City of Unley responds to Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy

City of Unley last night responded to the City of Adelaide, Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy. Our submission promotes a joint approach to making the South Parklands a green open space that residents of the City of Unley could proudly call their own.


With their kind invitation and our submission the Adelaide City Council and the City of Unley are working together to improve the south parklands. The City of Adelaide has recognised that much of their focus on the south parklands has been city centric, concentrating on the South Terrace side and ignoring by comparison the Greenhill Road side.

The City of Unley equally is recognising that the South Park Lands is an important facility for it’s own community. This will become more obvious as and when higher density development occurs along Greenhill Road as part of the Government’s 30 year plan.

The Adelaide Park Lands Authority is currently reviewing the Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy. This document guides the future of the Park Lands. The review is currently in an engagement phase and the Authority has offered the City of Unley the opportunity to respond with a formal submission.

The South Park Lands present a tremendous opportunity to provide direct benefits to the City of Unley:

• To provide sporting facilities and playing fields for the City’s residents;
• To contribute open space to support higher density residential development; and
• To create an improved level of amenity to promote the attraction and connectivity between the City of Unley and the CBD, and the southern Park Lands themselves.

The City of Unley has both the highest residential density and the lowest provision of open space (2.6%) for the inner metropolitan Councils available.

Should you wish to see what we have said in our submission check it out on our website.

Where we are with DPA 2

Further to my post on this website today about Council’s program of Development Plan Amendments I can comment more specifically on where we are with DPA 2.


After the strong contribution to DPA 2 by you, particularity those residing in Back Forest and Clarence Park, we conducted a preliminary review prior to the Council caretaker period for the November 2014 elections. The elections unfortunately delayed further progress until a complete review was presented to the new Development, Strategy & Policy Committee and then to Council in April 2015.

The review took on board your contribution and in respect of Black Forest and Clarence Park has all but recommended we maintain the status quo. In other words the proposed changes have been withdrawn almost in their entirety. Higher Density is still contemplated for the aged accommodation precinct at the South Road end of Norman Terrace, Everard Park.

Council also agreed with a suggestion from DPTI to split the Residential DPA into two parts:

Part 1 – east of a line along Goodwood Road, tram-line and East Avenue for final approval by the Minister for Planning

Part 2 – west of a line along Goodwood Road, tram-line and East Avenue for approval to release for re-consultation.

Part 1 was submitted in June 2015 for approval by the Minister for Planning. Approval is anticipated later in August 2015.

The necessary preparation of a revised DPA Part 2 (for the western areas – excluding Anzac Highway and Leader Street as these areas are now part of the Corridors Ministerial DPA) is being prepared.

Conclusion and submission of a revised draft DPA Part 2 to the Minister for approval to release for public consultation should occur by August 2015. The timing and coordination of the public release of the Residential DPA Part 2 will need to be considered in the context of the Minister’s Corridors DPA, and also with the Council’s General DPA, to avoid confusion and convergence of resource demands.

Where we are with DPA 2 right now. Watch this space as time marches on.

Living Active in Unley

Last night Council endorsed the draft Living Active Sport and Recreation Plan 2015-2020. This is a policy that has been in the making now for a while and is related to the Healthy and Active Community component of The City of Unley Community Plan 2033.


Known as the Living Active Plan it has been shaped by other related projects, including the Active Unley research project, the Unley Oval Improvement Plan, the Goodwood Oval and Millswood Sporting Complex Improvement Plan, the Community Asset Review (2011-2013) and the development of Council’s new Open Space Strategy.
A summary of key actions is as follows:
• Develop and implement a Healthy Communities program, which includes innovative and relevant activities that promote participation in physical activity and healthy living in the City of Unley.
• Investigate the establishment of an active travel education program to provide information, awareness and training and to promote the benefits of walking and cycling.
• Identify and secure opportunities to implement the Improvement Plans for Unley Oval, Goodwood Oval and Millswood Sporting Complex.
• Support the development of an ‘iconic’ play space in the City of Unley.
• Actively work with the Adelaide City Council to provide guidance and advocate for the development of the Adelaide Park Lands to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. Priority projects include a regional dog park and the investigation of new hockey facilities in the South Park Lands. This is page 5 of the Council Agenda Reports for 13 July 2015
• Support our local sport and recreation organisations to remain financially sustainable and implement governance frameworks through advice, forums and information.
• Encourage and support local sports clubs to adopt the Good Sports and Star Clubs initiatives, and continue to recognise the volunteers of these clubs and the contribution they make to the community.

