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 In other words the proposed changes have been withdrawn almost in their entirety.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.

Where are we with our Development Plan Amendments

With the recent announcement by the Minister that he plans a wide reaching Development Plan Amendment (DPA) focused on Activity Centres it is timely for me to report how we are going with our Development Plan Amendments.


The three current DPAs being pursued by the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee I chair are progressing as follows:

1   DPA 2

This has been split into 2 parts as you may remember from previous posts on this website.

– Part 1 (EAST) submitted for Approval of the Minister – June 2015. We await his rubber stamp on this.

– Part 2 (WEST) is being prepared for submission for approval to release for further public consultation, probably in August 2015. I will comment further on this DPA in a separate blog post. If you live in Goodwood or Clarence Park Wards this should be compulsory reading.

2   General DPA

The draft proposal was examined during this committees workshop in May 2015. We are now refining some of the proposals and the final draft being prepared subject to resolution of Minister’s DPAs on Activity Centres and Corridors.

The recently announced Activity Centres and Corridors Ministerial DPA’s will however affect the General DPA non-residential zones proposed revisions. It may slow this one down. This in turn may slow down DPA 2 as well as we had planned to take both out together to the community for your input.

3   Unley Central Precinct DPA

Our statement of Intent submitted in January 2015 was approved by the Minister on 31 May last. A tender is currently being processed to appoint a consultant team by August 2015 to engage stakeholders and the community and to prepare a draft DPA. We would expect to see this being completed by say March 2016. This is presuming that the Ministerial DPA I spoke of back on the 26th May does not require us to redirect resources to contribute to the Ministerial DPA.

The committee is poised ready to work through the next stages of each of these Development Plan Amendments.

When is DPA 2 coming back for public input

DPA 2 has, like a number of issues we were dealing with at Council and in the community last year, taken a back seat due to the November elections.


Due to be considered by the Development, Strategy & Policy (DSP) Committee before going to Council means it is unlikely to get back out for the next round of public consultation until May or June in my best guess. This is because we have yet to formalize our Section 41 committees including the DSP committee.

As I have recently posted we have appointed the elected members to the committee. We have yet to finalize the appointment of independent members to the committee. This will be ratified at this month’s full council meeting.

Council’s planning staff have been negotiating with DPTI on the feedback we received during the last round of public consultation.

DPTI and our staff are still working on the last few areas of differing opinions. I understand this will not be far away. Even though Council is not ready to deal with the amended plan it is therefore not ready for us to consider.

I understand also that they (DPTI) may be favourable to a number of our observations.

As soon as I can update you on this I will.




So You think DPA2 is bad

Many residents in the old Goodwood South Ward, now Clarence Park Ward were justifiably upset at the suggestions being mooted in the recent DPA 2 consultation.

If you think that was bad are you prepared to stand up and be counted in what could be a way more devastating blow to development in your street and therefore the amenity of your street?

You would also be aware that your voice WAS heard by council and we are making changes to the plan. We will (as previously reported on this blog site) be going back out to you with those changes earl next year after the new council has had a chance to settle in.

Of course convincing council may be irrelevant with a State Government hovering above us and doing all they can to make local government irrelevant in planning matters. While they have the Expert Panel going through their motions the Minister for Planning keeps pushing through legislation that preempts the panel’s findings.

This minister and his government are hell bent on removing councils from the planning process. Why? One of his claims is that elected members acting on development assessment panels take too much notice of the neighbours and that this is stifling development in this state. Surely that means removing councils from having an influence removes your chance of having any influence.

So he is setting up yet another layer of bureaucracy at cost to you the tax payer so that developments in excess now of $ 3m can simply circumvent the local government development assessment boards.

Is this what you want. How many of you will protest this as you did the recent DPA2. I am. I have signed the petition being put together by Greens MLC Mark Parnell. Will you? It can be found on Mark’s website

And don’t forget that as much as Council may listen to you on DPA2 don’t expect that the minister will be as sympathetic. This government’s track record of announce and defend has not changed as evidenced by their current actions.

