Is Option D the most cost effective?

I have heard repeatedly from supporters of a no dam solution that is the solution the project believes is the most cost effective solution. 


dollar-sign-on-treadmillProponents of a dam however indicate the project has not properly accounted for litigation costs from property owners on the creek. I am far from a legal expert so there is not much I can offer there.

What has not been debated however and what I can comment on is, is the accuracy of construction costs proposed?


As someone with 40 years plus in the building industry I believe the Project is guessing at best, albeit by independent experts, when it comes to the physical building cost of the project. Whether costing the dam or the creek widening the experts can only make a best guess if they don’t have detailed design.

I ask anyone taking the trouble of reading this however how often do we hear of government projects going over budget. If you are honest, too many is the answer. Why? Because we present to the public a budget before the detail is available. And why do we do that? Because the cost of preparing detailed design is a costly exercise in its own right.


The intricacies of the creek widening concerns me and I am disinclined to accept the cost estimates at face value and that is no criticism of those who prepared the budget.

I am acutely aware of the lack of design work within the City of Unley having spoken with property owners along the creek. One very common storey I hear from these property owners is the Project is unable to tell them what is intended in their property. The report itself says on page 43 “the estimated properties requiring works are identified” meaning the extent of widening/walls is not determined.

The number of properties with creek works needed that is lacking detail design leaves me concerned that the budget is likely to blow out alarmingly.

Will the cost be contained under budget with any option? Hopefully yes but probably not.

To be able then to vote for option D is made hard for me without a better confidence on the costs. Indeed, as I write this, I think I may discuss this issue with our management.

Brownhill Creek Myths

Over time there have been a number of Brownhill Creek Myths that have been perpetuated by people on all sides of the various arguments. Indeed the project has been plagued by this since I first became involved.


MythIt all began when the proponents of the no dam campaign kicked off their campaign with the first myth. We were being told that there would be a dirty great big concrete wall that would destroy the ambiance of the Brownhill Creek National Park.


I have responded to this in an earlier post this week, complete with a drawing showing what was actually proposed.

We then experienced another myth as those against hi-flow culverts in the back streets of Unley Park and Millswood, offered as an alternative, when we were being told that no-one would ever be able to drive to their home because the culvert would take up the full width of the street. of course these people could not visualise that the culvert would be enclosed under their street.

Next myth was when we started looking at a creek upgrade and we were being told that what we were proposing was concrete walls for the full length of the creek.

All of these were and are simply inaccurate.

At our last briefing we at Unley were reminded by our representatives on the steering committee of a number or other myths. Myth or truth….at the end of the day it is all about perspective and belief.

The biggest myth by the way is the promotion by the Steering committee that Option D was explored by them because this was the “preferred” option of the councils. As I have oft said this is not the case at all.

The motion moved at Unley by Cr Saies and Seconded by Cr Boisvert back in February 2014 in exploring a creek upgrade was that “the BHKC Steering Committee place priority on investigating a creek upgrade solution for the upper reaches of the Brownhill Keswick Creek (BHKC) stormwater project”.

Checking the City of Mitcham minutes they resolved the exact same motion and I believe without looking the other three councils would have voted  likewise.

Priority to investigating NOT preference for a no dam.

In the following May we also resolved our “support for the investigations taking place”, moved this time by Cr Boisvert and Seconded by Cr Sangster.

Make no mistake. Giving preference to a no dam solution was never a Council mandate.

That does not of course change the fact the the Project believes, after all that, that Option D is their preferred option which they have backed up with a lot of evidence.

Students Discover Family Heroes of the Past at the Unley Museum

The following is the transcript of a press release Council is issuing this week.


The City of Unley is encouraging school groups and families to visit the Unley Museum to learn about the area’s history and perhaps discover some of their own.


Museum curator Karen Paris said the Unley Museum regularly hosted school groups, which visit the museum to learn about history through stories told by objects, photographers and personal accounts.


“On a recent visit by St John’s Lutheran School a student was amazed to discover the name of a long-lost relative on the Sturt Football Club Honour roll. It’s wonderful to see people, especially children, uncovering part of their own family history,” Ms Paris said.


Housed in a former fire station built in 1898, the Museum’s temporary exhibition program and permanent collection has more than 12,000 objects.


Visitors to the museum can also compare their lives and contemporary technology to now defunct technology and life on the home front during World War I through the museum’s At Home, In War: Unley 1914-1918 exhibition.