This is in my opinion a well considered plan that accurately identifies what we should be considering in the next decade in order to ensure you and I and our neighbours are kept active and healthy.

Of significance not only does the plan recognise the need to redevelop Unley & Goodwood Ovals and Millswood Sporting Complex, it recognises that we should actively pursue opportunities with our neighbouring councils and in particular Adelaide with better using the South parklands.


Council Responds to Ministerial DPA

Unley Council this week responded to Minister Rau’s request to work with him on his Ministerial DPA. We have determined we would prefer to cooperate than to alienate.

In so doing we are cautious about how much we cooperate given the government’s history of decide and defend as its method of consultation rather than Council’s approach of engaging with our citizens.

 We have tried to find the right balance between following the Governments DPA lead and ensuring the most sensitives areas of our council area, namely Goodwood Central and King William Road, are not treated with a governmental broad brush of one size fits all. We have also been mindful of what we can achieve given our limited resources.

In an attempt to retain some control where it is needed most we approved the motion below moved by myself as our response to the minister.

1. The report be received.
2. The Administration provide a response to the Minister outlining initial concerns, including but not limited to:
(a) exclusion of the sensitive historic and complex Goodwood central village area to the south of Leader Street to allow the timely preparation of a Precinct Plan by Council;
(b) exclusion of the complex King William Road commercial areas to the south of the Glen Osmond Creek until further targeted investigations and consultation can occur;
(c) consideration being given to establishing purely residential zones in appropriate areas, eg Leader Street (south side), Anzac Highway and Goodwood Road south of the train overpass;

(d) recommending a review of the current Urban Corridor Zone public notification criteria whereby development above the designated height or built form envelope limits be Category 3.

3. The Administration provide policy input as appropriate.
4. When there is greater understanding of proposed State Government consultation arrangements, further guidance be sought from Council as to the extent of involvement by the Administration.

In keeping the recent comments in my blog posts Council has recognised a need for us to influence as much as we can the results of this Ministerial DPA. We have, in doing so, recognised that there are certain areas that need our intimate approach more than others and have singled them out as areas best left for us to develop a DPA of our own in time.

Two key DPA areas that need our intimate approach are King William Road and Goodwood Road just south of the tram line.

Ministerial DPA to challenge Council

By speeding up the process of DPA’s to accommodate their 3o year plan the State Government has created challenges not anticipated by Council. All have the potential to compromise us publically and impact our bottom line budget.


I indicated in an earlier blog post that Minister Rau is seemingly hell bent on rushing the DPA reforms necessary to implement their 30 year plan. This is particularly so in relation to the inner metropolitan areas. He has advised an Inner and Middle Metropolitan Corridor Infill DPA is to be undertaken at this time.

This urgent priority for an unusually rapid progression of the re-zoning will require substantial effort by Council if we are to positively influence the outcome on your behalf.

Obtaining the best outcome for our rate payers means full cooperation with DPTI. It will require some contribution to the formulation of appropriate policy outcomes. It will also require some involvement in community engagement. This will require significant resourcing and will unfortunately put us in the public eye on the same page as the Government.

We risk being tainted by appearing on side with the Government’s broad brush approach. This is an approach which has been seen as confrontational.

Our approach is to take a more empathetic local approach bringing our citizens along with us rather than in opposition. Our forward DPA program (of some 5 years) is being ignored by the Minister however as it is taking too long. Ensuring detail always does of course.

Full cooperation will test our resources and significantly impact on our budget. Doing nothing and divorcing ourselves from the process will mean we abrogate our responsibility to our citizens by vesting complete control in the hands of the Government.

We have already felt the impact of his decision. We have had to divert the focus of our senior planner to address his request for observations from us and to advise how we might assist them. He required this from us with minimal time to respond.

