News & Discussion: Squares and Parklands

[Llessur2002]

Part 27 is one of the most “natural” of all the parklands - about as bad a choice as Park 21 in that regard: https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/08/07/ ... elocation/

The sloped banks of the Torrens are natural but the rest of the park is a pretty underutilised area of grass - I've cycled through it a few times a week for years and very rarely see anyone using the space other than police dog trainers. There's also a fairly wide roadway through it, a building of some sorts (I've always been curious as to what that is) and it's bounded by a railway line on one side and a busy intersection at one end, so it's hardly an unspoiled paradise. Providing any built infrastructure was kept close to the rail line and the rest of the grassed area became paddocks I don't see it as the worst idea ever. It also has easy access through to the CBD via existing paths, as well as Hindmarsh stadium - I'm not sure if they ever deploy the horses there?

I've never really been offended by the horses being in Kate Cocks park, the kids love seeing them when we go to Bonython Park - and at least these horses exist for civic purposes as opposed to being for the pleasure of a few wealthy North Adelaide residents.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

Mounted police are used mainly in situations where crowd calming /control is required...usually tight urban conditions (in Adelaides case the CBD) where they can be deployed rapidly and easily even if just for a general Saturday night shift. The reason I suppose that the other states do not operate similar units in close proximity to their CBD's may be that they do not have the luxury of vast, largely unused sections of parkland in close proximity.

From my understanding of the InDaily article, the Commissioner has flagged that the horses aren't intended to be used in rapid response scenarios.

He said the Gepps Cross land, which is around 2km further from the CBD than Adelaide Airport, was the “third, less preferred option” and would require the horses to be driven to and from a new city staging post behind the Supreme Court building.

“That’s not optimal but the advice I have from our Mounted Operations people is that we will be able to make it work,” he said.

“It’s important to remember that by and large the horses are not like a rapid response police service.

Since rapid deployment isn't a priority, I don't see why they can't be staged at Gepps Cross. It just sounds like SAPOL doesn't want to have to load/unload and stage them – which is not a good enough reason to use Park Lands space.

Spare Park 27 so that, if not rehabilitated into a more natural landscape, it can be transformed at a future date into more sport and recreational facilities for everyone's enjoyment.

[Llessur2002]

Since rapid deployment isn't a priority, I don't see why they can't be staged at Gepps Cross. It just sounds like SAPOL doesn't want to have to load/unload and stage them – which is not a good enough reason to use Park Lands space.

Spare Park 27 so that, if not rehabilitated into a more natural landscape, it can be transformed at a future date into more sport and recreational facilities for everyone's enjoyment.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I just personally wouldn't have a problem if the horses were kept there. It's not like they can't be moved in the future if an alternative need arises for the site - the Government has proven that.

I'd also be interested in the additional cost both in terms of public dollars and police man-hours in keeping horses that are primarily used within the CBD, out at Gepps Cross. Locating them within walking distance of where they're used seems like a much easier and cheaper option. It's not like we're short of parklands, nor is the concept of keeping horses on the space either a) likely to change the fundamental nature of the site beyond (a very simple) future remediation or b) without precedent.

I do appreciate the importance of preserving parklands for current and future generations, and that an overall loss through a 'death by a thousand cuts' scenario isn't something we should assume won't happen but in this particular case and this particular location I'm personally not outraged by the suggestion. I could, on the other hand, see significant problems with the southern parklands proposal.

As far as I can remember, other than perhaps the APPA and their never ending horror at the scourge of bitumen pathways, lamp posts and grounds maintenance facilities "aLiEnAtInG tHeM fRoM tHe PaRkLaNdS", no one ever had a massive problem with the police horses being kept in Kate Cocks park. This is simply moving them to a similar location in relatively close proximity in an arguably less-utilised area and I think should be considered separately from the building of a stonking great hospital on the barracks site.

If the hospital wasn't being built and the police wanted to relocate to Park 27, would it have been such a contentious proposal?

[whatstheirnamesmom]

I probably wouldn't have an issue if the horses were kept there, in a simple fenced off area, for a temporary amount of time. That scenario would be easily reversible/remediated.

But as their Park 21 proposal showed, what SAPOL want is not just a field; it's buildings, offices, storerooms, carparking, big security fencing. And once that stuff is built, it is incredibly hard – and in the case of the current Thebarton Barracks, politically unpopular – to remove.