The exhibition commemorates the World War I Centenary by focusing on the lives of local residents back in Australia while war was waging.  Developed in line with Australian Curriculum the exhibition provides students with an interactive way for students to engage with history.


“Students have the opportunity to test out these old technologies first hand.  Using the exhibition’s live morse code machine, they can decipher and send messages using 171 year old Morse Code,” Ms Paris said.


City of Unley Mayor Lachlan Clyne said the museum was an important interactive and educational resource for Unley residents young and old.


“The Museum’s education program works in parallel with the Australian History Curriculum but makes learning fun by incorporating games, treasure hunts and even a walking trail of the local area with stories of local heroes,” Mayor Clyne said.


The Unley Museum is additionally an accredited Learning Destination with the Australian’s Children University and offers year round learning activities during Museum opening hours.


Unley Museum, 80 Edmund Avenue

Open Monday to Wednesday 10am-4pm, Sunday 1.30pm- 4.30pm

Closed on public holidays.

Admission is FREE.


For more information call (08) 8372 5117 or visit

Brownhill Creek Owners Apathy

Council has been briefed on the public consultation for Brownhill Creek. It (the consultation) has thrown up some interesting observations.


The consultation and the reporting back from our consultant Natalie Fuller was split into two. Natalie has differentiated between those who received an invitation to the consultation and those who did not receive an invitation but who chose of their own volition to participate.

The most notable was what appears to be an apathy on the part of the creek owners. Only half of them responded to the survey and that after the project and our consultant Natalie Fuller followed up on them to make sure they did not miss out.

Lets face it the creek owners are those most affected by Option D, the projects preferred option.

As I study the survey results provided by Natalie Fuller I found a umber of interesting  observations. Half this group did not provide comment on a preference  and the other half were split 50/50 on Option D or an Option B.

I must say I would have thought we would have had a greater response from this group of people. Is this evidence of a Brownhill Creek Owners Apathy

Could it be that they do not support those of their neighbours who have fought a fight against the yards being carved up in order to save a dam being built? Could it be that they have been frustrated by what they see as the non stop consultation over the last 12 months and are consulted out?

Could it be that those who are going to be inconvenienced no matter what option proceeds figure there is no point in participating? 29 properties will be impacted under Option B1 and 22 under Option B2. 66 will be impacted under Option D.

I don’t know that we will ever be able to ask these questions.

What we can say is in not contributing these people cannot reasonably complain once a decision is made and work finally gets under way…… 10 years or so.


What would the Brownhill Creek Dam look like?

The next question I have in my mind as everyone debates the dam v the no dam everyone is what would the Brownhill Creek Dam look like?


As I attempt to answer that one the first thing I need to do is clarify that there never has been proposed a dam for this project as most would perceive a dam. A dam as most of us see it is a barrier that permanently holds water. It typically has a visually stark man made wall as the primary means used to hold the water. Do a google search and this is what you find in all the images that come up.

Is this what was proposed in Brownhill Creek (B1)? No it’s not.

From the moment I have been on Council we have been talking a retention dam. Unlike all those images on Google this is a dam that has no water in it until and unless there is a heavy rain. The theory is that we want to hold back any potential flooding by way of a barrier that allows water to flow out at a slower rate over a few days after the rain event.

20150831_153526When I first studied the details provided I saw what I instinctively knew the public (and I guess a number 0f elected members) did not see.

I saw a new hill being created and valleys either side of it in place of the original location of hills and valleys. A new landscape in lieu of the original landscape. Talking to people including at the time elected members

I can tell you they told me they saw a dirty great big concrete wall.

How many people who indicate now that they are against the dam know this? It is my opinion that most people and elected members see what you see in google when you search “dam”.

Two entirely different pictures. One you can understand there being opposition to. The other I argue would not be something that any one can be reasonably opposed to on the grounds of its physical presence.

If  am right and these people understand as I do then one must ask how then would they have voted.


Why do we no longer need a dam in Brownhill Creek?

Why do we no longer need a dam in Brownhill Creek when every solution prior to 2012 required one?


Back in 2012 and before a dam was always seen as part of the answer. Every engineering solution included a dam, somewhere. It was politically unpopular in some quarters however having said that.

Now the Project says we do not need a dam to achieve the flooding protection desired. Many people against the dam are reminding us that all the engineering solutions do not require a dam.

