News & Discussion: The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

[Shuz]

Planning veto 'threat to housing'

TOM ZED
September 03, 2009 12:01am
ARCHITECTURE and property experts say councils must stop standing in the way of reasonable, considered development or risk contributing to Adelaide's future housing shortage.

Australian Institute of Architects SA chapter president Timothy Horton said the second rejection by Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Council of an apartment complex proposed for Kent Town worked against population growth targets in the Government's 30-Year Plan for Adelaide.

"This shouldn't be seen as a sacrifice we need to make but an opportunity we need to grasp," he said.

The State Heritage Branch and council staff recommended the building be approved.

Council's Development Assessment Panel, made up of elected council members and independent professional experts, last week rejected a compromise proposal for the "Deq" complex put forward by Damian Campagnaro's firm, DC Architecture.

The company had made changes to its proposal following the panel's rejection of its original plans in July. It now has appealed to the Environment, Resources and Development Court, which can initiate compulsory mediation and, if that fails, a full hearing into the case.

Mr Horton said the proposed six-storey building on Dequetteville Tce had "high design value" and should have been granted approval because it was the sort of building needed to provide medium-density housing near the city.

"It would be a shame for good work and considered design to be rejected when so much unextraordinary design is permitted," he said.

Property Council of Australia SA division executive director Nathan Paine said the "Deq" design would give vibrance to the Adelaide skyline.

"What we need to do is, as a community, accept that we want to have a vibrant skyline," he said. "We need buildings to do this and we need councils to get out of the way."

[olliepee]

Is there any information regarding the CBD?, like increasing development, density and height restrictions aswell as making the CBD a more attractive place to invest and live?

The CBD needs to be the main focal point of this 30 year plan.

One of the scarest things in the '30 years vision for Adelaide' is that it doesnt really talk about the CBD. I find it amazingly scarey... like they don't actually have a plan.

They say numourous times they'd like to 'stick to light's plan' and stop urban spraw happening (with TOD's) and mention that South Australia is set for a 500,000 people increase. Yet all i'm getting from the document is that hardly ANY (read 1-2% of housing development) will actually happen in the city. Somebody please prove me wrong. Look at pages 94(or 110)-99(or 115). Infact, it looks like most development for housing will be in the Western and Northern Suburbs. And a MASSIVE proportion (the most) will be in Barossa Region.

I'm sorry.. isn't that urban sprawl?

[mattblack]

The development will be split 50%-50% between urban sprawl and densification of exsisting suburbs, this will then move towards a 30%-70% by the end of the 30 yr time frame. Many years of new suburbs and population increase in outlying towns to come.

[Hooligan]

believe it or not. A majority of people do not have any need to go to the cbd

[peas_and_corn]

There was an interesting article recently in the Leader Messenger, with the TTG Mayor being impatient and wanting the state government to rezone the area around TTP to high density, apparently she wants high density building around TTP, and very soon.

[mattblack]

believe it or not. A majority of people do not have any need to go to the cbd

Its the whole point of TODs and becoming a more sustainable society. Creating viable living, working and shopping precints for people so they dont have to travel 40km per day just to go to work. I know that the city of salisbury is already developing a plan for a major TOD before the government has implemented its vision. Seems like the band wagon to jump on at the mo.

[Hooligan]

the fact is for jobs in industrial areas people will have to travel there as these areas will never be central due to obvious reasons.
planning that everyone must travel to the cbd everyday is small town planning in my opininon

[monotonehell]

the fact is for jobs in industrial areas people will have to travel there as these areas will never be central due to obvious reasons.
planning that everyone must travel to the cbd everyday is small town planning in my opininon

Who's planning that? The recently announced range of public transport changes are supposed to be a reaction to the survey that TransAdelaide commissioned that revealed that around 60% of respondents didn't want to go to the CBD. TODs are about centralisation of activity (hence why most of us are very disappointed with the Cheltenam plans).

The principles part of the 30 year plan (C2) outlines the desire for decentralisation, compactness, transport and jobs being close to populations. As well as housing diversity, so that people have the choice to live in high or low density dwellings.

Of course these are just the principles, how the Government goes about trying to make them reality is another question.

[fabricator]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26040413-5006301,00.html

ATTEMPTS to force the State Government to release a report behind the 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide have failed, sparking claims the process is skewed.

Attempts by Greens MLC Mark Parnell to access the Growth Investigation Areas report using Freedom of Information laws were denied because it could lead to inappropriate speculation and potential advantage to some people.