This has meant we have delayed bringing our General DPA to a point where it can be consulted with publically. Returning DPA 2 to the public arena has also been delayed.

The next challenge is how much do we participate in their DPA with our have limited resources.

We can choose to co-operate fully including in the public consultation process. We can choose to simply respond from a council point of view as part of the public consultation process. or we can do nothing I guess.

Whatever we choose on Monday night there will be implications on our budget.

I will report on what decision we make after the minutes of the Council meeting are made available.

Non Stop South Road

A non stop south road corridor is looking more and more like a reality as the Premier and the Prime Minister debate the funding of the $ 9 billion 10 year project.


south road

It seems the only argument on the non stop south road concept right now is funding. We have had a plethora of public utterances between State and Federal Governments about funding in a number of areas in South Australia. This is but one of them. I am hopeful that the politics that have been played will end and this will soon be put to bed in respect of South Road.

We have yet to see the detail but I can say this much a non stop corridor of 79 kms from Old Noarlunga to Gawler means, just that….non stop. That means no right hand turns which I had always expected but no left hand turns either into and out of South Road.

This is particularity of interstate to residents of the Clarence Park Ward of the City of Unley. It means access into and out of streets such as Dryden Avenue, Cowper Road, Byron Road, Addison Road and Forest Avenue Black Forest will be no more.

What will that mean to the residents of Black Forest?

What will it mean to the residents of Clarence Park & Millswood?

Non stop should mean less traffic for East Avenue and to Leah Street and Leader Street Forestville. This will be a clear benefit saving myself and my neighbours fro undue delays getting into our streets while we wait behind the southern rat runners who prefer to use a suburban street now than South Road.

On the other hand it will mean residents of Black Forest will have to use east Avenue to get in or out whether heading north, south,east or …..west. An inconvenience for sure but maybe the suburb of Black Forest will become more exclusive.

Of course the next question is will we see land acquisitions to fit the 6 lanes being talked about see create the decimation of Black Forest. Word is the land acquisitions in our section of South Road will be on the west side of the road, Glandore.

The potential of a non stop South Road happening sooner rather than later is the reason I successfully prompted a delay in spending money on the major initiates of the recent Black Forest LATM. If it does go ahead sooner rather than later then we would have wasted our (Councils, and that means rate payer) , money on the likes of a round about in Byron Road.

Stay tuned for more detail from the State Government.







Why the hurry Minister Rau

With plenty happening on the development front in the City of Unley I ask Minister Rau, why the hurry.


Most people would be aware of a  proposed 7 storey building proposed for 246 Unley Road. They would be aware also that Council is about to embark on the next of a series of development plan amendments focused on the Unley Central. This on top of starting the general DPA which focuses on such things as Laneway Housing and hopefully finalizing DPA 2.

We now have the Minister for Planning indicating he wants to kick the pace up, announcing a raft of ministerial DPAs across the inner metropolitan areas. I said in my last blog post the minister seems to be in a hurry. One might well ask why the hurry?

It appears that while the original population growth predictions of the 30 year plan have not been met growth in the inner suburbs has in fact exceeded the projections. That puts a pressure I guess on the minister to want to push ahead.

But with a concern that running multiple DPAs in the City of Unley may serve to confuse and irritate the residents I really do wonder why the hurry. Unley certainly does not have the resources to conduct more DPAs than we are already. The Government on the other hand, with more fiscal resources, can outsource it if necessary.

As presiding member of our (Unley’s) Development Strategy & Policy committee I am concerned that there may be too much for residents to have to contend with when we consult them over the many plans. The public consultation of the recent DPA2 is evidence of this. This was a complex DPA that was too confusing for residents to take on board and they deserve to be not only consulted but be provided something that they can understand and provide a responsible representation to.

Anyway we (Council) will find out soon I expect what he (Minister Rau) has in mind and over what time frame and who is to run them these extra DPAs will be conducted.



Higher Focus on Higher Density Development

Higher Density Development is back on agenda for the City of Unley. The Minister for Planning John Rau has announced stage 2 of the State Government’s Inner Metro Growth project.