Interestingly before the change of focus on a no dam solution ALL the engineering solutions included a dam. A complete turnaround.

We have moved from a continuous we must have a dam to an emphatic a dam is not necessary. What has caused this I ask?

Some time ago all 5 councils endorsed looking at no dam solutions. We did this in my opinion to ensure we have given due diligence by searching all possible options.

Within it seems days this had become in the public arena that the 5 councils had endorsed a “preferred no dam” policy. This soon became the ideology of the Project too, reinforcing the public expectation. And more recently of course the public consultation was based on the Project presenting (without Council approval I hasten to add) a preference for a no dam solution.

It is my opinion that the project have got caught up in the politics of the situation and became hell bent on providing the solution that they thought they were charged to find rather than find the right solution. Promoting one solution, particularly one that appears to be the politically expedient one, in a public consultation gives me cause to think this way.

So in an environment where experts are advising the intensity of rainfall in the hills face will be greater than when we needed a dam we now don’t need a dam.

I find it difficult therefore to believe that the solution does not include a dam as part of the solution.

Brownhill Creek what are we trying address

The first question in this series of blog posts I ask as I move toward a decision with Brownhill Creek is this …. Brownhill Creek what are we trying to address. I have doubt in my mind that we truly do know what we are trying to achieve.


We are on the surface designing a scheme to deal with a nominal 1 in 100 year flood with whatever iprojects_4mpact that may have. I believe that there are two factors have impacted heavily on this.

Firstly we are trying to protect properties along and adjacent the creek. The debate however has centred on dam v no dam.

The voices of those who live on or near the creek have subsequently been (pardon the pun) drowned out during the public debate.

The second and what I want to focus on here is the goalposts have shifted in the time I have been involved.

The Bureau of Meteorology have come up with revised statistics for predicting a 100 year flood with Adelaide’s rain fall getting less. We are being told to expect that our rainfall is going to get less annually, that there will be fewer events but that the rainfall intensity per event will be higher.

Curiously we have a design now that is expecting less severe floods than that we were contemplating when the 5 councils agreed to look at no dam solutions. There are now very few if any above floor flooding situations along the creek than what we were originally expecting.

If this is so and I struggle that it would be with more intense rain events then we would expect I believe that the cost of repairs from flooding would reduce from what we were advised back in 2012. And yet the cost of all the mitigation solutions currently proposed has increased from one that was very much similar to after the fact repairs back then has risen sharply.

I spite of asking I have yet to be advised by the project what they expect the cost of repairs would be now so that we can compare it against mitigation. We could do that in 2012 when it was a basis used for justifying mitigation against doing nothing but not now it would appear to be considered as irrelevant.

I doubt that this information will become available and it is critical in my mind to the solution. Without this information I believe we cannot truly make a responsible decision. Let’s face it, this information may tell us that economically we do not need to take any action based on current hydrology.

Brownhill Creek Decision looms

Yes. The long awaited Brownhill Creek decision looms… the decision…my decision.


In what is one of the most significant issues to be dealt with by the Unley Council we soon will be deciding which option is the most appropriate in providing appropriate flood mitigation in the Brownhill Creek catchment area?

And that decision, the decision of each of the 5 councils, and of course my decision is due in September.

projects_4In the last month each Council has received the Projects report on the public consultation. This Council will be briefed on the project on Monday night in readiness for the decision.



It may be that we consider a special meeting rather than our normal meeting to deal with this, such is its importance and the depth of the issue.

Of all the issues that have been bought before Council in my short time on Council this one has had the most exposure, the most debate and taken the longest to deal with. In the last few months I have watched the toing and froing of the various public special interest groups as they argue their case and dispute the bona-fides of the other groups.

There are a lot of people out there who think they know what the answer is and will judge us on the decision we make based on their perception of what is right and what is not. Whilst there is surely a temptation to go with the popular vote we make must, a decision that is the best solution for all with a special weighting towards those most affected, the property owners along and adjacent the creek at risk of flooding.

With this in mind I have already read the many responses from the public consultation and will now sit down to review all the information available (including from the briefing) and then some. I have a lot of work to do in the coming weeks and have a lot of unanswered questions that I need a response to.

Between now and whenever the meeting is called I intend to share with you through a series of blog posts (maybe a half dozen or so) my thoughts and understanding of the various issues and questions as I work myself toward a Brownhill Creek Decision.

