Unley Council’s response to the GARP and the need to be planning for growth focuses on Clarence Park & Black Forest. Recognising the potential areas for growth at the same time as protecting both Clarence Park & Black Forest.
In my last blog post, I asked you does Council’s Planning for Growth match your expectations. This was in anticipation of an upcoming community consultation. That consultation has now opened. It can be found on Council’s have Your Say website page.
I encourage you to download the information on this page and understand it’s potential impact on you. Better yet come along to one of two information sessions to be held at the Clarence Park Community Centre.
They are tomorrow commencing at 11.00am and Wednesday commencing 12 noon. Other sessions are available at other times and other locations.
The council is required by the State Government to respond to their Greater Adelaide Regional Plan (GARP). We are required to identify how we can accommodate an additional 3440 dwellings by 2050 into our small geographical area.
In the plan, as has always been the case, we have tried to limit the loss of heritage and character precincts. This is a paradox and the reason you should familiarise yourself with and provide feedback on the plan.
On the one hand the plan recognises that Clarence Park and Black Forrest do not have the planning protections that the rest of the City of Unley. Protections in respect to preserving our historic housing stock. It seeks to improve protections against losing this by changing the PDC zone from Suburban Neighbourhood to Established neighbourhood.
On the other hand, it identifies that this can be achieved by focusing potential growth areas in the same area. An area seen with the potential to promote housing diversity.
That area, as explained in my last blog post, is the area surrounding the Clarence Park Community Centre and Rail Station. It includes the land bordered by East Avenue, the Rail line and Lorraine Avenue.
East of there it takes in part of Mills and Frederick Streets. It also takes in part of Cromer Paarde up to Irwin Avenue, Millswood.
To the west it takes up part of Forest Avenue, and Addison & Byron Roads and picks up Fairmont Avenue.
As our planning for growth focuses on Clarence Park, do you agree with our administration that this area is suitable for housing diversity?
Housing diversity is the creation of a range of housing options to suit different lifestyles, household types, and budgets within a community. This includes a variety of housing types, sizes, and tenures, such as apartments, townhouses, smaller homes, and co-housing, as well as different price points and ownership models. The goal is to provide greater housing choice and affordability, support changing demographics like aging populations or single-person households, and enable people to age in place or downsize.
What we don’t know is whether this opens the door for increased heights. Certainly it des around the Community Centre and the Service Station.
Please provide your feedback, whether by using “your say”, email or snail mail.
Of course the council wouldn’t want any of this on the elite side of goodwood road. Unley Park has some very large blocks of land. How about a feasibility study with minimal consultation there.
The strategy does include precincts on the east side viewed as possible areas for growth. My focus, Trevor, is my Ward. I would really appreciate feed back on what is being proposed in the Clarence Park ward.
BTW
There are focuses on the eastern side of the City of Unley, Trevor. I am more concerend with what is happening in my ward, the Clarence Park ward. BTW. If council were to do nothing the State Government will step in and they wont have the empathy Council has for streets west of Goodwod Raod at heart.
I really am keen to get feedback from you and yoru neighbours that can influence the result.
Hi Don, we are a young couple who have just purchased a home this year in what is proposed to become multi-leveled “Activity Centre”. We are very distressed by the proposal. Our neighbors are in the same boat, also young couples and young families, the exact demographic the greater plan is intended to increase in the area. Instead it appears from the plan we will be displaced, or at the very least, immediately surrounded by 4-5 level commercial/activity centers. We understand the need for increased housing and appreciate the council’s attempt to pre plan for such housing outcomes strategically. But the multilevel commercial/retail/activity centers proposed over existing residential homes of local families seems entirely counter intuitive to this purpose, and we are baffled by the proposal. We understood the mechanic was purchased by the council with a view to maintaining green spaces and preserving significant trees, and not to form part of multilayered commercial properties in the middle of our quiet residential area, swallowing up character homes. I would be very grateful for an opportunity to discuss this with you further and to understand if the proposed sites for these centers can be reduced in scope or eliminated to avoid impacting existing residential properties. Many thanks
Don
Thank you again for taking time recently to discuss Council’s plans to increase Unley’s housing density on TOD principles, in line with the government’s plans to accelerate inner-suburban population growth.
I am submitting the following thoughts on line, and sharing them with you directly, given your concern for local residents and their quality of life.
The proposal for development of Clarence Park includes pitching a “village-like, connected feel” which is important for enhancing quality of life and which I find an attractive notion.
However, I’m not sure the current proposal can deliver that.
To my mind, a “village-like, connected feel” would typically describe a hamlet or a small town with a strong sense of community, good social interaction and a slower pace of life. It would accentuate community spirit and connection to nature, while also offering unique local amenities and activities. Residents would know each other and be involved in local events and activities. There would be a central area, like a Piazza / square, or some similar ‘commons’ where people can gather, socialise and do essential shopping. (By which I do not mean a Westfield or equivalent). It would serve a slower pace of life with LESS congestion and a more relaxed atmosphere, compared to Adelaide CBD or a bustling suburban shopping centre.
Many hamlets and villages are located in beautiful natural settings giving a soothing connection to nature, which can foster a shared appreciation among residents.
Clearly Council can’t work within Dunbar’s number, but if a “village-like, connected feel” is genuinely what Council intends, it could be wonderful for young and old alike.
Again though, the current plans will need substantial change to deliver that vision. I sincerely look forward to seeing version 2.
Some thoughts from an unqualified but concerned local citizen in response to that….
To my mind, Unley’s plan would include using their ownership of the garage’s land on Mills St, opposite Sublime, for communitarian purposes.
It would also limit, possibly prevent, further growth in the number of commercial properties that will require on-street parking. The streets around the proposed ‘hub’ cannot accommodate that.
It would also, I suggest, mean limiting building heights to a human scale, rather than a commercial scale. To me that is 3 stories maximum, with varied sizes – 1-3 bedrooms, and all with full off-street parking,
Council would thus need to sacrifice some potential rates-based income increases in order to systemically maintain the quality of life that Unley is renowned for.
Don, I would be pleased to discuss this further if you so wish.
Peter Follett.