It appears the minister is in hurry to get his inner metro plan down. While the City of Unley is about to commence our next DPA he is ready to role out a plethora of others nearby. It appears it is likely that Unley will experience a frenetic period of DPA’s.

While we focus on Unley Central it looks like we are going to be competing with a bunch of ministerial DPA’s. This will include one each for the following areas:

Goodwood Road,

the remainder of Unley Road,

Anzac Highway,

King William Road,

and Leader Street.

Higher density development by way of higher density DPA’s Hope this does not confuse everyone.

His press release follows.





DSP Committee to consider revised DPA2

As alerted in my blog post in the evening of 9 April the Development Strategy & Policy Committee (DSP) will consider this coming Monday evening the revisions made to DPA2 after your observations were taken on board by Council.


The first issue to come before this committee is the return of Development Plan Amendment DPA 2.

Our administration have compiled the responses from our community and have responded in turn with these observations to the Minister via his department, DPTI. Council has, in other words, taken on board the majority observations made during the public consultation. Our administration has worked diligently to document the results of the consultation, to implement them into a revised DPA, and to consult with DPTI over these changes.

Having said that, they (DPTI) are not particularly keen with the changes that the public consultation has prompted.

Keen to not miss out on the opportunities however this DPA2 presents in the eastern suburbs of the City of Unley DPTI have in a letter to our CEO recommended “that the policy that received limited objection through the consultation process be finalised for approval as a priority”. They go on further to say “As previously discussed it is recommended that the DPA2 be split to enable this to occur. This will allow progression of uncontentious development opportunities in the short term”.

So one of the first jobs our committee has is to determine what they will recommend council do; persist with the changes now or agree with DPTI and put the western components on hold while we deal with other more productive opportunities.

The options we can consider are as follow:

  1. Recommend endorsement of the revised DPA2 and splitting into 2 parts. The 1st part for submission to and approval by the minister. The 2nd part to go back out to public consultation limited to the western area.
  2. Recommend endorsement of the revised DPA2 and splitting into 2 parts. The 1st part limited to the smaller eastern area for submission to and approval by the minister. The 2nd part to go back out to public consultation to all araes except a limited eastern area.
  3. Abandon the DPA2 entirely leaving it to this minister to determine, noting it is his plan and he can, at the end of the day, do as he chooses.
  4. Any other option the committee, in its wisdom, may consider.

Should be a good night.

This is a public meeting so you are welcome to come along and hear the debate. It will be held in the Civic Centre commencing at 7.00 pm.



Development Strategy & Policy Committee. First cab off the rank

The Development Strategy & Policy Committee, the committee for which I am the Presiding Member, is the 1st section 41 committee to meet.


The first meeting of the Development Strategy & Policy Committee will be on Monday 20th April in the Civic Centre.

As I have previously reported this committee has the biggest forward agenda and biggest challenge of all Council’s section 41 committees. We have some urgent business to contend with as well.

I am looking forward to working with the members of this committee and Council’s support Management &  Staff. We have what I consider to be a strong committee, with the necessary cross section of skills and experience to provide Council with sound and constructive advice. To see who is on this committee check out my blog post from earlier today.

The agenda will be available on councils website from next Thursday.

One of the first issues to come before this committee I expect will be the return of Development Plan Amendment DPA 2.  So stay tuned to this blog site for news on where DPA2 is.

Cracks show in high-rise thinking

This is the headline of an article written by Tim Lloyd in Saturday’s advertiser. Below is the transcript of his article.


THE stresses in the 30-
year plan to bring highrise
to the city’s inner
ring are already showing
through, with the approval of
an $80 million development
on Unley Rd.
The plan was to develop city
gateways and better define the
parklands by bringing taller
buildings with higher living
densities into the inner suburbs.
These new buildings with a
graduated set of heights up to
14 storeys were devised for the
inner city councils by the State
Government. In fact, the Planning
Minister John Rau sidestepped
the council planning
process by introducing sweeping
powers to override council
planning according to the scale
of the investments.

