News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Wayno]

Hi David, thanks for your continued engagement with this forum. Please ignore the few who post negative one line statements - they are not representative of the majority here. I second the comments about yourself being a good & balanced councilor, and we both know that obtaining a quorum on any topic is difficult, often impossible.

What the majority of S-A folk in this forum want is a deeper conversation so we understand how & why decisions are made, and the basis for Councilor opinions. This forum provides that opportunity.

Personally i'm of the strong opinion that Council is doing excellent work at the street level, and i love how trials are used (e.g. sturt st bike lane, closing off Leigh St to traffic) to allay immediate concerns, gather experience, and fine tune. Truly a best practice.

I share similar concerns as other S-A folk about approval/rejection of various buildings, and who each councilor truly represents. Another concern is how the minority of councilors present themselves in the media.

A question: do the DAC & DAP refer to the same dev plan when making decisions? if not does the DAC have a different documented plan to which they refer? I mention this as it appears the long-term lack of change to the ACC dev plan has heavily contributed to the current situation. Apart from the latest govt-forced changes, the most recent review was in 2008 where nothing much changed even though various industry & social groups, the state govt, and members of this forum requested an increase in building heights. Here's the link to our submission if you're interested in re-reading ==> http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... m.php?f=20.

Obviously i'm viewing things from the outside, but it appears the ACC were stripped of their powers, and the state govt was forced into implementing a large policy shift, simply to catch up with the real world. Collateral damage, such as residents complaining about the 43-69 Sturt St proposal, was inevitable.

[Maximus]

David, I very much second all of Wayno's comments. It's certainly a privilege for us to be able to have such a direct line of communication to people like yourself.

I do, however, feel the need to comment on your "faceless people" line. I understand that the level of online vitriol these days can be disturbing, but, with respect, I don't think making such derogatory one-line remarks of your own does anything for your, or the Council's, image and credibility. It's just the nature of a forum such as this: everyone is faceless -- your supporters included! I also suspect that some (many?) of the faceless detractors (and supporters) would be happy to put a face to their opinions and engage in a civil debate if given the opportunity.

To that end, and I don't know if I'm being too forward/ambitious here, I wonder whether we could organise some sort of S-A discussion session with the Council? Perhaps chaired/facilitated jointly by, say, Wayno and a Council staff member. I suspect this could be a very useful way of making better progress with some of these issues than is possible in a forum such as this alone.

[Wayno]

Hi Maximus, very generous of you to volunteer my time i'm always in favour of a relaxed discussion/debate at the pub (being a place that serve beer & wine, not the S-A online variant!).

The ACC recently had a live online chat session about car parking prices. Curious whether this was a one-off event, whether it was considered a success or not, and whether the council intends to repeat on occasion?

Question to S-A community - were you aware of the above chat session?

[Waewick]

nope

but I've always been interested if anyone from S-A would be interesting in getting further engaged in the SA world..maybe a political party is on the cards.

[Wayno]

maybe a political party is on the cards.

the 'Party Party' party?

[crawf]

Apologies if I came across a lil rude before. As like many on here I am extremely passionated about Adelaide and want to see her continue to prosper without more irrelevant sagas.

[Maximus]

Hi Maximus, very generous of you to volunteer my time

Yeah, I did think twice about that after I'd posted. Perhaps I should have said "a member of the S-A VIP Group".

Anyhoo, it just seems to me that people generally participate in this forum because they're passionate about Adelaide and South Australia. And a forum like this is a great place to chat about everything and share ideas, but I get the strong impression that a number of people here would really like to have more of an influence than that. An online forum is a very imperfect environment in which to organise ideas, reach a consensus and have the potential to make a difference -- despite all the wonderful technology that surrounds us, there are still some things that just work better face-to-face. So, yes, if I lived in Adelaide at the moment, I'd definitely be interested in becoming involved beyond the online boundaries of this forum.

Oh, and BTW...

passionated

...probably a typo, but what a fantastic new word!

[neoballmon]

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.

(etc)

Personally I feel that the majority of this is fine, as the inner CBD is generally driving closer to 40km/h at present anyway. I do feel that King William and O'Connel should remain at 50km/h.