Just for the record the following is what I wrote in the general comments in the petition:

This is another kick local government opportunity and blame them for inadequacies within the planning system of the governments own making. It does not address the true inadequacy meaning nothing will change except another layer of bureaucracy will be created along with its cost. And shame on the liberals for their back flip.

Help protect your street from the potential we know what is best that this government has a history of doing. I don’t know what chance we have of stopping this but I do know you will have next to no say in future development proposals if the State Government are in charge via a centralised rather than a local system.

Sign the petition. It may be your last and only chance.

The minutes of the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee have been loaded onto our web site here.

For a detailed assessment of what was passed check the link and check item 2. The motion, moved by the Deputy Mayor and seconded by myself, notes all the variations we determined were necessary on the report presented by our administration. It lists the recommendations at the end of the motion

Item 3 identifies that a followup public consultation will be put to the new council for endorsement in February of next year.

Item 4 is merely procedural. We have to keep the Minister informed.

DPA2 committee sends recommendation to council

Last night the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee reviewed our administration’s recommendations for DPA 2 and has made its own revised recommendation to Council.

The committee last night debated each individual recommendation presented by our administration and made a number of variations to those recommendations. Once the minutes of the meeting are available I will cut and past them to a new blog.

At the end of the day people power, in making reasoned argument. has won the day.

What was a flawed plan now has some merit. I will not pretend it is perfect; nothing of this nature is. What I can say however is that the arguments put by the residents of Black Forest and Clarence have been viewed as having credibility and therefore pretty much accepted.

The end result is that Clarence Park has returned to it’s current zoning parameters and Black Forest has seen the regeneration in the south limited to Emerson Drive and even that at only 2 storey. Black Forest north east has reverted back to its original zoning too.

The committee has had its say and now it is up to council.

The motion is to the effect that these changes be incorporated into a new document for public consultation, set for February next year in all likelihood and then subject to what happens then onto the Minister, Mr Rau.

Revised DPA2 goes to Committee next Tuesday

For those in my neighbourhood I believe to have an interest in DPA2 I give you the following heads up:

A very comprehensive report has been complied for the committee to assess on Tuesday night. This report can be found on the council’swebsite.
As you will see the committee has been prompted to consider one of four options. Once considered it will then go to Council, I presume on August 25. Either group could consider drafting their own motion , or modifying one of the 4 offered.
Our administration have done a lot of work since the consultation, and clearly have listened to the consultation. Whilst they express concern within the body of the report that DPTI and the Minister may reject what changes are mooted they appear at first glance to have taken on board what the community has told them. In particular it would seem that streetscape landscape may not survive, which may mean those areas may revert back to R350. That is for the future though.
There is much for me to absorb, noting I must look at the whole package and not just that concerning my neighbourhood, my Ward. Focusing unashamedly however on Goodwood South here is my initial read of the proposed changes (option 1).
It appears that Clarence Park (west) and Black Forest (south) are now mooted to stay as they once were, 350m2 and 2 storey, but it appears that the yield will not change. Have to get my head around that one.
Black Forest (north) I need to study a lot more closely before working out what if anything it achieves, particularly in the eastern region.
Have a read yourself and make your own judgement please. You may see it differently to my analysis above and if you do I would appreciate your letting me know. I have an awesome responsibility here and I want to make sure I have not missed anything. Before the committee meeting would be good, but certainly before Council meets.
Having said that you will find from the report that whatever is decided will only be for the purpose of going back out to consultation. So you will get a say on whatever will become the revised proposal.
If anyone wants to talk about the changes you know how to get to me.
And please let others know what is happening.

DPA2 Goes to Development Strategy & Policy Committee meeting

The DPA 2 post consultation key issues review carried out by our Administration will be presented to the next meeting of the Development Strategy and Policy committee on Tuesday week, August 12.