If we imagine a city of Adelaide
with a high-density living
core stretching out into the
more extensive leafy green
suburban housing, the Parkland
ring roads would progressively
become lined with
taller apartment buildings
along the line of the Sky Apartments
on Greenhill Rd. The radiating
arterial roads would
gradually attract taller apartment
blocks, leaving their suburban
hinterlands and heritage
streetscapes largely untouched.
These ideas have run up
against the reality of developers

preferences. Why pay top
dollar for land at the Parklands
ringside when land becomes
available a few kilometres down
the road at relatively low prices
in a prestigious suburb next to a
fashion zone and handy to a
major shopping centre?
Mr Rau’s plans appear to be
lacking the finesse to deal with
the developers’ need for the
best available profit.
The likely outcome is that
there will be many more of
these mid-rise, monolithic
apartment blocks popping up
well away from the envisaged
“gateway” developments facing
the Parklands. Instead our
30-year plan for Adelaide will
see the sweet spots in our inner
suburbs filled with mediumrise
apartments where local
councils have previously only
allowed low-rise apartments in
keeping with the suburban

Even a cursory inspection
of the original floor plans for
the Unley Rd development
shows the great majority of
these apartments will be
cramped by Adelaide standards,
suggesting they are less
about high-density living and
more about high-density international
It suggests an enclave rather
than a more vibrant local
community. And a local traffic
and parking nightmare, not to

mention the neighbours who
will now be overlooked and
crowded out.

Should Cremorne Plaza or any high rise development be judged on storeys or height?

To better understand the likely reasons why the DAC have approved the building proposed at the Cremorne Plaza site we need to understand it could have been as high as it is without it being 7 storeys.


A 5 storey therefore, indeed a 4 storey development (all of which I suggest would have been accepted publically even if only begrudgingly) could still have been proposed at the height of the approved development. This could be if each storey or at least the ground floor retail space had higher (even significantly higher) floor to ceiling heights.

Those arguing that the development should have been only 5 storeys therefore have, I would suggest, a tenuous argument at best. I say that firmly believing that they would not have an argument if the height remained the same but less storeys were provided.

What this development did do however was increase the height of the development from what the development plan understood a 5 storey development would be, justifying the public concerns. But a height that was not governed by the number of storeys but by the space available to it by the envelope defined in our development plan.

The height of development on this site was governed therefore by the depth of the development site. The plan stipulates a 30 degree slope from a height of 3.0 m on the boundary bordering the adjacent zone, remembering that council was overridden during the development plan amendment a year ago on its proposed 2.0 m starting height.

This site being significantly deeper than that envisaged by the plan has enabled a height greater than anticipated and this I believe is the real issue for not only the approval but the disquiet among the community. The block depth is 76 m, well in excess of the (from memory) 50-60 m the development plan was based on.

This depth has allowed for greater heights than that envisaged by the plan. With the height available and low floor to ceiling heights the developer was able to get more storeys than the plan stipulates.

Cremorne Plaza Redevelopment gets Approval in spite of Community Opposition

A week ago now the State Government’s Development Assessment Commission approved the controversial development proposal for the Cremorne Plaza Site notwithstanding significant community opposition to the proposal.


Cremorne PlazaApproval was granted according to the minutes of the DAC meeting because the development was not SERIOUSLY at variance to the City of Unley Development Plan.


Many in our community will dispute this by focusing on the development being a 7 storey development in a 5 storey zone.

Some have argued during the debate before and after the approval was granted that it would not have been approved had Council been the approving body.

Whilst the development was approved by a state government body (DAC) rather than a council body (DAP) I wonder what the result would have been had it been determined by us. 7 stories on the face of it does seem particularly at variance with a zone calling for 5 storey. That is a 40% variance.

I ask though is the number of storeys a relevant parameter. If it had been a 5 storey development not many would have argued because it would have seemingly complied. That would be irrespective of how high the building which no-one has focused on during the debate on the development.

How many people would have spoken up had the building been the same height but 5 storeys. I will examine this further in a subseuent blog post.

On a positive note I understand the Developer and DAC did listen to Council and we saw some improvement in the number of carparks amongst other things.

Assuming the development does proceed then we will see in a few years time an increased population in Unley that can only be a good thing for those who serve the community, be it businesses with increased turnover and profits or community clubs with increased memberships.