Critics have argued the report must be released because it was prepared by planning consultancy Connor Holmes – whose lead firms include KPMG, Fyfe Engineers and Surveyors, Environmental and Biodiversity Services, Kath Moore and Associates and Scholefield Robinson Horticultural Services – giving some companies unfair advantage.

Planning Minister Paul Holloway has previously refused to release the report because it contained "potentially commercially sensitive" data.

President of the SA division of the Planning Institute of Australia Angela Hazebroek said the institute was disappointed at the Government's refusal to release the report.

"We would argue that in it's usual practice when you are looking at a scenario for urban growth, that you actually do that in such a way that other people are able to see the assumptions that have been made about what has been excluded and for what reasons and that it is absolutely transparent," she said.

The State Government released its 30-year plan in July and the consultation period closes on September 30.

Mr Parnell said the Government was turning the public consultation into a joke.

"They have used an expensive advertising campaign to ask the community to provide a response to their plan, yet how can we give detailed, informed comment when all the public has been given is fuzzy maps and vague outlines," he said.

I have to agree, this is more like a 30 year plan for developers, there is a complete lack of transparency in the planning process.

[AG]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26087872-5006301,00.html

Adelaide plan 'misses the point'
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN
September 18, 2009 12:01am

SOUTH Australian economist Richard Blandy has criticised the State Government's 30-year plan, saying it is not convincing, full of errors and should be changed.

In a speech to the Northern Economic Leaders, the Adjunct professor of economics from the UniSA School of Management said much of the plan was "implausible" and he was very concerned it had ignored the ideas of local government.

The State Government released its draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide in July – a vision to prepare for Adelaide's growth and infrastructure needs.

Professor Blandy said he was concerned that while 48 organisations were consulted, including all affected councils, there was no reference made to their ideas.

"The independent power of our democratically elected local governments (in one of their few remaining areas of significant responsibly) is destroyed by the plan," he said.

"Elected local governments are replaced as partners of the State Government by unelected regional bodies.

"The 30-year-plan is not based on science, but on the values, beliefs and preference of the State Government and its planners."

Professor Blandy said some ideas that should have been further explored in the plan was the possibility of making Elizabeth a second CBD and moving the Bolivar treatment centre farther north to make way for houses.

"The population and economic centre of gravity of the city is moving into the northern area and if you do this, you will be able to take some of the pressure in commuting into Adelaide and this should have been recognised in the 30-year plan," he said.

Opposition planning spokesman David Ridgway said Professor Blandy's ideas were worth exploring. "But what this really says is how flawed and rushed the 30-year plan really was," he said.

Planning Minister Paul Holloway said: "Professor Blandy's criticism of the development of the northern region represents blinkered and outdated thinking in which most people are expected to commute into the CBD for their work," he said.

"The Government has consulted widely before publishing the draft plan."

Ross Calcagno, owner of 42nd Street Cafe at Elizabeth shopping centre, supported making Elizabeth a second CBD.

[Will]

"there was no reference made to their ideas"

Thank God, the councils weren't consulted. If they were Adelaide would still look the same in 300 years.

[Queen Anne]

That last sentence in the article, why is it there? All it does is advertise that blokes cafe.

[Hooligan]

That last sentence in the article, why is it there? All it does is advertise that blokes cafe.

Also, second CBD is an oxymoron

[PropertyozSA]

Dear S-A Members

Once again the Adelaide Virus strikes: a chronic case of galloping parochialism.

In today’s alarmist article on the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, rather than discussing the critical aspects of the Plan – the where and the how – The Advertiser and so-called 'experts' takes the view that aiming for high projected growth is wrong. The article simply misses the point; planning is not about how many people actually come to South Australia; but rather it’s about how we plan in a cohesive, strategic and environmentally sustainable manner if we achieve the high levels of population growth we project. All of the things that South Australians complain about in our built environment over the last decade stem from the absence of a strategic planning policy; finally we have a single, coherent plan and all the naysayers can do is attack the numbers.

When will Adelaide grow up and say, “hey this Plan is great, because even if we do only grow by 100,000 people, we know where they are going to live, just as we would if we got half a million”. We could fall into line with the naysayers and not worry about it, let development occur wherever it likes with no rhyme or reason, no planning, but we’ve seen how that’s turned out in other countries so instead we choose planned growth. At least, that’s what I thought.

And just to finish, digging through the figures presented in the article, it appears to only reference projections for the Adelaide Statistical Division, NOT the Greater Adelaide region, the subject of the 30-Year Plan, a critical error. Taking this into account, the population projections in the Plan for Greater Adelaide appear to be entirely consistent with the ABS high projections.

Rant ends.

