Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[Somebody]

Hi Somebody in the WWW,
How are you?

Little tired at the moment, have been up since 07:30. What about yourself?

Yes you are right the Developers should pay as well but, In a conversation I had with a Gawler East resident recently he said the Council and the Developer asked the Government to supply the Infastructure.
But I agree with you, if the developer wants to develop the land and sell it off as a profit then they should also contribute to the P/T Infastructure.
In actual fact both the Gawler Council and the Barossa Council should get in volved with the Developer and the Government.

To be honest, I don't really think a lot of these Delfin developments. They're made out by the developers to be far more than they really are, obviously to entice you to buy a house there. Marketing it as "outer suburban home sites, an hour from Adelaide" doesn't sound so good.

I was taking a look at the website for Lakeside Pakenham (another Delfin project) the other day and it states that the estate will be getting a railway station "between 2011-2016". But houses started being built a couple of years back, all they have now is a bus once an hour. The token railway station will be too late, families will already own 3 or 4 cars.

Hence IMO if these developments are to happen, they need to get PT in as an essential service from the start, not an aftersight. If you wanted to extend the suburban service beyond Gawler Central then it would be the perfect time to duplicate that stretch as well.

[Neuropolis]

Update:

Gawler Council have asked that Delfin and the State Government commit to building significant PT infrastructure in Gawler to address numerous issues if this is to be passed.
Local thinking is that the council have made some deals they cannot back out of and this development is going to go ahead regardless of what else they want. Many local constituents feel betrayed by the council on this issue.

Gawler Council have also commissioned a report that demonstrates that the new shopping centre slated to be built along with the Gawler East development is too large and will impact negatively on businesses in the area and in the town.

Gawler is also slated to be granted Major Town status by State Government which effectively strips it of its current Rural Town status. This will impact on local Healthcare. It means that local Doctors will not have admitting rights to Gawler Health Services and Gawler Health will not be permitted to take anyone outside of hours and all patients will then be redirected to the Lyell Mcewin Hospital instead.

Whatever the boon to developers, I think a lot of people feel they are witnessing the death of the Township of Gawler.
Of course it all depends on what side of the fence you are on.

[adam73837]

Hence IMO if these developments are to happen, they need to get PT in as an essential service from the start...

Exactly, take a look at other states, or better yet, the suburbs of Elizabeth and Mt Barker. If the trainline/freeway weren't there, the areas wouldn't have taken off. First you build the transport system, then suburbia follows. Not the other way round like at... Virginia I think it is.

[mattblack]

Exactly, take a look at other states, or better yet, the suburbs of Elizabeth and Mt Barker. If the trainline/freeway weren't there, the areas wouldn't have taken off. First you build the transport system, then suburbia follows. Not the other way round like at... Virginia I think it is.[/quote]


bloody expensive for the government to do this, build a transport system for 10,000's when your starting from a greenfeild site. Would have to start off with a decent bus system and upgrade as population allows. Seaford perfect example. When population dictates aldinga will be included in extension. Just have to make sure you incorporate a transport coridoor into the design.

[Wilfy 2007]

Hi Somebody in the WWW,
How are you?

Little tired at the moment, have been up since 07:30. What about yourself?

Yes you are right the Developers should pay as well but, In a conversation I had with a Gawler East resident recently he said the Council and the Developer asked the Government to supply the Infastructure.
But I agree with you, if the developer wants to develop the land and sell it off as a profit then they should also contribute to the P/T Infastructure.
In actual fact both the Gawler Council and the Barossa Council should get in volved with the Developer and the Government.

To be honest, I don't really think a lot of these Delfin developments. They're made out by the developers to be far more than they really are, obviously to entice you to buy a house there. Marketing it as "outer suburban home sites, an hour from Adelaide" doesn't sound so good.

I was taking a look at the website for Lakeside Pakenham (another Delfin project) the other day and it states that the estate will be getting a railway station "between 2011-2016". But houses started being built a couple of years back, all they have now is a bus once an hour. The token railway station will be too late, families will already own 3 or 4 cars.

Hence IMO if these developments are to happen, they need to get PT in as an essential service from the start, not an aftersight. If you wanted to extend the suburban service beyond Gawler Central then it would be the perfect time to duplicate that stretch as well.

Hey Somebody,
If you do dot like the idea of a Park and Ride what about a TOD
The location isuggested would be ideal for a Railway station , supermarket, like IGA and some units or townhouse all built in a complex with parking for passengers from out of the area.

What do you think?

Regards,

[Cruise]

Wilfy,
A TOD at Gawler East? seriously, put the crack pipe down buddy.


Regards,
Cruise

[fabricator]

Update:

Gawler Council have asked that Delfin and the State Government commit to building significant PT infrastructure in Gawler to address numerous issues if this is to be passed.
Local thinking is that the council have made some deals they cannot back out of and this development is going to go ahead regardless of what else they want. Many local constituents feel betrayed by the council on this issue.

Tony Piccolo (state MP for the area), has also made comments that he supports Gawler Council's proposal to extend the train service.

Gawler Council have also commissioned a report that demonstrates that the new shopping centre slated to be built along with the Gawler East development is too large and will impact negatively on businesses in the area and in the town.

Typical Gawler Council :wank: they have systematically blocked every shopping centre development outside of the town centre itself. Hell there isn't even one foodland/IGA type supermarket or decent deli in the suburbs.

The simple reason is the councillors are shop owners in the town centre, and little else. Its just an attempt to keep their monopoly on everything, rather pathetic really. Brain dead councillors then bitch about the traffic problems in the main street, well morons you wanted it that way remember ?