Higher Density Development in Unley a no win for Council

In my mere 4 years on Council I have found it quite amazing how Council is perceived on a number of fronts, least of all the process of development plan amendment and the likelihood of multi storey buildings in the City of Unley.

Often I find we cannot win, no matter what the topic and whatever we do or don’t do.

For instance it does not seem that long ago that residents in my Ward  were complaining that Council were focusing their attention of achieving the governments push for Inner City higher density development in the poorer west of the City and leaving the middle alone. This of course was ill founded criticism in that we had already gone through the process for Unley Road, as evidenced by the recent Cremorne Plaza development application.

That application to DAC, for a 7 storey development, has now angered those living near it and once again we are accused of not consulting enough with our community. The development plan amendment for this area was in progress when I joined council in late 2010 and was signed off by the minister only late last year. During this time there was extensive consultation with a number of public forums.

We are told that we don’t care about those who will live near any such development.

I wonder how many of these people participated in the lengthy public consultation that occurred to get a plan that I believe worked for everyone as well as any we could have negotiated, notwithstanding I actually voted against it. If they had they may be aware that the Government was proposing 9 storey development along Unley Road.

They would also be aware that we got consensus for development from those in the community who did participate for between 3 and 5 storeys. And that was by involving our community and working with the government rather than focusing on arguing with them. They would also know the government relented on a number of key issues only at the last minute, maybe influenced by the then upcoming election.

Watch out for my next blog where I make similar observations about the process of dealing with the Cremorne Plaza development.

246 Unley Road Informs the Future

In this third blog post on 246 Unley Road I am going to expand on my observations of how this development project, if it proceeds, will inform the future.


246 Unley RoadIn my last blog post I noted how it will inform us of the built form of the future and how the Government’s DAC will treat development applications compared to how Council might have.

This project and the public reaction to it thus far is also informing Council and the Government as to how to approach the Unley Central Development Plan Amendment (DPA) that will commence in the near future. Yes there is some truth in the Eastern Courier storey this week titled “Unley’s heart to hit new heights”.

The push by the developer of 246 Unley Road has signaled a need for us to be discerning when we set height limits in the Unley Central area. That is notwithstanding there is currently no height limit imposed outside of the airport flight restrictions. There are two issues here.

The first is obviously what can be considered a responsible height ceiling for future potential development in Unley Central. The second is how we engage our community in making this decision.

It is important that the community recognise that we need a conversation to set a ceiling as there is none now and developers therefore seemingly have cart blanch to do what they want, albeit without any residential accommodation. I trust everyone agrees within this.

I have oft said that this DPA should have proceeded before all the others. Now it will be following a development application in the corridor zone that pushes the parameters set fr that zone. What people see with this development may impact on the way people relate to the DPA.

How the government through the DAC responds to the 246 Unley Road application will have a big bearing on how the public views our pending DPA. The Government will be keenly watching our public consultation. They can influence the outcome by a reasoned and appropriate decision by DAC on 246.


The committee I referred to in a recent blog post that I will be chairing will have the responsibility to advise Council, not only on the form of the DPA but public consultation on it. This will occur once the committee has been formed and met for the first time.

On that score interviewing of the potential independent members of that committee will occur by a small group including myself shortly. Recommendations for appointment will be put to Council for endorsement at it’s next meeting at the end of this month, 23 February.




246-252 Unley Road – a followup on the 7 storey proposed development

I mentioned in my last blog post on this 246-252 Unley Road that this project presents many questions and challenges to many of us.

One question and challenge that this proposal highlights is that developers will often challenge the parameters set in a development plan and seek to exceed them where possible and on large projects this can test us all.

246 Unley Road

The first challenge is then to the Government and the Development Assessment Commission. As this is the first application under our new corridors development plan, the way the Commission handles this sets a precedence for future development applications. This advises developers what they can get away with.

It also advises the residents of this (and other inner city suburbs) what to expect under the Governments 30 year strategy for accommodating population growth. Residents will find out not only what the final built form of our City will take but how the development assessment process will work now that it has been taken away from councils.

