Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[Omicron]

+1

I'd also hazard a guess that much of Adelaide is conditioned against Elizabeth (in fact, the north as a whole) as a (potentially) desirable area. A new suburb with a new name and no existing preconceptions is a much easier sell, no matter how further north and ill-served by infrastructure it may be.

[Queen Anne]

It seems that once again, the driver for the choice of Concordia is not rational urban planning, but the good old property development industry. It's a lot easier to make money out of developing a broadacre site than mucking around with infill.

Yep, I agree too.

After living here in the US (where the sprawl is unbelievable and pretty much universally garbage) this makes me hopping mad. Concordia might be envisioned as a self contained town and it might have a rail link, but in the cold light of day it's still sprawl. And I can't believe how ready we seem to be to rezone rural land - that's really scary to me.

Imo, SA can and must do better than this, but how to make those in charge listen? It seems the general population is just supposed to sleep-walk through their lives and stay out of the way..

[rhino]

What is so wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

It's Elizabeth.

But in the end, I agree with you. And, like Mono, that in itself troubles me a little.

[Prince George]

Possibly the problem with infilling is that the land is held by disparate owners, meaning that any large scale infill would be at the mercy of those. Infill has been happening in some areas in this way, it's just a slow and organic process.

But we don't need residences for 40,000 people immediately, even this greenfield development isn't going to provide that. These sites are going to be developed over a period of years anyway.

Now suppose the proposal was that Mcquarie group engage in some large scale urban infill program, how could that be made to work? (Outside of easy examples like Bowden or Cheltenham) Could they make some program with a standing offer to purchase some amount of land from people's property based on their property's current assessable value? Perhaps in the current economic climate, with many households struggling to support large mortgages, there may be many takers for such an offer. Obviously, I'm completely talking through my hat, but I'm trying to imagine a way that an organisation like McQuarie could be investing their billions of dollars into that organic process rather than dropping down a township miles from anywhere.

[rhino]

Now suppose the proposal was that Mcquarie group engage in some large scale urban infill program, how could that be made to work?

It worked for the Urban Renewal of Mitchell Park, which resulted in medium density though still on Torrens Titled allotments, and the Govt have got a plan for urban renewal at Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park (the Playford North development). How are they working?

[SRW]

+1

I'd also hazard a guess that much of Adelaide is conditioned against Elizabeth (in fact, the north as a whole) as a (potentially) desirable area. A new suburb with a new name and no existing preconceptions is a much easier sell, no matter how further north and ill-served by infrastructure it may be.

It's the damn price mechanism again.

Although almost anything, Elizabeth included, can be rehabilitated with good marketing (and development), it's cheaper to just start fresh. But it shouldn't be, and in the long run it probably isn't. So is the solution, then, to incentivise the market towards urban infill by forcing upon it the upfront costs of infrastructure provision? Or is it to manipulate the market with government as tax-payer subsidised developer? Or a mix of the two? </end thinking aloud>

It worked for the Urban Renewal of Mitchell Park, which resulted in medium density though still on Torrens Titled allotments, and the Govt have got a plan for urban renewal at Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park (the Playford North development). How are they working?

I imagine by merit of the fact that the Government, through the Housing Trust, is the majority property owner.

[stumpjumper]

I think that's a thin argument, omicron. I think it's more likely that the might of Urban Pacific (Macquarie Group) has been brought to bear on the situation.

I've spoken to Chris Hannaford (policy manager) at Playford Council who said that they felt their submission to the 30 Year Plan was overlooked in favour of the Concordia development.

And while some of the houses in Elizabeth on their typical 600-700sqm allotments have been sold to private owners, there are still hundreds in government hands. Playford is allowing subdivision down to 200sqm, which increases land values across the city.

Compared to Elizabeth, 20kms closer to Adelaide, with its public investment infrastructure already developed and with excellent passenger and freight transport connections, developed industrial area and good local employment, the Concordia development will mainly benefit the developer and will certainly cost the taxpayer millions.