Goodwood Oval Phone Tower a litmus test for Council’s DAP

I will be watching with interest the upcoming decision by Council’s DAP on the Goodwood Oval Phone Tower proposed proposed by Vodafone. It may well prove a litmus test for the Government’s proposed changes to the Development Act.


A number of residents have been confused as to Council’s role in this process. In particular some are of the belief that our elected members should be standing up to whoever is proposing this and saying hands off. They say this on the understanding that there will be only one view without and before knowing if that is in fact the case.

Having said that, if I were a betting man, I would say that is the case.

The fact of the matter is there is a due process that must be followed under state legislation. Council must receive the application and cannot refuse to receive it. That said the Act does allow means for public participation in certain circumstances and the phone tower is one such circumstance.

Beyond that the process provides a mechanism by which the application should be judged. In some cases this is the responsibility of the paid officers of the planning department of council. In others, including this one, that responsibility is vested in the hands of a panel known as the development Assessment Panel or DAP.

It is their job to read and understand the application and the planning officer’s report and recommendation. They must also read and understand any representation made by the public on the matter. They have to determine if the observations made in any representation, whether supporting the application or rejecting the application, is valid under the terms of the development plan.

The State Minister for Planning (and Deputy Premier) John Rau has sited often that elected members sitting on Council DAPs are making politically expedient decisions on planning matters rather than assess the application on is merits against the development plan. This is one of the core reasons why he wants to see councils and in particular elected members removed from the planning assessment process.

Many people in the street, frustrated by perceived delays in getting their 2 storey addition passed through council would probably agree with the minister. The very same people are critical then of Mr Rau for having already taken the power away from councils on high rise developments.

Our DAPs handling of the Goodwood Oval phone tower may well prove a litmus test on the minister’s move to take Council out of the development process. How the individual members of the DAP vote will at least.

Will the elected members vote the same as the independent members? Will the elected members be split in their vote? Will the independents be split in their vote? Will the elected members vote one way and the independents vote the opposite way?



This is a copy of a media release today from Council.


We are pleased to announce, that following Monday night’s August Council meeting, Peter Tsokas has accepted a new 5 year contract as the CEO of the City of Unley.

City of Unley Mayor Lachlan Clyne welcomed the good news.

 “Peter has now been Unley’s CEO for the four years since 2011” says Mayor Clyne “and he has been a very important contributor to shepherding the City of Unley into the safe and secure position it now finds itself in.”

“Whilst the return of all 11 Elected Members who re-nominated for their positions at the last election was a clear indication of the Unley community’s confidence in our direction,” he said, “the announcement of this decision offers incredible stability to our organisation and our community for these coming years”.

With this announcement Lachlan believes Unley is now very well placed to meet future challenges and can offer strong and respected leadership to the local community and the Local Government sector.

“Peter’s positive leadership and strategic vision will provide a strong platform for achieving our goals and meeting our community’s needs with confidence” Mayor Clyne concluded.   




I concur with Lachlan’s comments. Peter has provided great leadership, not only reducing the operating budget by well in excess of $ 2.0m but creating a synergy within the administration that sees staff working together in harmony and respect.

He has a great vision for the future of the City of Unley.

From memory the vote taken on Monday night was unanimous.


Goodwood Oval Vodafone Phone Tower FAQ

The following is a Goodwood Oval Vodafone Phone Tower FAQ list resulting from conversations I have had.


I reproduce them now for everyone with an interest in this proposal in an attempt help you all understand the process and further your representation if you have lodged one. The answers are my answers and they are given as my understanding.


Is this a council or council inspired proposal?

No. The application is a 3rd party application from Vodafone. Council is not involved


Will Council benefit from the Phone Tower?

As the owner of the land on which the tower is proposed to be located it would receive a rental which I understand is calculated by the State Government.


How much is that rent?

I would have to confirm this but I believe it is something like $ 5,000 of maybe as high as $ 15,000.


Has Council therefore a vested interest in the tower being approved?

For the amounts mentioned above I would hardly think this would constitute a vested interest.


Will you be making the decision?

No! Council and its elected members including myself do not adjudicate and cannot adjudicate on development applications.


Who will approve or disallow the application?

Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) is empowered to make this decision. This is an independent panel which is constituted under the State Government’s Development Act.


If that is the case can Council represent against the proposal?

No. The DAP represents the Council and their decision is binding.