On that score be aware that the Government is considering that all development assessment is to be taken away from councils. This will therefore also advise how the 2 storey application next door to you will be handled. Or even the carport or pergola proposed to be built on your boundary.

The developers on this project started with a 9 storey project I am told, which is surely in blatant disregard for our development plan. It was apparently a very dense development that had no regard for the neighbourhood it was planned to become part of. Thankfully the involvement of the Government Architect has seen it severely reduced, and have some regard for it’s neighbourhood. Having said that it is still a 7 storey development which is 40% more than was anticipated in the Corridors Development plan.

It has been achievable due to the depth of this parcel of land some 76m from memory compared to the 50m depth we believed existed with properties along Unley Road. They have therefore kept the development pretty much within the 30 degree envelope that we insisted be part of the plan, save for some minor incursions notwithstanding the extra 2 storeys. Obviously the deeper the parcel of land the greater the height that can be achieved and still keep within the envelope that is the development plan.

The developers will therefore argue they have complied with the intent of the plan. And, if they can secure the blocks of land immediately behind what then?

Presiding Member of the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee

I have pleasure in confirming that last night I was elected by my peers as the Presiding Member of the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee.


This is a move from my former assessment role with our Development Assessment Panel (DAP). I believe I can better serve Council and you in helping to set policy by not only being a member of but being the Presiding Member of this committee.

This is a Section 41 committees, set up by council under the Local Government Act 1999 (section 41 would you believe). It exists to assist the council in the performance of its functions. It is not a decision making body. It is charged with providing advice and giving recommendations to Council. All decisions of the Committee constitute recommendations to the Council.

This particular committee is also constituted under Section 101A of the Development Act 1993. So unlike the other sections 41 committees we have set up voluntarily this one is one we have to have by statute.

To gain an understating of the responsibilities of this committee the Council website has a page devoted to it.

The committee will be 9 members strong consisting of 6 elected members including myself and 3 independent members. While we await responses to our calling of interest publicly for independent members the other 5 elected members of the panel were also elected by their colleagues last night. They are Councillors John Koumi, Anthony Lapidge, Luke Smolucha, Cr Salaman and my co Councillor Jennie.

This committee has a high workload this year (higher than any of the other section 41 committees). It will be dealing with finalizing the DPA2 which was the subject of many of my blog posts last year, the general DPA and a DPA we are looking to start called Unley Central. We are expected to meet maybe 9 times during the year. This will include a number of public meetings.

I believe I bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to this committee with my private life being around the built form.

What I promise as the Presiding Member is to ensure that we include you as much as possible. I will be looking to provide you with as much chance to contribute to and influence the final submission that goes to the Minister for approval on any DPA that comes before us. We will always respect your views and ensure they are made known to the State Government. This is of course tempered by remembering at all times that Council, with the help of this committee, is charged with finding the best way to meet the Government’s 30 year plan.

In my role as Presiding Member I look forward to working with you and for you. If you have an interest in the future built form of this Council area please subscribe below to this website blog page to ensure you are kept up to date with my thoughts.


DPA2 Galvanises Community

The community of Clarence Park and Black Forest has been inundated with Government & Council intrusions that have tested many recently but also galvanised us and help to build a stronger community than the one we believe we had before the train corridor upgrade.

Never before has this one small community had to deal with so much over a prolonged period and its still happening. I trust this is not my ding because it has coincided with my time on Council. Maybe this is why I was lured into taking on the role, to be there with my community to get the best deal we can from all being thrown at us.

This time it is Councils DPA2 that is galvanising the community. When I say Council’s DPA I really should say the State Government’s DPA via the Minister for Planning.

Anyhow, we (Council, acting on behalf of the Government to achieve accommodation for the expected population growth in the 30 year plan) have received numerous submissions. There have been many resident meetings and Jennie & I have met with many.

As a member of the committee that will receive these submissions I am expecting a lot of reading. I expect too a long night on the 16th June at the Unley Civic Centre when we hear verbal submissions in support of the written submissions received.

I have seen one or two submissions already be having been copied into them. And what i can say tho those who prepared them, well done. They have been well researched and they have been constructive and helpful to finding solutions.