This meeting is but one month ahead of the start of the caretaker period so I expect that all the current council would have time to do is to receive the report that results from the committee meeting. That means it would be up to the next council to determine what submit to the minister.
This is a public meeting allowing you to attend and observe if you wish. As the public consultation has closed you will not be able to contribute however.
The agenda for the meeting should be available to all, including the public, on our web site next Thursday. It can be found under the Agenda & Minutes available in the drop down list at the top left hand side of the home page.
Whilst I will keep you up to date as news comes to hand I encourage you to attend the meeting so you can get a feel for what is likely to happen.

Concentrate Intensification in the heart of Unley

A random comment I heard on Monday night about high rise, medium rise (whatever you want to call it) is the most saleable properties that such development provides that are those properties with “open space at their doorstep”.

Yes open space at their door step. The opportunity for their kids, their dogs, their cats to step outside and be in open space immediately.

This is probably the most salient comment I have heard that goes to the heart of ensuring our zoning policies are correct for the given area. It reinforces my oft stated belief that DPA2, at least for the Goodwood South Ward is flawed. Not only is there no green space at their door step occupants of homes in this area would have to go out of their way to find the green space.

Such densification is possible having said that in Unley but the locations are few and far between. As I have been saying to a few people I have conversed with recently there is opportunity in the centre of the City of Unley.

There are opportunities in and around the Unley Shopping Centre and the Civic Centre that can provide significantly to the State Governments population projections. 
There are properties in these areas large enough already to provide the height of 5, 7, maybe even 10 storeys without significantly impacting on the surrounding residential properties. Properties large enough to provide or adjacent already established green open space to make them attractive to developers.
And these locations are within walking distance to the shops, the community centre, the library, to the Unley Oval, the memorial gardens.
The impediment as we speak is our planning regulations do not encourage residential in these locations. 
So let us as a Council look at a development plan amendment that facilitates achievable and sustainable growth in this area rather than focus on trying to cram more people into areas that do not provide this amenity, and have little or no chance of providing this amenity.
And as we are doing this what if we can encourage the growth of entertainment into this same area, making multi storey living an attractive proposition because all you need is at your “door step”. That means the green space for your kids and dogs, entertainment (whether a cinema, or indoor pool, gym, basketball etc or all or the above), retail ad grocery shopping, medical services etc etc etc
I am currently pushing for and will do so if still on Council come November for us to prepare a development plan amendment (DPA) for the “Unley Central” area. This is in lieu of making the mistake of creating ghettos in the 4 corners of the Cities area, areas already of comparative high population without open space or ready access to services as is possible in “Unley Central”.

Council has been working on concepts for this area for some years now and we should therefore have the necessary information on hand to easily produce a DPA that can accommodate the concepts. This will allow provide an ideal opportunity for the community to see what we have been looking at and contribute to the process. It should also demonstrate to the Minister for Planning that we are serious about achieving the goals he has set for us but with reasoned solutions.

What about the aged institutions scattered around Unley?

Whilst I have been questioning if we should be going back to the drawing board or even rejecting DPA2 there is a component that deserves to remain open for consideration. That is providing for growth of aged care facilities within Unley.

Scattered through our fair city are a number of aged care facilities, on different land sizes and in different surroundings.

As I read through the community feedback to the DPA I gleaned that there was sympathy from most for these institutions to be able to expand by growing upwards. This is something I agree with.
Some of the institutions are located where the impact of increasing the building height would not greatly impact the surrounding homes. Some have built out their sites to the maximum, some of these to the detriment of private open space.
The DPA has included all but I think one of these facilities and the one it has missed has made a submission for inclusion. That is the one on Victoria Street, Millswood. In my ward.
As I assess their site it may just work if they were allowed extra height in redeveloping their site. This is one site that desperately needs more open space and that would have to be trade off.
That applies to the rest. The trade off has to be improving open space, preferably green open space.
We need also in my opinion to assess the value, as we did with DPA3, to keep al development within a 30 degree envelope.
Love to know what others think? Let me know what you think.