Who is on the DAP?

The Panel is made up of 4 independent members and 3 elected members.


Can I lobby members of the Panel?

No. Unlike normal Council business which is governed by the Local Government Act development applications are governed by the Development Act. This Act dictates that a member of the panel must

  • Declare a conflict of interest if they engage in conversation with any applicant or representor.
  • And then leave the meeting and not vote on the application.


Is it possible that similar proposals could be made by Telstra and Optus for the other phone towers?

I guess it is possible. From a development plan point of view it certainly can. Whether there are other constraints however I do not know.


Have I a right of appeal if the Panel approves the application?

As a category 3 application I believe so. Any such appeal will be heard by the ERD Court.


Does Vodafone have the same right of appeal if the Panel refuses the application?

The application is for non-complying development. As I understand it this disallows them from appealing.


Can I still put in a representation?

No! The time for submitting a representation has already passed.


Can I speak at the DAP meeting?

If you have indicated your intention on your written representation, Yes!


How long can I speak for?

5 minutes, plus answering any question that panel members may ask you after you have finished with your representation.


Is Health a consideration under the Development Plan?

My understanding of the development plan is no. DAP members will be instructed on whether this is a consideration to take into account. Given the conflicting expert opinion on the health impacts of phone towers this would be difficult.


Will Council be responsible if it can be proved later that these towers are cancer causing?

I honestly cannot answer that question as I am not a lawyer. I imagine not however if due process has been followed.


Why did I not receive a letter as others did?

In developments that are classified as category 2 applications letters are sent to the immediate neighbours and to every property on the other side of the road within 60 metres of the property being redeveloped.

Category 3 applications allow for a wider representation but the means of advising is by way of public notices in the paper.

If you fell outside the cat 2 area you would not have received a letter.

This is precisely why I posted a blog on my web site on 1 August and why I alerted the author of the Goodwood Oval website.


When will the DAP meet and will I be informed?

I asked this same question of our Manager of Planning a couple of weeks ago and it was expected the meeting would be held in October. The planning staff need time to collate all the representations and confer with the applicant over the representations received before preparing a report and recommendations to the panel.

I expect representors who have asked to speak will be advised of the meeting date. I will post a blog when I know the date of the meeting.

If you have an interest please keep in touch with my website and/or my Facebook page.



Vodafone Tower proposed for Goodwood Oval attracts significant public reaction from locals.

The Vodafone Tower proposed for Goodwood Oval has attracted significant public reaction from locals and the DAP meeting where it will be considered promises to be well attended and keenly observed.


119 Representations have been received by Council on the Vodafone Tower proposed for Goodwood Oval. This exceeds by the proverbial mile the number of representations received on any other development application during my 4 years as a member of Council’s previous Development Assessment Panels (DAP).

The number of representors wishing to be heard at the DAP is so large that I understand that this application will be the only one addressed at the meeting when it is called.  The meeting I expect will be held sometime in October but I guess it is possible (given it will be the only item addressed on the night) that it may be sooner.

As soon as I am aware of the date, time and venue for the meeting I will advise you in this platform. Those who have made representation and have indicated their intention to speak will be advised by Council.

The DAP is charged with making the decision on behalf of Council. Council (as in the elected member body) do not get a vote on the proposal.

It is a panel constituted under the State Government’s Development Act and is responsible to adjudicate the application strictly against Council’s Development Plan. It consists of 4 independent members with experience in planning matters and 3 of our elected members including Jennie my co-councillor Jennie.

Panel members are not permitted to discuss the proposal with anyone failing which they would have to declare a conflict of interest under the Act and remove themselves from the Panel. This is why I indicated in my first blogpost on this topic back on August 1 that you should refrain from speaking to Jennie.

A number of questions have arisen in the last couple of days about the Vodafone Tower proposed for Goodwood Oval and I will attempt in a separate blog post later tonight to answer as many as I can.

Theatre Organ Society of Australia-Owners of Capri Cinema celebrate 50th Birthday

Owners of the Capri Cinema, where the celebrations commenced, the Theatre Organ Society of Australia, South Australian Division celebrate their 50th Anniversary this weekend.


Invited by the Theatre Organ Society of Australia to the opening last night of a weekend long celebration I enjoyed a trip of nostalgia.

My wife and I were entertained by a series of inspiring organ performances by an equally exciting group of organists. I was quite proud that locals from my own street, father and son Richard & Michael Larritt, were two of the performers on the night.