What's more, Playford Council owns 1100ha of land between Elizabeth and the new Edinburgh industrial development. At 7 houses per ha less roads, plus the infill of existing areas, Elizabeth can do what Concordia can do with far less public investment, with less energy consumption in use and in a better location. At less profit to the private development industry, of course.

The Planning Institute of Australia is against the development of Concordia, recommending in their submission that growth be contained within the existing Urban Growth Limits by increasing density especially around transport nodes.

I've sent some information on the Concordia proposal to a planner mate in the UK who is presently working on increasing the population of Oxford - within its existing boundaries. His response was disbelief. He said we are ignoring every principle of good urban design and sound economics. He asked, jokingly, whether developers made the planning decisions in SA.

I believe that in fact they do.

[fabricator]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26270787-2682,00.html

'Super town' will threaten Barossa

PLANS for an 18,000-home "super town" north of Adelaide threaten the heritage and character of the world-famous Barossa region, the local council claims.

Barossa Mayor Brian Hurn said the release of private plans earmarking Concordia for "large-scale sprawl-style" development "put the cart before the horse" and had been made public without the council's knowledge.

The plans, unveiled earlier this month by development company Urban Pacific, propose the construction of up to 18,000 homes, two train stations, schools and shops on a 2500 ha site on the outskirts of Gawler.

"The ad-hoc urban sprawl of Gawler would be a disastrous outcome for this visually sensitive area," Mr Hurn said.

"The negative impacts of sprawl cannot be overcome if the wrong areas are earmarked or the level of development is wrong.

"While council has endorsed further investigation into the suitability of Concordia as a growth area, any references to the scale of housing development and associated facilities are totally inappropriate at this stage.

"Planning for any level of development requires detailed attention to the regional and rural character and landscape and heritage amenity, before the extent of design and infrastructure is determined.

"Appropriate, modern urban planning principles also require a commitment to sustainable development."

Mr Hurn questioned why Urban Pacific's plans had been publicly released before there had been any consultation with the Barossa council or the community.

"We question a process that puts the cart before the horse. We hope there will be improved recognition for the role of local government so that the community can have greater confidence in relation to planning for future development," he said.

His comments come just a week after The Advertiser revealed the town of Gawler had raised alarm over State Government targets to increase the population of the Gawler and Barossa region by 139,000 over the next 30 years.

Planning and Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway is declining to comment on individual submissions to the Draft 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

A final plan will be released once the Government has considered all submissions.

'Super town'
Its called a small city, or a large town. Why does everything this past week have the word 'super' added to it ?

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

[stumpjumper]

it's cheaper to just start fresh

SRW it's not cheaper when you include the taxpayer subsidy in the form of new infrastructure, transport extensions etc.

I'm posting a fuller response to this below.

Our state government is bowing to pressure from the private development industry which quite clearly wants to manage all development in the greater Adelaide for the next 30 years.

Read both the Property Council's 2036 report for Adelaide City and its submission to the 30 year plan. Look at the proposed governance model in each case: for Adelaide city (Gepps Cross to Darlington) a five person government appointed Authority to operate for an undetermined time. No council input, no individual or community input. For Greater Adelaide - a beefed-up LMC with the power to acquire and hold land, open and close roads etc. Neither body would be elected or be answerable to the people of SA.

It is truly frightening stuff.

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

Fabricator, call me an alarmist, but the entire state is being bulldozed by a conglomerate of the Property Council, private development and a compliant, hopelessly conflicted government. Read the documents (PC submission to 30 yr plan and PC's 2036 report). All benefit to private interests in form of easiest profits, huge taxpayer subsidies, no taxpayer representation, disregard of environmental costs

Concordia is a perfect example. If you disagree, why not post your justification of a broadacre development at Concordia versus infill plus 1100ha new development at Elizabeth with all its advantages.

