is public Park Lands).

My point is that good planning requires consideration of more than simple land cost in selecting a site for major infrastructure. There is still no analysis of the effect on traffic of the hospital and the movements of its 4,000 employees. Foley's office told me that they 'missed' the fact that the Adelaide City Council controls a crucial strip of land between the TA leasehold (the hospital site) and North Terrace.

'How could you miss that?' I asked various people in Foley's office.

The responses:

'The decision had to be made quickly - there was a lot to do in a short time - we are not trained surveyors here - the map we had didn't show that land.'

Those responses are an insight into how the government handles a decision worth $1,800,000,000.

I'm presently investigating the decision-making process in the decision to redevelop the Cheltenham site as housing.

[cruel_world00]

I'm surprised the SDA aren't behind this one

[Will]

If the government had to pay for an alternative site, it wouldn't be a $1 800 000 000 decision.

[fabricator]

Rann and co see publicly owned land as something that they can sell for profit.

I can sight infrastructure land which has gone up for sale. An example is the 3rd leg of the Salisbury rail junction, that is the former rail track which allowed trains from Gawler (or GMH!) to run onto the Salisbury to Virginia line, eg to head to NSW, WA, NT, or anywhere north of Adelaide Metro area. So should GMH become a factory for making mining equipment, we are screwed.

Any money saved by not buying Cheltenham Racecourse, is going to be blown on power costs for the Desalination Plant. Rann is a complete idiot obsessed with big expensive projects, while ignoring smaller ones that would actually save money or make this state better.

[stumpjumper]

Doesn't it concern even the most reflexive supporter of any development in any location at any cost on these forums that major development decisions are being made without any reference to specialists in urban planning or design? That politicians with no expertise in urban development are making the decisions?

I attended a Salisbury Council committee meeting some years ago, when Tony Zappia was Mayor. We were there to talk about the develpment of my client Adelaide Produce Market's surplus land at Pooraka. We discussed the likely future demand for various land uses, including industrial. Zappia and others advised that Bridgestone was on the verge of closure and could not last more than a few years. This was freely discussed and minuted. I have the minutes.

Now Rann and Foley profess complete surprise at the news of Bridgestone's closure, despite Zappia being the federal Labor candidate for the seat which includes Rann's state seat. If I and the 20 blokes around the Salisbury Council committee table knew years ago about Bridgestone closing, then of course Rann and Foley did. They are lying to the electorate.

Naturally, to the majority of people here who laugh off any accusation that the Rann govt is corrupt, or accept it and are perfectly happy with a corrupt government, none of this matters.

Go down to Charles Sturt council and find out that Attorney General Atkinson has decided that Labor staffer and Charles Sturt councillor Paul Sykes will be the next Mayor of Charles Sturt ('my council' according to Atkinson) and that in 2014 Sykes will take over Michael Wright's state seat.

9 out of 16 Charles Sturt councillors are now reliably in the ALP bag. The hardest to buy was Mayor Harold Anderson, but he was paid $25,000 in cash by Nick Bolkus (part of the deal with Rob Gerard of Clipsal, orchestrated by former staffer of Planning Minister Holloway and now Property Council head Nathan Paine with Bolkus as bagman). Anderson promptly dropped his opposition to the redevelopment of the Cheltenham Racecourse (on which he had been elected) and is all for it.

Everything's fine now, except that the last survey showed that 87% of people oppose the redevelopment. Who cares, though. Governments are here to look after themselves and their friends. You would have to be very naive to think that government had anything to do with looking after the electorate - they're just the bunnies who pay for the lunches, airfares, chauffeured cars and free drinks for those on the inside.

I must now finish redrawing a home unit development proposal for a client - it was going to be 6 units but now, it's eight! Another two units' profit. It's non-complying of course, but a quick five figure donation to Progressive Business SA and it went straight through! Amazing!

It wasn't a bribe - it was a donation which was followed by a decision in the donor's favour. No problem - in South Australia. I've checked it out - all absolutely legal.

[Wayno]

Doesn't it concern even the most reflexive supporter of any development in any location at any cost on these forums that major development decisions are being made without any reference to specialists in urban planning or design? That politicians with no expertise in urban development are making the decisions?

Yes. It's a concern...

[adam_stuckey]

This is really the main problem with modern politics. Elected parties must make it look like every single issue that is good in their area is all their idea and anything bad they had nothing to do with. Its all to do with political points and spin. If these people weren't constantly trying to get re-elected they could look to the long term and maybe put the population through a little short term pain if there was a good outcome in the future.

But that in modern terms is known as political suicide

[stumpjumper]

I've been reading through some submissions for the 30 year plan.

I've read carefully the Plan itself, and submissions from:
• Planning Institute of Australia
• Playford Council
• Property Council

As well as qualifications in architecture, I have experience in urban planning, so I was interested to see how the different agencies approached the issue.

I was interested particularly in the issues of urban infill and the physical extent of the city.

PIA's detailed 15 page submission urged respect for the existing Urban Growth Areas, advocating infill of existing settled areas in order to reduce the chance of the infamous 'linear city' extending from Aldinga to Gawler. The submission continued on to promote what might be called internationally accepted urban design solutions, including improvement of transport links, rezoning to allow higher density living near transport nodes (Transport Oriented Developments) etc.