20150821_182758 20150821_190411 20150821_184437Another of the performers and host for the night was someone most people of my vintage will remember from channel 9 and 5DN days was none other than Barry Hall. The channel niners come to mind, along with …. Yes… Here’s Humphrey.

I reckon if I dig deep enough into my collection of LPs I would find the album mentioned later with his name on it.

Two historic organs featured on the night, both now permanent residents of the Capri.

The first, well known to those who frequent the Capri Cinema for movies or theatre performances is the 4/29 Wurlitzer. The console of the 4/29 features on many a photo shoot of the Capri Cinema.


The second, at least the console of the second, is the 2/12. This organ was resident for 30 years at my old stamping ground, Pulteney Grammar School just down the road a bit on South Terrace in the City. It is also the organ featured on Barry Hall’s LP “Barry Hall at the Wurlitzer”, one of I reckon 15 or so LPs he recorded during the 70’s or thereabouts.

Thank you TOSA. It was a great night out and I did not miss Port Adelaide beating Hawthorn or Australia throwing it at the Poms, well almost.

20150821_182739Oh! And thanks for the birthday cake. It was delicious. Pretty spectacular looker too! Too good in fact to eat. Here it is in it’s protective cage.


Building Heights along Greenhill Road the next challenge.

High Rise Development on Greenhill Road facing the south parklands was always expected under the Governments 30 year plan and Unley’s urban corridors DPA that was approved by the minister for planning back in January of last year. But what building heights will be seen when compared to that which was envisaged under the plan.


I am of the understanding that an 8 storey mixed use development is proposed for Greenhill Road at Wayville. If that is the case then once again we see the first application received under the new Development Plan testing the limits.

An Informal Referral from DPTI inviting Council’s comments on an 8 Storey Mixed Use (office and serviced apartments) development at 56 Greenhill Road Wayville has been received. Like the recent 7 storey development proposed for Cremorne Plaza on Unley Road the height of this development is outside that permitted in the Unley Development Plan.

The development plan permits 7 storey development along this stretch of Greenhill Road. 8 storeys will obviously push the envelope and this will no doubt attract some intense interest from the public at large.

DPTI I believe aim to table the application at the 24 September 2015 IMDAC (Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Commission) DAC meeting. The required Category 2 public notification will have to happen shortly for that to be achieved. It may therefore commence as early as late this week for a period of 10 business days.

The application information will be supplied by DPTI for inspection in council’s Civic offices foyer by the public upon commencement of the Category 2 public notification.

It is proposed that elected members will be briefed on the development which is encouraging. There is no compulsion for this so it is appreciated. This will provide an opportunity for your elected representatives to contribute to Council’s comments.

Once the application is available for the public to view I invite you to check it out. Please then contact me if you have any questions that you believe needs to be addressed before the briefing.


Concordia College comes to aid of Forestville as East helps West.

Students of Concordia College from the east of Unley have helped clean up one of Unley’s favourite locations in the west.


Yesterday afternoon the students undertook the removal as part of their community service requirement for their studies. The students were very enthusiastic and completed the task in a little over an hour.




IMG_3009-1A fantastic effort that makes one proud to be a part of the greater Unley community.


This shows that while we have those in our community that for whatever reason can only contribute in a negative way, we have those who are proud enough to want to contribute in a positive way.

It was a great combined effort by Council, Concordia College and DPTI to get the job completed. Now to see how long it lasts graffiti free…..


SALA in Unley off a great start

Now in our 8th year of involvement SALA in Unley has got off a great start.



SALA has continued to grow as one of South Australia’s major and respected arts festivals. This year SALA runs from 1-31 August. This year the City of Unley’s involvement includes:

  • The coordination of Where Business Meets Art, a project developed in conjunction with Unley’s five Main Street Traders Associations for businesses and artists to participate in our ongoing initiative to put art in our shops, cafes and businesses. This year over 40 businesses will display work in a variety of mediums from around 120 artists, the single largest response to SALA in any metropolitan area.
  • The premier event SALA Gala in the Garden will be held on Sun 16 August 10.30-4.30 pm and will be contained within the Unley Soldiers Memorial Gardens.

We are now one of the major sponsors along with The Advertiser and Unley Traders Association.We are acknowledged as a premier partner of SALA Festival on the inside cover of the SALA Program and on other promotion state wide.