By the way, re the 'Elizabeth stigma' argument. 30 years ago Tennyson, Henley Beach, Largs Bay, Croydon, Woodville etc were 'lower class' suburbs, as you suggest Elizabeth is today. They are now transformed into million dollar suburbs. Plenty of former housing trust suburbs have become quite upmarket nearer the cit too.

[fabricator]

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

Fabricator, call me an alarmist, but the entire state is being bulldozed by a conglomerate of the Property Council, private development and a compliant, hopelessly conflicted government. Read the documents (PC submission to 30 yr plan and PC's 2036 report). All benefit to private interests in form of easiest profits, huge taxpayer subsidies, no taxpayer representation, disregard of environmental costs

Concordia is a perfect example. If you disagree, why not post your justification of a broadacre development at Concordia versus infill plus 1100ha new development at Elizabeth with all its advantages.

Lets see, for once we see a proposed development that is a complete community (Concordia). Instead of the usual maze of streets with houses, then lets try and fit a bus route in somehow, oh and here is some token shopping mall, good luck getting work within 30 minutes drive.

I say we support the Concordia project 100%, its a fine example of how we should develop our EXISTING suburbs. That is self contained as far as work/play/learn is concerned, and with rail based public transport. The Bowden development looks to be another example, this time with higher density.

If you want to redevelop Elizabeth, start by building some modern office buildings around Elizabeth City Centre. The limited amount of office space in the CBD should take care of the rest.

The problems with state government and developers are nothing new, nor am I going to guess at ways to solve those sorts of problems. Look at queensland, now there is a sprawl problem. Urban sprawl is a product of land prices, or to be more precise how prices and bank lending practices force young couples to live in new houses. Again I'm not going to redesign the finance sector for you.

[stumpjumper]

Fabricrator, I still cannot understand why the government in supporting Macquarie Bank's Concordia project when infill and 'TODification' of Elizabeth would provide better accommodation more quickly, more cheaply, with less environmental load, nearer jobs, better for commuting to Adelaide, and above all without the urban sprawl which planners and governments have been trying to avoid for years.

The portion of public infrastructure at Concordia to be provided by local authorities will have to be paid for (out of borrowings - there will at first be no 'bank' of residential rates built up) at the expense of other work. A new town at Concordia is an expensive option for local and state government, and will continue to cost in carbon.

The Elizabeth CBD was designed to be built up. Even the sewers in the streets of Elizabeth are oversized to allow for future increased density. There is another 1100ha of council owned land adjacent, zoned for redevelopment. It's got its own adaptable industrial base. It's 20km nearer the city. Infilling it will not contribute to urban sprawl.

I must be thick as a brick, but other than the fact that Macquarie Bank would not make as much money out of it if they took it on as they will at Concordia, what is wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

I have looked at it from every angle - I cannot see the advantage of the Concordia project, other than to Macquarie Bank.

Incidentally, Urban Pacific (Macquarie Bank) recently became a major cash donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business Pty Ltd. The actual amount does not have to be disclosed at present.

Put me out of my misery - make a case for Concordia.

Here are the main points for Elizabeth, for your demolition...

- large allotments (600-700sqm av, some 800sqm) which can resubdivided down to 200sqm per dwelling
- substantial government ownership of properties
- 1100ha of adjacent flexibly-zoned development space between Elizabeth and Edinburgh.
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure - roads, power, lighting, sewer, water supply - designed in the 1960's by SA Housing Trust specifically to cope with higher density
- existing sewage treatment can cope with 40,000 extra households
- 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
- schools already established
- 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, existing landholders benefit
- infill requires no loss of productive agricultural land
- support from local and nearby councils and community
- low environmental cost in both construction and use
- support from local councils and local communities

My source of information about the adequacy of the infrastructure is a retired civil engineer who was an engineering draftsman on the small team which designed Elizabeth in the late 1950's and 1960's. Playford Council confirmed his information.

[SRW]

SRW it's not cheaper when you include the taxpayer subsidy in the form of new infrastructure, transport extensions etc.

