News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Pants]

It hasn't. I'm assuming that by busy, people mean the pavement with foot traffic(?)

[david]

Councillor David Plumridges Notes - Isssue No 80

- Decisions from Council Meeting 14 August.
- Decisions from Development Assessment Panel - 6 August.

Notes from Councillor Issue 80.pdf

(134.91 KiB) Downloaded 120 times

David Plumridge AM

Deputy Lord Mayor
City of Adelaide

[SRW]

Yes, the foot traffic is pretty consistent. For it to work, I would think they'd need to rationalise the number of bus stops along the stip. At present, the stops and their queues in the peak pretty much stretch the length of the street. Fortunately, I seem to recall from the ACC's draft Integrated Movement Strategy that that is precisely what they want. But that's still further down the track.

[Ben]

Adelaide City Council will discuss whether to push to get planning power back from the Development Assessment Commission

by:
Alice Higgins

From:
City Messenger

August 29, 2012

A PUSH by Town Hall to reclaim its power to rule on city developments will be voted on next week.

Under the City Council's push, its Development Assessment Panel (DAP) would reclaim its power to vote on all proposals with a gross floor area of less than 25,000sq m.

The State Government's Development Assessment Commission (DAC) would only deal with projects with a gross floor area of 25,000sq m or more.

The current system dictates that all city proposals worth $10 million or more are dealt with by the DAC.

The plan was debated at last night's council meeting before Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood used his casting vote to defer a decision to lobby Planning Minister John Rau until next Tuesday.

Some members said they wanted more information before making a decision.


The move is the latest push in an ongoing tug of war between the government and the council over who should oversee city development.

The government stripped the council of its powers to rule on developments worth $10 million or more after it rejected the Tower 8 proposal for Franklin St more than four years ago.

[Alyx]

A PUSH by Town Hall to reclaim its power to rule on city developments will be voted on next week.

Under the City Council's push, its Development Assessment Panel (DAP) would reclaim its power to vote on all proposals with a gross floor area of less than 25,000sq m.

The State Government's Development Assessment Commission (DAC) would only deal with projects with a gross floor area of 25,000sq m or more.

The current system dictates that all city proposals worth $10 million or more are dealt with by the DAC.

The plan was debated at last night's council meeting before Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood used his casting vote to defer a decision to lobby Planning Minister John Rau until next Tuesday.

Some members said they wanted more information before making a decision.

The move is the latest push in an ongoing tug of war between the government and the council over who should oversee city development.

The government stripped the council of its powers to rule on developments worth $10 million or more after it rejected the Tower 8 proposal for Franklin St more than four years ago.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6460528568

[[Shuz]]

No, ACC, no.

For starters, Adelaide barely gets 25,000sqm sized buildings as it is, so really it's just an attempt by Councol
to seize back control of at least 95% of development applications.

[phenom]

I had exactly the same thoughts as you Shuz.

What exactly have the ACC done recently to prove they've 'grown up'? Deliberately voting no to everything since (thankfully, powerlessly) before it goes to the DAC for an actual decision?

There's a reason the government stripped them of their powers in the first place and absolutely nothing has changed. Going backwards now will kill everything.

[rev]

We take a step forward, the backwards council tries to take us two steps back.

Hurry up and relegate them to glorified garbage collectors and street cleaners.

[david]

Its pretty useless arguing with the faceless people who delight in rubbishing the Council at every posting to this site but I will give it a go!

Council has changed its style in so many ways over the past couple of years; many changes of culture of both the Elected Members and under their direction, the Administration.

Big support for The Adelaide Oval development, Riverside, moving on Victoria Square, Victoria Park, Rundle Mall ,Splash Adelaide,public art, laneway activation and so the list goes on.

As for the DAP, many of the recommendations made by the independent-controlled DAP are picked up by the DAC or amended plans are presented to the DAC leading to a consensus decision.

Town planning is fundamentally the role of Local Government with the right of community consultation and involvement paramount in any democratic system of government. Council has worked with the State to develop a new Capital City Development Plan which, when finalised, will be the basis of all planning assessment going forward.

