News & Discussion: Metropolitian Councils

[believesinadsy]

i love trams..

[SRW]

I also think that any developments should also provide funds to a "parklands development fund" which provide the ability to completely overhaul the parklands to make it usable for those people intended to use it

Interesting idea.

[King]

That's a very sensible idea, actually.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure a similar fund exists in Melbourne's Southbank where developers have to contribute a percentage of costs towards public artwork in the surrounding neighborhood. The same principle could apply to the Parklands, for new apartment and office buildings within close proximity.

[Waewick]

If I don't misinterpret you through speeding through the threads - I have seen this mixed use medium density cloned over and over again in the eastern suburbs of Sydney - all 4 levels (so that lifts don't have to be installed), all the same colour, bidg material, shape, distance from the footpath, windows. Whole streets of them, unbroken. I hope this never happens to Adelaide. Appears like a modern day slum in the making.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I tend to agree with you, if it proceeds like normal SA Govt back ideas it probably will.

The Government unlike in Mount Barker need to add the require infrastructure first.

[rhino]

The Government unlike in Mount Barker need to add the require infrastructure first.

That is what they're doing in Mount Barker. (Population growth in Mount Barker is set to grow at the same rate it has been growing for years, only now the Govt will be putting money into the infrastructure, instead of leaving the council to try and get it all done, which is what's been happening so far).

[Waewick]

yes but wasn't that only after community backlash?

Initially they were just going to close there eyes and hope.

[rhino]

Somebody's being paying far too much attention to the Ragvertiser

After the initial sensationalist bullshit, they gave the real story a couple of columns on page 7 or something. Typical.

A bit like the way they said prime farmland was being rezoned for resi, but failed to mention that it was carved up for small acreages about 15 years ago and has not been prime farmland since.

Anyway - back to the Inner City Planning Review .....

[Wayno]

From the Independent Weekly:

Nothing we don't know already - just a more recent news article, and citing concerns from Walkerville council & residents.

High-rise ring for Adelaide Parklands

KEVIN NAUGHTON

ADELAIDE’S parklands will be ringed by 10-storey developments as part of the State Government’s urban infill strategy, says the former Mayor of Walkerville David Whiting.

He says Prospect, Medindie and Rose Park, as well as Unley, will get high-rise buildings along the main thoroughfares facing the parklands.

Walkerville, the quiet village-like suburb, last Monday saw its council approve a 221-apartment complex for Park Tce, Gilberton – the irresistible impact of the State Government’s 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

“We had no choice,” said Mr Whiting, of the council’s development committee meeting on Monday night.

The 45 Park Tce project – on the former Channel Seven site – includes three residential buildings of 5-10 storeys and 221 dwellings ranging from one to three bedrooms.

“We had knocked back this proposal when it was a four-storey development first proposed in 2006,” Mr Whiting said.

However, he said the State Government had intervened and over-ruled the Walkerville Town Plan for that section of Gilberton, raising the height limit to 10 to 12 storeys.

“Within a couple of days of us being told by the State Government, we had the developers of Park Terrace turn up with detailed plans and documents for a 10 storey project.

“When we met last year with then Planning Minister Paul Holloway, he said this is the government’s vision – to have the parklands around Adelaide ringed by 10 storey developments.

“That means Prospect, Unley, Rose Park, Medindie and all those suburbs will have high-rise buildings.

“It’s not as though they are worried about a voter backlash – they don’t hold any of the State seats that cover those sectors.”

Local residents won’t get much joy from the State Liberal Opposition either.

“We’ve always supported higher density concepts for those roads that are on the fringe of the city parklands,” Shadow Planning Minister David Ridgway said.

“Park Tce, Dequetteville Tce, Greenhill Rd – they all offer walk-ability to the city and more people should be able to enjoy that,” he said.

“But we do need to balance that with how high is too high. It shouldn’t have too great a shadowing effect on nearby residential areas.”

The Gilberton development has had a controversial past with local residents raising concerns over its impact.

Local historian Lyn O’Grady said the buildings were too high for the heritage area.

“Not only will it visually impact on the parklands and the Linear Park but also overshadow nearby old Gilberton with houses dating from the 1860s,” she told Messenger Newspapers last year.

Walkerville Residents Association chairwoman Wendy Vodopivec said the 10-storey height limit would set a precedent for further medium to high-density development, which would destroy the historic character of the suburb.

“Gilberton is a heritage residential area that should be protected and preserved because it represents the early history of our state and helps to make Adelaide the unique place it is today,” she also told Messenger.

Developer Watersun Asset Pty Ltd project director Garry Garside said the development had been designed “to take advantage of being on a major arterial road into the CBD”.

“Therefore we feel the proposed scaled height from six storeys is suitable for the location,” he said.

Walkerville Council covers several small suburbs on the north-eastern border of the Adelaide CBD and is the smallest council within the metropolitan area, covering only 3.5sq km.