There is one thing that I am keen to find out as we move toward that public hearing and that is what population numbers will this plan provide the Government. During this whole period of public consultation I have not seen what the numbers are that we are trying to accommodate.

I will be looking to find out how many the new R zone in our Ward will generate. Separately I will be looking to find out what numbers the RR zones might generate.

I don’t know about you but I quite frankly suspect this DPA will make very little contribution to the Governments targets . The more I look at the R zone the more I wonder how much the DPA is different enough to create the numbers, particularly when the reverse has occurred in part of Black Forest where property ratios have actually increased.

Interesting times ahead as this one moves forward to maybe a conclusion before Council goes into Care taker mode before the next election.

How does the State Governments Strategic Traffic Policy affect you?

Are you aware the State Government released its ‘Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan’ on the 21 October 2013.  

If you live, work or play in South Australia but more importantly use the roads of Adelaide and beyond, whether you use car or public transport you need to be aware of what the Governments plans for our future transport are. They complement the recent 30 Year Plan they put before the public with wide ranging reactions.
This is a comprehensive plan, albeit only in concept form. And make no mistake it is a plan that will impact significantly on the suburbs of the City of Unley.
It includes, of interest to Unley residents:
ü  A new tram route down Unley Road.
ü  Continuing the development of bikeways and walkways through Unley and including completing the Greenways Program.
ü  The electrification of the Tonsley train line linked to a new 600 space park and ride facility. Upgraded rail stations and increased park and ride car spaces.
ü  Increased train service frequencies, meaning less waiting time for the commuters of the western suburbs of Unley.
ü  Increased secure bike parking at rail stations and opportunities for bike sharing through the Metrocard system.
ü  A potential underground city train link to improve accessibility, with four new CBD stations in the longer term, meaning it  is one I may not get to see
ü  The creation of Inner and Outer Ring Routes around the City. On the south side of the City this includes Greenhill Road (Inner) and Cross Road (outer), and obviously South Road.
ü  Driving from Gawler to Old Noarlunga on what will be Adelaide’s non-stop North-South Corridor.
ü  The redirection of heavy (double B) road transport from Glen Osmond Road down Cross Road instead to South Road.
There will be a number of positives for the residents of the western suburbs of the City of Unley who I am focusing on here. There will also be a number of challenges as I see it.
Those boarding trains at Emerson and Clarence Park stations will board electric trains, not what I expect in the near future will be the Diesels. This hopefully may reduce the incidence of rat running down East Avenue, Leigh Street and Goodwood Road.
We can do with the upgrading of the Emerson, Clarence Park & Goodwood Stations. Less waiting time means we inner suburban commuters can expect to get into town sooner, making public transport an easier choice to make.
Increasing park and ride car spaces further down the rail line including 600 spaces at Tonlsey hopefully will reduce the rat runners using East Avenue and Leigh Street or Goodwood Road.
Of real interest and what could prove challenging will be the establishment of the outer ring route of Cross and South Roads. This will enable the redirecting of the B doubles away from Glen Osmond Road, a bonus for those in the east of Adelaide but a challenge I suspect for those in the west.
A non-stop north south corridor, when coupled with the increased train services noted above and the introduction of B Doubles will have a tendency to grid lock the suburbs of Black Forest, Clarence Park & Millswood.
This will really help to get those southern rat runners off our suburban streets. It may mean that some of us living in these suburbs, and in particular the suburb of Black Forest may have to find other ways of accessing and egressing from our suburb to get on to those transport corridors or back home.
Non-stop as I see it means non-stop and therefore cars will no long have to wait for others to turn onto a suburban street
And from what I can see directing the B doubles past the Freight line on Cross road and directing them onto South Road will be a challenge for the Government. The freight line remaining there is, is surely a major obstacle to using this route and prompts one to ask yet again, why don’t you Mr Government take the freight rain through Truro.

The plan can be obtained from their website at the following link

Call to Stop Current Major Planning Decisions

In this weeks Eastern Courier messenger a timely article on the Planning Reforms, courtesy Emma Altsschwager . Check out the link below.

The invitation in this article follows the one I made yesterday in referencing two other articles.