Council has some of the best planning assessment skills available and the DAP is best placed to make decisions on behalf of the city community and the other city stakeholders. That said, there will always be significant projects where the Minister may need to have 'call-in' power sand Council recognises that.

Before the Council lost its assessment powers, many major projects had been approved under the then operative (but badly flawed) Development Plan - very few of those buildings have actually been built so where is there any evidence of the Council's DAP being some kind of monstrous blockage in the process of orderly planning ? There never was any justification for the peremptory action taken by Minister Holloway other than a dummy-spit over a ERD proven right decision of the DAP to refuse consent for Tower 8 in a form that was totally inappropriate.

With the new planning regime promoted by Minister Rau, now is the time to give the Council back its planning assessment powers in a true spirit of trust and partnership, on the basis now being considered by the Council.

David Plumridge
Deputy Lord Mayor
City of Adelaide

[david]

Notes from Councillor David Plumridge - Issue No 81

- The Problem of Light Pollution
- People Power to the Fore
- Decisions of the Council Meeting - 28 August

Notes from Councillor Issue 81.pdf

(219.88 KiB) Downloaded 112 times

David Plumridge
Deputy Lord Mayor
City of Adelaide

[Will]

Cr. Plumridge, in your post you wrote that the ACC should be returned their planning powers partly because council is "best placed to make decisions on behalf of the city community..."

This is the reason why council should NOT, get their planning powers restored. There are instances when the ACC places the interests of noisy minority groups whom reside within the ACC over the wider interests of Adelaide and SA as a whole. Although, this is understandable, considering these are the people that vote for you, and hence employ you, the Adelaide CBD is too important for major projects to be held ransom to local politics. This is even more true now, with the new economic realities facing our state.

[mgb]

Cr. Plumridge, in your post you wrote that the ACC should be returned their planning powers partly because council is "best placed to make decisions on behalf of the city community..."

This is the reason why council should NOT, get their planning powers restored. There are instances when the ACC places the interests of noisy minority groups whom reside within the ACC over the wider interests of Adelaide and SA as a whole. Although, this is understandable, considering these are the people that vote for you, and hence employ you, the Adelaide CBD is too important for major projects to be held ransom to local politics. This is even more true now, with the new economic realities facing our state.

+1 well said.

Before the Council lost its assessment powers, many major projects had been approved under the then operative (but badly flawed) Development Plan - very few of those buildings have actually been built so where is there any evidence of the Council's DAP being some kind of monstrous blockage in the process of orderly planning ? There never was any justification for the peremptory action taken by Minister Holloway other than a dummy-spit over a ERD proven right decision of the DAP to refuse consent for Tower 8 in a form that was totally inappropriate.

David, while obviously I can only judge the council from the "outside" and by their actions, there does seem to have been many recent projects that the DAP has rejected, but the the DAC has approved. Now it could be said the DAC is just rubber stamping everything, but that's probably unfair. Like the DAP, I am sure the DAC has many people who are experts in their field. I wonder why you think the DAP has any more capability to make the decision instead of the DAC?

Also, it seems that the constant argument to blame the development plan, but was the plan not come up with by the council?


Speaking of dummy-spit, the same could be said about the council and it's constant "need" to take back control of the process. It's time to move on, and stick with what the council is good at.


mgb.

[crawf]

Its pretty useless arguing with the faceless people who delight in rubbishing the Council at every posting to this site but I will give it a go!

Council has changed its style in so many ways over the past couple of years; many changes of culture of both the Elected Members and under their direction, the Administration.

Has it really?. Sure the Adelaide City Council has done some positive things in recent times, eg Splash Adelaide. Though there is still those moments where the council shows its true feelings towards development and progress. Things like Anne Moran's ridicolous comment that the Torrens Bridge will probably be painted in all types of colours if the State Government has control over it. And ofcourse what about the countless rejections of buildings that would hardly make a dent in other cities or even in our city!.