Oh, indeed, that was my point. It's cheaper to start fresh only from a developer's point of view -- it's a bargain in fact. They can leave the major upfront costs of infrastructure provision to we taxpayers, and smile all the way to the bank with the premium they've collected from new land/home sales. That ought to change. If developers were required to more fully contribute to the cost of (transport and utility as well as social) infrastructure, they might well have an incentive to pursue urban infill.

[Wilfy 2007]

Fabricrator, I still cannot understand why the government in supporting Macquarie Bank's Concordia project when infill and 'TODification' of Elizabeth would provide better accommodation more quickly, more cheaply, with less environmental load, nearer jobs, better for commuting to Adelaide, and above all without the urban sprawl which planners and governments have been trying to avoid for years.

The portion of public infrastructure at Concordia to be provided by local authorities will have to be paid for (out of borrowings - there will at first be no 'bank' of residential rates built up) at the expense of other work. A new town at Concordia is an expensive option for local and state government, and will continue to cost in carbon.

The Elizabeth CBD was designed to be built up. Even the sewers in the streets of Elizabeth are oversized to allow for future increased density. There is another 1100ha of council owned land adjacent, zoned for redevelopment. It's got its own adaptable industrial base. It's 20km nearer the city. Infilling it will not contribute to urban sprawl.

I must be thick as a brick, but other than the fact that Macquarie Bank would not make as much money out of it if they took it on as they will at Concordia, what is wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

I have looked at it from every angle - I cannot see the advantage of the Concordia project, other than to Macquarie Bank.

Incidentally, Urban Pacific (Macquarie Bank) recently became a major cash donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business Pty Ltd. The actual amount does not have to be disclosed at present.

Put me out of my misery - make a case for Concordia.

Here are the main points for Elizabeth, for your demolition...

- large allotments (600-700sqm av, some 800sqm) which can resubdivided down to 200sqm per dwelling
- substantial government ownership of properties
- 1100ha of adjacent flexibly-zoned development space between Elizabeth and Edinburgh.
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure - roads, power, lighting, sewer, water supply - designed in the 1960's by SA Housing Trust specifically to cope with higher density
- existing sewage treatment can cope with 40,000 extra households
- 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
- schools already established
- 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, existing landholders benefit
- infill requires no loss of productive agricultural land
- support from local and nearby councils and community
- low environmental cost in both construction and use
- support from local councils and local communities

My source of information about the adequacy of the infrastructure is a retired civil engineer who was an engineering draftsman on the small team which designed Elizabeth in the late 1950's and 1960's. Playford Council confirmed his information.

stumpjumper,
I believe that not only will Urban Pacific make a lot of money out of this development, but so will the Barossa Council and they have been working with Urban Pacific since early 2008 so it is a well advanced project. In a recent email I received from the barossa council CEO, he indicated the Barossa Council wanted expansion in that corner of the Council area rather than in Angaston. Be interesting to see if the project actually goes ahead.
Regards,

[stumpjumper]

I can't find evidence of council working with Urban Pacific. Council certainly worked with Connor Holmes and Planning SA to put the Framework (see below) together but counciil seems very surprised to see Urban Pacific's response to the 30 Year plan being released 'without any consultation with council'.

Very strange.

In recent years, the Barossa Council has done studies, including in 2008 the Draft Barossa Region Land Use Framework prepared jointly with Planning SA.

Yet the Barossa Council’s submission to the 30 Year Plan makes it clear that whoever wrote the 30 Year Plan was ignorant not only of the most recent data such as the Framework but also of the most basic facts about proposed and existing features of the region such as wetlands, main roads etc.

In 2008, the Council and Planning SA together with expert advice envisaged growth of 56,000 over the next 25 years.

Now, without clear justification, the government’s 30 Year Plan estimates a population growth of 136,000 over 30 years.

Iyt proposes roads randomly through viticulral areas, ignores watercourses and so on.