Not to mention that Thebarton Barracks currently houses 15 different business units of SAPOL, and so rehousing some of these units alongside the Mounted Operations Unit is likely also a primary consideration for SAPOL when choosing a site. I guess I can see why they want something central – so staff can work centrally – but they have presented no sensible reason to establish such permanent facilities on Park Lands. Unfortunately, the State Govt does not appear willing to fork out anything extra to help establish a site within the square mile or in an inner-suburban area bordering Park Lands – so Gepps Cross will have to do.

[Llessur2002]

But as their Park 21 proposal showed, what SAPOL want is not just a field; it's buildings, offices, storerooms, carparking, big security fencing. And once that stuff is built, it is incredibly hard – and in the case of the current Thebarton Barracks, politically unpopular – to remove.

It's not really difficult to remove a few single-storey buildings and fences from a site, nor would there likely be an outrage - the controversy over the demolition of the barracks site is based entirely on its heritage significance, not its purpose. I doubt the general public would give two hoots if anything built here was removed in a couple of decades time as, presumably, removal would either be because there was a better location for the horses, use for the site, or both.

I also don't see that a massive security fence around the entire paddock area is warranted - they've never had one at Kate Cocks and I wouldn't want to see one in Park 27. That was one of my problems with the southern parklands proposal - it was visually obtrusive. If any fenced area was kept hard up against the rail line boundary (and preferably hidden with vegetation) and the paddocks were open as per the current arrangement I'd be happy.

Not to mention that Thebarton Barracks currently houses 15 different business units of SAPOL, and so rehousing some of these units alongside the Mounted Operations Unit is likely also a primary consideration for SAPOL when choosing a site. I guess I can see why they want something central – so staff can work centrally – but they have presented no sensible reason to establish such permanent facilities on Park Lands.

From a personal perspective, I wouldn't want to see any non MOU-related activities moved to this site but other functions currently housed at the barracks could and should be relocated elsewhere. As far as I can see, Grant Stevens hasn't mentioned non-MOU staff to the site - he stated: “we have police officers and other staff who work in Mounted down at barracks. If any of those functions are administrative and do not rely on being at the same site as the paddocks then I fully agree they should be based elsewhere if co-locating would mean a bigger infrastructure footprint.

[Nathan]

Why not Lefevre Park / Nantu Wama, where there are already horse paddocks? At least "government owned" horses are better than privately owned ones on public land.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

I see no need to build facilities twice in a manner of decades, which is a bit wasteful and disruptive. I would rather they choose a site they can see working out, and committing to it. Thankfully that is what the Commissioner has done.

The Police Association are so far the only real players calling for Park 27 to be considered. I think it's pretty unlikely at this stage that we'll see SAPOL build on the Park Lands at all.

[Llessur2002]

Why not Lefevre Park / Nantu Wama, where there are already horse paddocks? At least "government owned" horses are better than privately owned ones on public land.

I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't been floated already - I can only presume that even proposing to do anything in this area will just bring the North Adelaide NIMBYs into the mix and add another voice of opposition.

[rev]

How about an expansion of the zoo?
Around the back slightly north over the river there's a council depot.
Council depot in the parklands is ok though?

[Eurostar]

Imo the Gepps Cross site would be best reserved for future expansions of Roma Mitchell College or a national park/urban forest

[Saltwater]

Mile End... the answer is always Mile End. Just buy an old factory site / carpark and put them there, same as the ambo HQ, Advertiser printworks, Netball stadium etc...

The horses can trot to the city when needed. Job done.

[Vasco]

.

[Nort]

How about an expansion of the zoo?
Around the back slightly north over the river there's a council depot.
Council depot in the parklands is ok though?

The council depot does a lot of the work for the parklands, so it's a different situation, no different to how there are sheds and workshops in the botanic gardens. Honestly that does seem like one of the better options.

[Nathan]

Apparently 2024 is some kind of reverse year. Adelaide City Council has committed to opposing all development in the parklands for 5 years, and the Adelaide Park Lands Association calling that unrealistic and wanting sporting facilities and clubrooms upgraded.

[Patrick_27]

Apparently 2024 is some kind of reverse year. Adelaide City Council has committed to opposing all development in the parklands for 5 years, and the Adelaide Park Lands Association calling that unrealistic and wanting sporting facilities and clubrooms upgraded.

Of course they do, the APA don't actually care about the parklands from the preservation of open space and greenery, they merely want to protect the free reign that their elite sporting clubs have over large parcels of parkland.