DPA2 Clashes with our Greening Policy

Goal 4 of our Community of Possibilities Strategic Plan is Greening…Our Path to a Sustainable City. DPA2 sets out to accommodate the desire of the State Government to densify the inner suburban councils.


The community of possibilities is a 20 year plan to create a sustainable city. It recognises we need a green city. We need lungs that only green space can provide. We need areas were our people (you and I) can get out and enjoy the open air, commune with nature.

Unley Councillors are acutely aware of this given that we have the least green open space of any council in the greater metropolitan area of Adelaide. Our proportion of green open space is only 2.1%. I understand the next best is Burnside with around 9%, a big difference.

In the first 4 years of the plan we have identified among other things that we should:

1   Develop and implement the Environment and Sustainability Plan to reduce Council’s environmental impact,
2   Develop and implement a new open space strategy,
3   Develop Capacity and awareness of community greening and sustainability initiatives.

We now find ourselves deliberating over a Development Plan Amendment in the far corners of the Council. This development plan is all about intensifying development including, as readers of this blog are aware, in Goodwood South.

I have blogged extensively on this plan and have formed very definite views of what the plan is and is not doing. And I can tell you it is not only not working with our greening policy it is directly contradictory of this policy.

So here we are trying as a council to improve the lungs of this city area, to provide an environment that will improve the lifestyle of our residents. We then go out to increase the density of buildings, chopping down the fauna we should be trying to protect and indeed extend, as noted in my two recent wildlife blogs about what the students of Goodwood and Black Forest Primary Schools are trying to achieve.

Sure we need to increase our density if we wish to save our farm lands north and south of the city. We can do this at the likes of Brompton which is regenerating land that has reached the end of it economic life (the land owner having walked away) and can be designed as a whole an complete precinct. A precinct with its own open space built in and all the other creature comforts in a stand alone community; like Mawson Lakes.

We are achieving the government’s expectations too in Unley and I will comment on that in another post.

I cannot reconcile that what has been proposed is the appropriate way to go in Black Forest and Clarence Park. It is a community that is already established. It is a community that is not run down, with the land owner vacating. It is already without significant open space and a community that cannot stand alone.

A community that cannot handle the loss of it’s stock of trees, shrubs and grasses, a community that will be less than desirable to live in as it potentially could be all house and no lung to sustain us. This is in direct contrast to our Greening Policy. It is BAD planning policy as it does not address the balance required for a sustainable community.

Unless we plan for creating extra open space within walking distance (recognised in the criteria being used in DPA2 to assess streets as 200m), we are looking at a plan that will prove the worst fears of those who have spoken to our community consultation. It is a plan that will achieve little extra in population growth at maximum cost to the community and the environment.

And if we are to do the right thing and purchase property within the area to increase green open space in keeping with our greening policy, and as we have recently done as reported by me 2 days ago in Catherine Street, Fullarton), what would result. I say we would be obliged to do this if the DPA were to get the green light just to counter the environmental loss, let along improve on what we now have.

The result I suggest would be the net population growth for the Government would be even less than the minimal that I believe the plan will provide in ti’s current form, if not negative.

DPA2 a Developers Dream or Not is Debunked by HIA

As the consultation report for DPA2 is being prepared for Council I cant help but recall that amongst the well reasoned debate against the plan were a number of insinuations that the Government was doing this purely to provide profits for Developers.

I could not help, being a building inspector (and past builder), but be bemused therefore when reading an article in the current edition of the HIA’s Building news magazine. The HIA, or the Housing Industry Association represents the very organisations that people think will benefit from such rezoning.

As a member of the building industry I know only too well what the industry is capable of and what they can take advantage of verses what will challenge them. It has been my belief that the Government,s 30 year plan is not the panacea that some might think for the building industry.

I have written a post on my business blog site on this very topic, quoting the HIA as they disagree with the Government’s analysis that there is a cost benefit in Infill Development when compared to Greenfields Development.

Nothing could be further from the truth as my post recognizes.