Farmers in the Barossa won't shop in Gawler, because there is a lack of parking and too much traffic congestion. This new shopping centre would allow them to come into Gawler or at least Gawler East. Gawler locals go shop at Munno Para shopping center for the same reasons, and the prices are slightly better.

Gawler is also slated to be granted Major Town status by State Government which effectively strips it of its current Rural Town status. This will impact on local Healthcare. It means that local Doctors will not have admitting rights to Gawler Health Services and Gawler Health will not be permitted to take anyone outside of hours and all patients will then be redirected to the Lyell Mcewin Hospital instead.

Whatever the boon to developers, I think a lot of people feel they are witnessing the death of the Township of Gawler.
Of course it all depends on what side of the fence you are on.

The Health Centre (the only part of it that is a hospital is the building) should stop being run as a Mickey Mouse operation and get its own Doctors.

The only thing that will kill the township of Gawler is death of the council itself. Say from this giant parasite called Barossa Council, which has attached itself firmly to the township while pretending to be a suburb of Gawler. The Gawler East development should be included into the Gawler council boundaries, that way the council that provides the majority of the local services gets the rates, its only fair.

[Norman]

This document may be of interest: http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/tra ... mework.pdf

[Wilfy 2007]

This document may be of interest: http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/tra ... mework.pdf

Gidday,
Been reading the pdf file that Norman has kindly supplied and on a map at page 38/39 it indicates a possible number of 27,500 houses to be built in the next 15 to 25 years.
Is this possible, or is it exaduration(spelling)
Also states that a New gawler East Station and Park and Ride is on the cards.
Regards,

[rhino]

From Adelaide Now:

Urban sprawl engulfing Virginia growers
NIGEL AUSTIN
August 07, 2009 12:01am

GROWERS of 90 per cent of the state's fresh vegetables, at Virginia, want to pull up stumps and move 20km north to avoid the growing urban sprawl.
They fear both their livelihoods and the viability of Adelaide's food bowl are at risk if they stay put.
The issue of urban encroachment on prime agricultural land is a serious issue for SA and threatens the state's food security and export ability.
It coincides with claims by University of Adelaide senior geographer Douglas Bardsley that urban expansion and climate change also threaten the sustainability of horticultural industries in the Hills.
Growers fear horticultural land will be at a premium, an issue that could result in fewer growers, a cut in production, and possibly higher prices for consumers.
The plan by Virginia growers to pull up stumps and move north of their gardens has so far been ignored.
The Virgina growers presented a blueprint to the State Government to move their operations, but it did not rate a mention in the Government's 30-year urban development plan for Adelaide released last month.
Grow SA chief executive Mike Redmond said the association had put many resources into developing the Blueprint for the Adelaide Plains 2030 plan, but received virtually no support from the State Government.
"Unfortunately, people think the Virginia horticulture industry is a backyard industry, rather than looking at the big picture of agriculture and where our food is coming from," Mr Redmond said.
He estimated the Virginia area grows about 90 per cent of the state's vegetables, saying the immediate urban encroachment problems included the development of the Northern Expressway which he estimated would cut close to 20 per cent from the region's farm land by 2014.
A spokesman for Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway said he had not directly received submissions about Adelaide's food bowl, but the proposed 30-year plan acknowledged agriculture's role in the state by protecting up to 357,000ha for "significant primary production".
"While some horticultural land has been acquired to allow for the construction of the Northern Expressway, the draft 30-Year Plan clearly identifies the potential for new irrigated land north of Two Wells, towards Mallala, with the scope to access recycled water for vegetable and horticulture production," he said.
The majority of the protected area is to be set aside for Adelaide's wine-producing regions, with small areas near Gawler and Roseworthy to be nominated for vegetable production. Parts of the vegetable area appear to be set aside for industry and future housing expansion.
The spokesman could not detail how much land would be set aside purely for vegetable production, and said the minister had not received any representations from the association, but suggested they forward a submission.
Mr Redmond said the first step of the Virginia blueprint involved leaving the greenhouses and packing industry where they were and moving the broadacre vegetable growing industry further north.
The blueprint identified land between Two Wells and Mallala – about 20km north of the Gawler River and recommended an investigation into the best location.
A Primary Industries spokesman denied the Government had ignored the growers' proposal. "PIRSA has been working closely with these growers, state agencies, local government and the industry to determine the necessary requirements that would remove impediments to such an expansion proceeding," he said.
University of Adelaide senior geographer Douglas Bardsley said yesterday urban expansion and climate change posed a great threat to the sustainability of horticultural industries in the Hills.
"Projected warmer temperatures and rural residential development pose serious risks for industries such as the apple and pear industry, worth $25 million a year to South Australia," he said.

[Aidan]

GROWERS of 90 per cent of the state's fresh vegetables, at Virginia, want to pull up stumps and move 20km north to avoid the growing urban sprawl.
They fear both their livelihoods and the viability of Adelaide's food bowl are at risk if they stay put.

Does this mean they don't own the land that they're on? And if that's the case, who does?

[fabricator]

The problem is the developers put up the average price of land in the area, hence higher council/water rates.

[Aidan]

The problem is the developers put up the average price of land in the area, hence higher council/water rates.

IIRC the Virginia growers use recycled water, the price of which has nothing to do with the price of land.

Anyway, do the growers own the land they're on or not? If they do, it is not really a problem, as they can relocate profitably.

[fabricator]

They still need mains water to drink, and sewerage for any permanent buildings.

Only the larger operations can afford a connection to the recycled water.

[monotonehell]

Anyway, do the growers own the land they're on or not? If they do, it is not really a problem, as they can relocate profitably.

It can be a problem if we (as most major cities seem to do) build our housing on the more arable land, pushing market gardens onto poorer soils.