Settled in 1838 the council area has a population of just over 7000. Many of the properties date back to the mid-1800s and range from single fronted cottages to mansions of a grand scale.

[Nathan]

Couldn't you just as easily cite all the inner suburbs as "heritage residential areas", given they were mostly all settled around the same time?

[crawf]

If a inner-city council is going to reject a 4-level building, then they deserve to have their planning powers stripped. A 10-12 storey building is hardly going to plunge nearby suburbs into darkness.

BTW I think this is the first time that both political parties actually agree on something!

[shiftaling]

I'm in favour of this for Thebarton (my local area) - I have long believed that the land facing Bonython Park should be rezoned residential.

It will raise some interesting issues for the trams there. There are already quite a lot of passengers on the new section and I wonder what solutions they could come up with to facilitate an increase of the magnitude that such a development will bring to the tram patronage - possibly shuttle trams between Ent Centre and West Terrace?

[Wayno]

From the Eastern Courier:

HIGH-density housing in parts of Norwood, Kent Town and Unley could be a reality by early next year.

Unley and Norwood, Payneham & St Peters councils are finalising new planning guidelines to allow high-rise apartments up to seven storeys and shop-top housing up to five storeys in several areas.

The new policies take into account the State Government’s push for higher density living in city-rim suburbs as part of its 30-Year-Plan.

Unley and NP&SP’s plans, known as Development Plan Amendments (DPAs), include:

• * a Greenhill Rd DPA - extending from Glen Osmond Rd to Anzac Highway. Allowing new buildings of up to seven storeys, although the area west of Goodwood Rd could see apartment towers exceeding seven storeys;
  * an Unley Rd DPA - covering Greenhill Rd to Mary St. Allowing shop-top housing of three-five storeys;
  * a Kent Town DPA - to apply to specified sites only, not the entire suburb, and excluding heritage buildings. Height limits are still undetermined but is likely to cater for high-rise apartments; and
  * The Parade DPA - from Osmond Tce to Portrush Rd. Allowing shop-top developments of at least four storeys.

Unley city development general manager Peter Tsokas said he envisaged Greenhill Rd would include a combination of commercial/office and residential redevelopment.

“We think that is a good fit for that area.

“Where there is an opportunity for ground-floor retail to service residents, then you might see cafes for example.”

The council was already receiving enquiries from developers, he said.

“We’ve had some enquiries about what are the proposed changes are for Unley Rd and what opportunities may be provided for relevant owners and developers.

‘Ideally we would like to see the DPAs result in physical projects rather than the sites staying stagnant.”

The area around the Unley Shopping Centre, which was also flagged for revitalisation, would be the subject of a master plan and was exempt from the DPA.

“This area warrants a more detailed analysis than a DPA allows,” Mr Tsokas said.

NP&SP urban planning general manager Carlos Buzzetti said the council was “still grappling” with final height limits for its two DPAs.

“What the final heights are will depend on the context,” Mr Buzzetti said.

“We’re focusing on balancing the protection of some areas with the need to provide growth opportunities. We’ve identified parts of Kent Town that are suitable (for high-rise), while other parts have been identified as no-go zones.”

Unley and NP&SP residents will have a chance to provide feedback on the proposed DPAs before they are finalised, during an eight-week community consultation period expected before Christmas.

Meanwhile, Burnside Council will meet with the State Government next week to kickstart work on a new development plan for the region.

Acting CEO Paul Deb said it was “too premature” to discuss details of any possible zoning changes, as part of the State Government’s 30-Year Plan.

“We haven’t had any discussions to date with the Planning Department,” Mr Deb said.

The council had not identified any areas within Burnside likely to be affected by government plans for higher-density housing, he said.

“If you look at the 30-Year Plan in the context of Burnside it doesn’t actually say much,” he said.

Mr Deb said parts of Magill were identified as regeneration sites, while Burnside Village and the council’s Glynburn depot were touted as a possible residential and development hubs.

Mitcham Council said it had begun work on a new DPA to reflect the 30-Year Plan, with community consultation expected next year.

A spokeswoman for the Planning Department said all councils needed to modify zoning guidelines by December, 2012.

[mattblack]

In addition is this concept video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC7CLgOh ... detailpage

[rhino]

Wow, our main roads are going to look a little different, aren't they?

[mattblack]

The council had not identified any areas within Burnside likely to be affected by government plans for higher-density housing

It was pretty foreseeable that Burnside would try and resist as long as possible. The fact is that once DPAs are finalised and approved by the end of next year the policy changes will ensure that transit corridors will be ripe for redevelopment. The financial incentives alone will be enough to kickstart redevelopment, the government in turn must be ready to implement changes that will be needed to the road network and transport upgrades along the whole of the suburban area. Theres going to be some big dollars spent on all sides to make this a reality, its going to piss some people off but changing the built form of Adelaide from uniform low density to pockets of medium-high density will still take time so people will adjust.