A comment I heard in one Council was that the 30 year plan was ‘thrown together by a couple of careless urban design students’. It even refers to itself by half a dozen permutations of 30 Year Plan.
Council was working with Planning SA and Graham Hugo from Connor Holmes in 2008 to produce the Framework (see below) but I can't find evidence of council working with Urban Pacific. I may be wroing and I'll keep looking.

I’ve now read a number of council submissions to the plan and they all display the same surprise at the erratic nature of the 30 Year Plan. I have to say after reading it several times that the 30 Year Plan document could be described as ‘shambolic’ and with an incredible number of errors and omissions. If it were prepared for me, I would want it corrected, and I would have to distrust the conclusions if they were reached using incorrect data.

The publicly supported notion of a greenbelt around Gawler appears to have gone out the door and the fully formed Urban Pacific proposal has blown in, without any consultation with the Barossa Council but with the apparent backing of the government.

Some government documents have the status of gospels. The 30 Year Plan seems inconsistent, inaccurate and rushed.

This isn’t a critique of the 30 Year Plan, however, but a raising of a question about the sudden increase in the size of the Concordia development (apart from whether it should be built at all), about the disappearance of the green belt the government approved only a year ago, and about the quality of the finished 30 Year Plan as a whole.

[P.K.]

Next step in huge Two Wells project
By Lauren Parker

Council and developers will work together to develop a shared vision for the expansion of Two Wells.
District Council of Mallala endorsed a Heads of Agreement between council and Hickinbotham at its meeting on Monday evening, and the organisations will work collaboratively over the next nine months to develop a detailed plan for Two Wells, in consultation with the local community.
The planned housing estate includes about 2500 homes built on the eastern side of Port Wakefield Road, featuring open spaces, walking trails and stormwater management facilities.
Council chief executive officer, Charles Mansueto, said the Heads of Agreement formalised council’s and Hickinbotham’s commitment to create a sustainable and community focused development.
“This is the first step to develop the detail of a shared vision,” Mr Mansueto said. “The planned development aligns with council’s strategic plan for vibrant and growing communities in our district, and for improving services to local communities.”
Importantly, Mr Mansueto said the agreement would ensure the development north of Two Wells was orderly, well-serviced, and integrated with the existing township, protecting and conserving its unique country-town character.
“We look forward to seeking community input as detailed plans are developed,” Mr Mansueto said.
Hickinbotham Group managing director, Michael Hickinbotham, said working collaboratively with the District Council of Mallala would achieve the best result for the region.
“We want an innovative development that retains the township identity and charm of Two Wells, boosts housing choice and creates quality living environments,” Mr Hickinbotham said.
“The planned development is consistent with council’s strategic plan and also with State government’s draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
“It will create exciting local opportunities, including jobs and more services.”
Mr Hickinbotham said the Heads of Agreement formalised the company’s commitment to work closely with council and to consult the community to achieve an environmentally sustainable and high quality development.
The Heads of Agreement sets out the process for preparing a master plan for the development, supported by a Development Plan Amendment and an infrastructure deed. A development application will be lodged with council once the DPA process has been completed.
In addition, the agreement seeks to ensure future development doesn’t overburden existing council resources and infrastructure, ensuring the sustainable delivery of services to the community over the long term.
In a report to council, environment and development services manager, Henri Mueller, said the Heads of Agreement also enlisted co-operation and support for the development of the Two Wells Urban Design Framework, and maintained the existing town centre as the main focus of retail and community activity in the district.
The next stages in the planning process will be the completion of the master plan report by Hickinbotham for the northern expansion area, and an independent review by the council.
The Light River Flood Mapping Project currently being undertaken by council and funded by council, Hickinbotham, the Federal Natural Disaster Mitigation Program and the State Stormwater Management Authority will also provide information needed for the design of flood mitigation and management in the development area.
It is expected council and Hickinbotham will host forums in the near future to present plans to the community.