I have so far been to a few shops along Goodwood Road and have been quite impressed. One of those was of course Gingers where the Mayor opened this year’s event last week.

I hope you will be able to take the time to get out and explore the world of visual arts during this last month of winter and check out our exciting and diverse projects. It will be prove to be a good day out on the 16th. Take the opportunity not only that day but to check out the art displayed in your favourite shop.

To find out more check our Website and our Facebook page


Unley Oval Grandstand upgrade ready for public engagement.

The next phase of the master planning process for Unley Oval took the next step today. Concept designs for the Unley Oval Grandstand upgrade have been completed and ready for the next round of consultation.


Unley Oval Grandstand

This is a necessary step so that we can be what you might call “shovel ready” if and when funding from outside sources ever become available. In today’s financial climate that does not look like being around the corner but we need to be ready if and when it does and in time in will.

Community engagement on the Future Grandstand Upgrades at Unley Oval has commenced today and will close on Friday 13 November.

Hard copy information is displayed at the oval, and in the civic centre foyer, libraries and community centres.  Feedback forms are also available at these sites.

The online ‘Your Say Unley’ portal will be the primary source of information (including FAQs) and for receiving feedback, however hard copy forms may also be posted or handed in at the civic centre.

The online link can be viewed here –

We have also written to local schools and the Unley Oval clubs to promote to their networks.

Can I encourage you to contribute to the process.

Tell us if we have our Active Ageing Strategy correct

Council has just started our 2nd round of community engagement for the Active Ageing Strategy which will run until close of business, Monday 31 August 2015.


Active Ageing


The purpose of this round of community engagement is to seek your feedback on the draft Active Ageing Strategy which was put together after the 1st round of consultation.

This feedback will ensure that we’ve captured the key priorities and actions to meet the need of our community as they age, both now and into the future.  Comments received will be considered in refining and finalising the Strategy which is to be presented to Council in October 2015.

You can find out more and have your say in the following ways:

  • Hard Copy:  An extensive mail out is being distributed which will include a cover letter, feedback form and fact sheet.  Alternatively you may if you wish collect and return the forms as well as seek out further information in person (as below).
  • In Person:  You can visit one of our Libraries, Community Centres and Customer Centre to collect and return your feedback form, read a fact sheet or read/obtain a copy of the Strategy
  • By Phone:  To request a copy of the Strategy or a feedback form

New City of Unley Website exciting but challenging in the short term

The City of Unley Website has undergone a much needed revamp. Up for a week now many will have had a chance to try it and enjoy the new platform but also experience the usual hiccups that occur with something new.


As I see it we now have a site that is easier to read and easier to navigate. Check it out here

Having said that it is not complete and it needs a number of tweaks to make it complete. I personally have communicated a number of issues including pages I could once access that have yet to be loaded onto the new site. Our staff have been good too with my observations already addressed.

Please check out the site for yourself at

And please to tell us where we need to make improvements. If you are navigation the site and have observations to make I suggest you visit our have your say website feedback survey.


Vodafone phone tower proposed at Goodwood Oval

A category 3 public notification development application has been received by Council for a Vodafone phone tower proposed at Goodwood Oval.


Goodwood Oval South East Light Tower

Goodwood Oval South East Light Tower

The application is to extend one of the light towers at the ground to accommodate the installation of a new telecommunications facility in this location. The tower in question is the south east tower adjacent the Hockey club rooms.

The application proposes extending the height of the Tower by 5 metres, from 25 m to 30 m high.

Category 3 applications are for non-complying development. Category 3 means anyone, not just immediate neighbours can lodge a representation to council’s DAP, whether for or against the proposed development.

I encourage you to examine the documents lodged, links for which are below. If you have a feeling about the development either way I then encourage you to lodge your representation to council, following the directions in the links to Mr Grant Croft, who as a senior planning officer is processing the application. If you do please make sure you lodge it at the council offices no later than 5.00 pm on August 12.


Refer as follows:

Goodwood Oval-Representation Letter. This includes the form to be used in making a representation.

Goodwood Oval-Cover Letter

Goodwood Oval-Planning Report

Goodwood Oval-Plans


You can also liaise with me of course if you wish about the development and I can assist you in making your representation. As a member of the Development Assessment Panel Jennie will not be able to speak with you about the application. Doing so would create a conflict of interest which would require her to withdraw from the panel when dealing with this application.