Playford Council's submission offered Elizabeth as a solution, citing the city's suitability for taking extra population:
- large allotments (600sqm av) which it will allow subdivision down to 200sqm per dwelling
- 1100ha of adjacent development space
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure designed in the 1960's by SA Housing trust specifically to cope with higher density
- an existing 'CBD', also designed to take higher density and zoned for multi-level development
- an existing adjacent industrial zone and job source with vacant factory space and capacity for further development
- proximity to interstate road, rail and sea transport connections
- excellent retail facilities including bulky goods
- excellent passenger transport facilities
- well-developed community social and sporting infrastructure
- established sense of community
- minimal need for taxpayers' funds
- increase in private property values in Elizabeth

The Property Council's submission, in the form of a friendly letter from Executive Director Nathan Paine to his former boss, Planning Minister Paul Holloway, is unusual.

It deals with the planning content of the government's proposal in one sentence, saying that it finds the draft proposals 'appropriate'. The rest of the document contrates on what it calls 'probably the most important chapter of the Plan in relation to Planning' - Chapter E, which discusses 'delivery', or who controls development.

The PC is definitely in favour of creating a new body, the Department of Planning and Local Government, which would basically leapfrog over local elected government as the 'lead agency' in 'delivering the 30 Year Plan.'

Local government should be sidelined because

'There is ample evidence of councils being obstructive and detrimental to good development occurring in South Australia.'

Even if local government were to be involved, then the lead agency should be able to sanction a local government, because

'...the State can ill-afford their obstruction of the Plan’s delivery. To ensure that this does not occur, the Government must put in place a regime of sanctions for councils that obstruct or refuse to comply with the 30-Year Plan.'

For 'local government' read 'community input', I suggest.

The 30 year plan itself prefers new broadacre development at Concordia to increasing density at Elizabeth.

The reasons are simple enough.

While the development at Concordia is described as a TOD, it cannot be a '360 degree TOD, as nearly all of its connections will be to the south.

Broadacre development at Concordia is the most expensive option for the taxpayer because the cost of providing new roads and utilities is only partially offset by the developers' contributions. There is also the cost of extending transport routes, providing schooling and other public undertakings, as well as the traffic loads through existing towns on the road to Adelaide, such as Gawler, whose residents are generally opposed to the Concordia development.

Put bluntly, this sort of remote broadacre development would not be advised by any current school of thought in urban design practice.

However, the profits to the developer, provided the taxpayer subsidises the project, are maximised in this sort of development.

The government, which has a planning department closely linked to the property development industry by cash donation (the Rann government's largest non-union donor is the property development industry) and crossover of personnel between the government's Land Management Corporation (a developer in its own right), the Planning Minister's office, and the private development industry.

Indications are that the Concordia development will go ahead, despite a high level of community objection and the lack of employment in the area, meaning that Concordia will become a dormitory suburb, with commuters driving an extra 40km per day past the more suitable, but less profitable (for developers) option of infilling Elizabeth.

The trio of government, the Property Council and the property development industry have a good track record in developing sites against professional planning advice and against considerable public opinion. The Cheltenham Racecourse redevelopment is a good recent example.

The difference here is that the 'overarching' powers of the 'lead agency' will continue irrespective of community or council wishes for 30 years.

To this end, the Property Council proposes a specific new authority, for example a government appointed board, be set up to implement the 30 year plan.

It suggests that this authority should have considerable legislated power, including:

- power to initiate and act;
- power of acquisition to assist with land assembly and the development of key land parcels (to achieve coordinated development and delivery of key sites and areas);
- investment capacity and power to acquire a debt;
- legislative and statutory authority (including power to act as the relevant planning authority and power to open and close roads etc);
- the power to create medium and long-term strategy

As for dissent, the Property Council suggests that an authority of such independence and power would assist in addressing 'potential delivery impediments that may arise including...local government interests...and the potential conflicting interests of independent stakeholders.

Further, the Property Council warns the government against being too prescriptive about how the land should be dealt with, suggesting that the government should not 'over-plan' or 'over-specify' in relation to the development of the land.

There is no suggestion in the document that there be any input at any time to the proposed authority from individuals. communities or local councils, nor is there any suggestion that any consultation with such entities be sought or required at any time. It is not clear from the Property Council's submission which court might have jurisdiction over the new authority or what the mechanism of appeal from its actions might be.

Interestingly, the Property Council suggests that:

'Considering the role already fulfilled by the Land Management Corporation, there is the potential to restructure its Charter to convert it into such an Authority'.

In short, an even more powerful LMC with its strong management and staff connections to the development industry, would become the sole authority for the delivery of the 30 Year Plan.

Finally, the Property Council's submission to the government's 30 year plan is quite similar in its demand for a new, powerful, non-elected, non-responsible body to 'implement the Plan' to the Property Council's proposal for a new five person authority to manage development in the city of Adelaide, potentially enlarged to extend from Darlington to Gepps Cross.

Acceptance of the Property Council's proposal would deny individuals, communities and councils formal input to almost all development in the Greater Adelaide Metropolitan Area, conferring all responsibility to a combination of an unelected five person committee in the case of the existing metropolitan area, and a new, unelected authority or enhanced LMC to initiate, define and implement development in the Greater Adelaide Metropolitan Area.

Overall, it could be inferred from the Property Council's submissions that it isn't so much concerned with where development takes place, only that its members are able to maximise their profit from it, and I suggest, control it through government connections maintained by the industry's continued financial support of the Rann (and undoubtedly any future) government.

Hardly a guarantee for good planning.

[stumpjumper]

adam_stuckey I can only agree with you. What we need are politicians who are more interested in the welfare of their constituents and of the state, rather than the extension of their own comfortable careers. They're called statesmen, and women. As it is we have politicians who publicly praise such men and women, who put the public interest first but privately they must toast Robert Mugabe who has hung on to power for years while abusing the trust of his people. It's been said that 'Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue', and hypocrites are exactly what these self-interested seat polishers of all parties are.

[dsriggs]

I think bringing up Mugabe's name in a discussion of state politics is pretty poor form, stumpjumper.