Nathan Paine
Executive Director
Property Council of Australia (SA Division)
http://twitter.com/PropertyozSA
http://www.propertyoz.com.au

[AG]

For those who haven't read yet, the article that Nathan Paine refers to is copied below:

Government's 30-year plan relies on extra 186,000 people
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN
September 22, 2009 12:30am

IT'S the case of the missing 186,600 people. In its 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, the State Government has predicted Adelaide's population will increase by 560,000 people by 2036.

But Greens MLC Mark Parnell says that over the same period and using its most ambitious targets, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate Adelaide's population will rise by only 373,400 people – a difference of 186,600 people. The gap between the ABS middle range statistics and the Government's predictions is 254,300 people.

Mr Parnell and Opposition planning spokesman David Ridgway have raised concerns about the discrepancies, saying if the wrong figures have been used in the plan, it could cause serious problems down the track.

Planning Minister Paul Holloway has defended the estimates, saying they are entirely consistent with ABS projections based on high-fertility, high-overseas net migration gains and small losses interstate through net migration.

But Adelaide University demographer Graeme Hugo said he couldn't understand why the figures were used.

"There is certainly a lack of detail about how those numbers were arrived at and they don't seem to correspond with any of the population projections that are around," he said. "It is important to have projections which are soundly based and which are explained, and that is lacking at the moment."

The State Government released its draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide – a vision to prepare for Adelaide's growth and infrastructure needs – in July.

Mr Holloway has described it as a blueprint for tackling the economic and environmental challenges that face our generation to ensure SA remains one of the most liveable, competitive and sustainable cities in the world.

"The Plan for Greater Adelaide addresses the challenges of population growth, an ageing population, climate change, technological change, environmental preservation, economic growth and growing global interdependence," he said in a statement previously.

While the plan has attracted praise, other lobby groups have expressed concerns. These include:

PROMINENT South Australian economist Richard Blandy saying the plan is not convincing, full of errors and should be changed.

MT BARKER residents expressing their concern about the proposed population increase in their area, saying the town does not have the infrastructure to cope and it is a "guaranteed recipe for a fractured community".

FARMERS and residents at Roseworthy stating their concern their "rural" town will be overtaken by the urban sprawl.

Mr Ridgway said the discrepancies in the population statistics were the latest in a series of flaws uncovered in the plan.

He said while he was supportive of creating long-term plans, it was essential to get them right.

"The experts have advised me that what this means in terms of the population discrepancy, is that you will get people investing on the basis that the population is going to grow at this particular rate and when it doesn't you have a whole lot of issues that flow from that," he said.

"So you get people losing money and that's not just developers, that's mums and dads buying a house in an area that is said to grow.

"If those figures are not accurate and the plan is based on very optimistic growth, it brings into question all of the other figures and the modelling in the plan as well," Mr Ridgway said.

Mr Parnell said the fact the Government was using blown-out statistics could be very dangerous. "The 186,600 difference between the ABS `high end' forecast and the 30-Year Plan forecast is almost exactly the same as the total population increase forecast in the plan for the Barossa/Gawler/Roseworthy, 139,900, Adelaide Hills, 29,000, and Fleurieu 22,000 regions," he said.

"By loading up the population forecasts, the Government is artificially creating an argument for more housing estates on Adelaide's outskirts that are simply not required.

"And by the time we realise the Government's population targets have been overcooked, the city would have well and truly sprawled unsustainably into places like Mt Barker, Gawler and Buckland Park."

Mr Holloway, however, said Mr Parnell was simply wrong to suggest that the population forecasts in the draft plan were vastly overblown and were not supported by ABS estimates.

"To put this into an everyday context, it is worth noting that the current average weekly population increase for Greater Adelaide is 310 persons," he said. "The 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide anticipates an average weekly increase of approximately 360 persons, which is hardly an overly ambitious target."

Mr Holloway said federal Treasurer Wayne Swan last week underlined the need to plan for a high-growth scenario, foreshadowing the latest Intergenerational Report estimates that Australia's population would rise to more than 35 million people by 2049, up from the previous projection of 28.5 million by 2047.

He said the 30-Year Plan also was consistent with SA's Strategic Plan, which has established a long-term target for population that commits the Government to delivering on jobs and economic growth.

"The question for Mr Parnell is whether he supports continued and sustainable economic growth for South Australia or is advocating a smaller population and a decline in our state's enviable living standards," Mr Holloway said.

"The 30-Year Plan shows how we can tackle the challenges of an ageing population, climate change, rising fuel prices, demand for affordable housing and water security without forcing the economy to stagnate, which would be the inevitable result of adopting the Greens' wrong-headed policies."