Watch this space as I raise other issues that Council will need to consider when it comes before them.

Peoples Perceptions Puzzle Cr Palmer

With two hot topics confronting Council right now I have had it put to me from three residents that there are rumours out there that I am pro this or anti that. 

The first of the two issues I refer to are DPA2, which has taken much of my focus in the last two months. The second is the long running flood mitigation investigation around the Brownhill Creek Flood Zone.

Much to my chagrin I have to face it, as long as I am a Councillor at the City of Unley I am a politician. I have never seen myself as such and still don’t but when I hear the rumours about what my stance are on these two issues the fact comes home to roost that I am indeed a politician.

In spite of there being absolutely no reference to supporting 4 or 5 storey high rise development in Goodwood South in 13 Posts I have written on this blog site on the subject; and in spite of many references to my belief the plan is flawed, there are people out there who believe I am for multi-storey development.

During the process I must admit I have tried to dispel many unfounded perceptions out there of what the plan is doing. On reflection those observations may draw a perception from those who choose to see only what they want to see that I am pro high storey.

Sorry but if there is a misconception out there I will always try to put it right so that we are all making decisions based on fact rather than perception. It is at that level that I still remain NOT a politician.

Sorry but that is who I am, someone who (as a small business man) wants to make decisions based on fact not fiction. In business, to do otherwise would court bankruptcy.

I have written now even more (20 in fact) blog posts on the topic of Brownhill Creek dating back to February 2013. Like with DPA2 I suggest people who see me as no dam should read those blog posts. Not once have I suggested that there should be no dam. A quick read myself through the 20 posts and I can see at least 6 references to my take that a dam is needed.

For the record. Even today I have yet to see evidence why a dam should be eliminated from a responsible flood mitigation solution.

Yes I have indicated looking at options that may render a dam obsolete. Such action to support investigations into options and fully examine all aspects that can mitigate the flooding anticipated in a 100 year flood is based in a firm belief that we need all the facts on the table before making a decision, unlike some who reckon we should make decisions based only on their perception.

The trouble with perceptions is yours is likely to be different to those in other streets, suburbs, or Council areas. And that has been borne out in this debate with most of the public debate in recent months being played out by representative public groups and not the 5 Councils.

We are expecting a report next month, but sorry, don’t hold your breath because I sense we will still not have enough information to take any considered or informed decision this year with the 5 Councils going into caretaker mode  at the end of August, in readiness for the upcoming elections in November.

And those who have read my posts on DPA2 will be well aware that I believe the same will apply to DPA2. No decisions because we will not have the right information to make informed decisions.

DPTI Twist on DPA2

Last nights public meeting saw a twist to what may or may not “be able” to happen with future development  in the south west corner of Unley.

Some time back I forecast two possibilities for South Road once the State Government through DPTI how they are going to upgrade South Road.On both occasions people wondered whether I was sane.

I predicted that South Road may become 6 lanes wide and on a separate occasion suggested that I had information that the suburban streets of Black Forest will be dead ended with now access or egress from them from an direction on South Road.

Well we learnt last night that while DPTI have been forcing our hand and pushing for the maximum density in rezoning that the very same organisation may have plans to make any such move obsolete and/or pale into insignificance by comparison.

We heard of two possible options they (DPTI) are considering for the South Road, Cross Road environment. One is to build a duplicate of the Superway at the northern end of South Road. If you have not seen this the I suggest you take a drive up there ad see for yourself.

The other, and likely from what I can ascertain, is that South Road in order to accommodate the B Double traffic down Cross Road will need to be not the 6 lanes I was told I was stupid for suggesting but….wait for it…. 13 lanes.

So residents of Black Forest. If you cherish your environment as you clearly do, as demonstrated after your participation in the DPA 2 consultation, start pushing the government for what their plans are so you can influence them.

I believe you need to be very alert as to what your State Government is proposing for you and you need to do that now, not when it is announced. And you know they (the Government) will not consult like Council have. They will inform.

DPA2-Consultation Complete-where to from here?