The most famous situation was the rejection of a 13-level building on Light Square in the CBD core (now that's a dummy spit!). Despite the council no longer having the power to do this, it still generated alot of negative press that cemented that untrue reputation that Adelaide is a sleepy country town to many people, especially interstate. Not to mention it was incredibly embarrassing when other cities are constructing buildings over 200 metres, yet here we had a council whinging about a low rise in the centre of a city of 1.2 million people. Also what about the other famous one Tower 8?, a decent looking u/c building that is now opening up opportunities for a CBD street that has resembled a derelict ghost town until recently.

David, you are a great counciller and I think it's great we have someone like you on Sen Adel. Though due to all those things above I completely disagree with the idea of the council regaining it's powers. Since the creation of the State Government DAP we have seen some pretty historic changes that has opened the door for the Adelaide skyline to get a long overdue facelift. It also allows us to make full of use of the future opportunities, eg mining boom.

Not to mention, the State Government DAP has shown a far more logical and positive approach to development of our city. In all, Adelaide is in a better place these days.

As the saying goes 'If it ain't broken then don't fix it'.

This is the reason why council should NOT, get their planning powers restored. There are instances when the ACC places the interests of noisy minority groups whom reside within the ACC over the wider interests of Adelaide and SA as a whole. Although, this is understandable, considering these are the people that vote for you, and hence employ you, the Adelaide CBD is too important for major projects to be held ransom to local politics. This is even more true now, with the new economic realities facing our state.

You hit the nail on this one Will.

[crawf]

Now this something I completely agree with the council. The Adelaide CBD is overdue for 40km/h speed limits.

Adelaide's council wants 40km/h speed limit in CBD streets
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6461107714
August 29, 20129:30PM

ADELAIDE City Council wants to reduce the city speed limit to 40km/h, arguing it will improve safety and boost development.

The council today will put its case for lowering the 50km/h limit in the central business district and North Adelaide at a meeting with Premier Jay Weatherill, Transport Minister Patrick Conlon and Planning Minister John Rau.

It will also lobby at the Capital City Committee meeting to cut the 60km/h limit on West Tce to 50km/h.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood, who is attending today's meeting with deputy David Plumridge, said Adelaide was the only mainland capital that did not have a 40km/h limit in the CBD.

"This is about building a more attractive CBD and it is in the best interests of the development industry, retail industry and outdoor dining industry," he said.

The Government has indicated its early support for the proposal, with a spokeswoman for the Transport Department saying a lower city speed limit would help create an environment where "pedestrians, cyclists and public transport have priority over cars".

City Council chief executive Peter Smith, who advises the Capital City Committee, said a 40km/h limit was the key to making the CBD more people-friendly.

Mr Smith this week returned from an overseas study tour with Mr Rau, Property Council of SA executive director Nathan Paine and Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Department chief executive Rod Hook. The group toured cities with low speed limits.

"Some streets, for example in East Berlin, were 7km/h," Mr Smith said.

"What you saw was people freely crossing the streets and people riding their bikes."

The council's 40km/h limit would apply to the CBD and North Adelaide while city fringe roads would be cut to 50km/h.

The change would bring Adelaide into line with Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, which have 40km/h city centre zones.

RAA road safety acting senior manager Charles Mountain said a 40km/h limit should be applied only to streets with high foot traffic such as Rundle, Hindley and Gouger.

----------

Urban crawl

Suburban areas with 40km/h speed limits:

* Unley Council: city-wide.

* Charles Sturt Council: parts of Bowden, Brompton, Grange, Tennyson and Woodville West.

* Prospect Council: parts of Prospect.

* Onkaparinga Council: parts of Morphett Vale, Darlington and Onkaparinga Hills.

* Port Adelaide Enfield Council: North Haven.

* Mitcham Council: all of Westbourne Park and Hawthorn, parts of Urrbrae and Blackwood.

* Marion Council: parts of Plympton Park.

[Nathan]

I'm all for a reduction to 40km/h in the city. Not sure about West Tce at 50km/h though - at least it it's current state. If we can ever get to a point where we can reduce the number of lanes and transform West Tce ala the proposals in the 5000+ Life on the Edge report, then that's the time to reduce the limits there.