The Public Consultation phase of DPA2 after last night’s public meeting has now completed. The question is, where to from here?

The presentations were in the main well researched and well presented. The submissions had substance to them.

The residents of Unley are to be congratulated on their approach to the consultation phase of the DPA. I say this particularly in light of the confusing communications from the City of Unley. The residents of this fair City have demonstrated that they can have a mature conversation about the environment in which they live.

I am very proud of the residents of my ward, my neighbours, and their contribution. Over 50% of the written, and the verbal submissions came from the Goodwood South Ward.

This is a group of people who have had much happen around them in the item I have been on Council. And some of that they have simply had to endure, along with criticism from the powers that be that they weer poorly behaved.

Notwithstanding the confusing messages sent out by Council they too have demonstrated what consultation is all about. The State Government and their department DPTI could learn a lot from us. Here is a group of people treated by Unley as adults who responded in kind. A far cry from the communications that my neighbours have endured from the State Government in the last two years.

Well Done Guys!

So……where to from here?
Our staff will now prepare a report summarising the main thrusts of the public feed back. They will present this report to the Development, Strategy & Policy Committee which heard the verbal submissions last night. They (the committee) will meet on August 11 when they will consider what they have heard and admin’s report.
They will make a recommendation to Council who will consider the same at the August Council meeting. This will be held on August 25th. 
If Council were to approve the plan as drafted it would then be presented to the Minister who will get DPTI to oversee it. I reckon his sanction in this scenario would likely be early next year.
If Council, on the other hand, were to make changes to it by way of changing the borders between zones or other like initiative it would have to go back for redrafting and another round of public consultation. Likewise if Council were to say we got this wrong, that it is flawed and we have to go back and start afresh, then once again our admin would have to do just that and it again would have to go back out for public consultation.
In either of these scenarios the next Council would have to deal with what is then submitted. The reason for this is this Council goes into caretaker mode at the end of August in readiness for the November elections.
I expect the latter will be the case (I will certainly be pushing this way)…. but …. as always …. watch this space.

Immediate and Wholesale Devastation of our Street

At least one person in the written submission is of the belief that this is what the draft DPA means to their street and indeed the entire neighbourhood.
Let me please reassure everyone, or at least put my perspective on this argument.

The zoning in Clarence Park & Black Forest is currently RB350. This allows for two storey construction and each house occupying 350 m2 of land now. This zoning has been around for some 25 years or more as far as I can recollect.

As we all know there is very little development that fits this profile. This is not an indication that having the ability to develop to a particular formula is not going to encourage immediate and wholesale change to an area.

If you believe that this is what the current proposals will trigger you should not have purchased your current house because it was ripe back then for wholesale change, change that did not occur.

The other thing we need to be conscious of is the majority of the area will be Residential, still 2 storey and down from 350 m2 to 300 m2 per house. Most of any redevelopment that will occur in this zone will be not the “developers” we all criticize as profit hungry and not concerned about what impact they make on the street. They will be the mums and dads that own the property in your street. They will be you and me.

As I noted in an earlier blog post in this series the “developers” we all fear will be restricted in that they will not wait forever to purchase enough adjacent blocks to squeeze the most profit out of your street. This will severely restrict the chances of 3 storeys in the Residential Zone as the third storey is not possible until the land size exceeds 5,000 m2.

They will also be restricted in the regeneration zones because of the need to purchase multiple properties and they don’t have the time to wait if they are looking to maximize profits. It is the institutions that will be in a position to make immediate impact if they have (as they do) already purchased properties on the periphery of theirs.

They are the ones that have the potential too to maximize. So if you live next to an aged care complex then it is far to be concerned. If you don’t please do not panic. See it for what it is.

And of course, what it is needs a lot more work as I have indicated in the remainder f this series of blog posts.

Keep Regeneration to Main Transport Corridors

Another observation from residents affected by the Regeneration Zone suggested in DPA2 is why not push that to the main traffic corridors.

This is an observation that has credence. I say this because this is exactly what we did with DPA 3,the Main Roads Corridor which we alluded to in another blog post today.

Certainly that was our focus back then, protecting the suburban streets behind the main corridor road. This means the current DPA would appear to be a break from that strategy and one without any obvious justification.

So in that center area the main road is the focus. At the fringes the suburban streets behind the main road is the focus.

The suggestion that I have read from you is this is the strategy we should employ, a strategy consistent with our previous paradigm. It is a strategy that we should look at and not dismiss in preference for the draft for regeneration currently in front of us.

I would say the main rad corridors should include Unley (already does), Cross, South, Goodwood (on the list to consider), Fullarton (in this plan) and Glen Osmond. Suggestions that streets such as East Avenue and Leah Street over here in the west and Duthy Street in the east I do not agree with. The streets, albeit carrying a large commuter volume of traffic are residential streets and are too narrow to contemplate such.

No change in height in Residential Zone

The DPA has highlighted that many of us in the now RB 350 zone in Black Forest and Clarence Park thought we lived in a street where only single storey development was possible.

This is not so. The development plan clearly states in clause 1 of the principles of development control for the RB 350 zone that “Development should be primarily for dwelling types of up to two storeys compatible in form ……..”. The same applies to the RB 400 zone over in the south east suburbs of the City of Unley.
And this zoning has been around to the best of my knowledge for at least 25 years. This means the chances are you bought into a street capable of having your property redeveloped into two houses of  2 storey size. Indeed the form 1 that you must have served on you when buying a property will have spelt this out to you.
It has not happened of course which is a clear indication that just because it is possible does not mean to say it will happen.
I do direct your attention having said that to the blog post titled Immediate and Wholesale Devastation of our Streets , addressing this question.

Buffering between Zones not included

Residents in Black Forest and in Myrtle Bank have quite rightly picked up on a flaw in DPA 2 and that concerns having buffers between zones of significant difference.

The heading of this DPA is Village Living and Desirable neighbourhoods. The plan then sets boundaries that change what is now Village Living and most would say desirable neighbourhoods to something drastically different.

The difficulty many have is that their property had been dealt a double whammy. On the one hand their house is the next property to a new Regeneration Zone with 4 storeys (maybe even 5) next door. Then their property has been converted from a 2 storey 350 m2 per unit property to a single storey 700 m2 per house property.

The difference, from one property to the next could not be greater and therein lies the biggest concern for these people. There is no buffer and one intense density “village” is overpowering the very adjacent and open low scale village.

It is understandable that these people see this as “undesirable neighbourhoods”.

Why 3 storeys in Residential Zone-What does it achieve?

The Residential Zone proposed in DPA2 includes for a vast area which will change the area per house down from 350 m2 per house to 300 m2 per house.

On the face of it the height of buildings will remain the same at 2 storeys. But there is a chance that 3 storey development could occur.

This 3 storey development is unlikely to occur at all, let alone in large quantities. My reading of the plan is the third floor can only be achieved in a development where the property being developed will have to be over 5,000 m2 and provided the additional height above 2 storeys is unobtrusive to surrounding and adjacent land.

As I indicate in another of these blog posts today on DPA2 a developer would have to purchase multiple adjoining properties to make this possible. In my opinion (as I note in the blog post) a developer would have to convince a number of adjoining property owners to sell to them at one time because they will not wait up to twenty years to get the fourth, or fifth or sixth property.

This “initiative” is therefore very unlikely to contribute at all, let alone significantly, to addressing the population targets that the Government have pushed on the City of Unley. And given we have already met the targets with the Development Plan Amendment for Greenhill Road and Unley Road it makes no sense to this little bunny that we should allow for such a possibility.

It is almost like a token effort by council to appease the big brother.

As your local representative it is my take that there is no need for the third storey. It adds little in my opinion to the Government’s population projections. At the same time it potentially changes the face of an entire neighbourhood, noting the the Residential Zone in Clarence Park will be significant.

It is not necessary.