I do, however, think it's a disgrace to reduce the 8-laned West Terrace down to 50km/h. From initially reading this in the paper at work (and stopping reading once I saw this part of the article) I felt that this move was revenue raising, given the two 'Safety Cameras' along this strectch (and 2 on roads passing through). Now having further read the online article, and seen it conveninetly showing a picture of traffic police with a radar, I am very confident that this is to gain money from expiations.
I'd hope they don't configure the cameras to the new limit for at least a couple of weeks until regular users have got used to driving 10km/h slower.

Has a speed limit change actually happened on a road with a traffic camera before? And does anyone know what happened in this situation?

[david]

Just a few quick responses as I try to defend some of my earlier comments.
(I apologise for the 'faceless people' comment but that is how it feels at times - perhaps I had had a bad day!)

To answer the question about who works from which Development Plan. Unbelievable as it may seem, both the DAP and the DAC work from the same plan, which, until the Minister's Capital City DPA was introduced in March, was the City Plan which was last fully reviewed in 2006.

The Council elected in 2007, which included Stephen Yarwood and myself, began lobbying for a change to that plan but it took a long time to bring that review on. It eventually began in 2010 but was overtaken by the Government and became the Minister's plan in March. Council is now starting work on its own DPA for the parts of the city that were not covered by the Cap City DPA.

Much of what Council was wanting to change is in the Minister's plan although some of us think it has gone a bit too far in some areas and Council has made submissions to DEPAC and the Minister on our concerns.

Please remember that the DAP is a body INDEPENDENT of Council with only 4 of its 9 members being Councillors. The 5 Independent members always have the majority! Also remember that in many cases applicants modified their plans based on DAP comments before they were considered by DAC which would account for different outcomes in many cases.

DAC certainly seemed to me to be less inclined to follow the Development Plan as strictly as the DAP did but there is a big debate to be had (at another time) about the importance of certainty through the development assessment process and approving within the limits set by the Plan. Limiting height and bulk should not be seen as a barrier to good and creative design of buildings and, in my opinion. their place in the city context.

If the idea of an occasional get-together takes on, I for one would be more than happy to front-up and be part of a conversation about the future direction of the city and I am sure the Lord Mayor would be up for it as well, subject to diary commitments.

David

[rev]

No need to apologize. Most of us on here are indeed faceless, just username's on a forum.
The ACC gets savaged on here, no doubt about it. Mostly because of it's past decisions, and also because some of the councilors which have chosen to speak publicly, have created a certain image of the Council. It's like an automatic reaction most people have when they hear the Council has turned something down.
Opinions and strongly held beliefs about the ACC will only change when people start to see positive change and progress in Adelaide city as a result of council decisions and approvals given to developments.

I don't think the ACC should ever be given those planning powers back, because while you may be pushing for change, there's no guarantee that the same elements which have been anti-development, will not again take control. However if the ACC were to get approval/planning powers back, then everyone in the state should be able to vote in Adelaide City Council elections, as it's progress, growth and economic prosperity affects the whole state, given it is the economic, cultural and political hub of our state.
That way the minority self interest groups which have been a wall against progress and development, will be unable to hold us all to ransom.

Quick question for you though, would the Council retain the Governments height limit changes, or would it seek to change(reduce) them?

[Wayno]

Thanks David. Planning certainty is indeed the goal.

I'm not a betting man, but if i was i'd bet the SA Govt won't give back planning approvals in the short term (being the next few years at least). Suspect their goal is to first complete several large scale developments that will act as a precedent going forward.

[Wayno]

Not ACC specific, but focused on the square mile.

From the Adelaide Review

The square mile tug of war

Adelaide during 2012 has seen the peaking of some classic political tussles, but a resolution, as so often before, remains unclear.

Adelaide – City of Push and Pull. That could be a suggestion for the SA Tourism Commission as it conducts its search for a new city slogan, especially if it wants to describe the power plays within the city’s ‘square mile’.

This year, some classic industry matters became the cooler-season fare. Three tussles peaked – the car versus the pedestrian, the high rise versus heritage, and the beer barn versus the wine bar. Each prompted the emergence of the usual highly salaried protagonists in the debates, plus a phalanx of well paid lobbyists and PR pundits behind the scenes.

The Adelaide City Council, however, can only blame itself for prompting the car-versus-pedestrian debate, however laudable its origins may have been. It was germinated in 2002 when visiting city design expert, Copenhagen’s Professor Jan Gehl, was enticed to Adelaide by former Lord Mayor Alfred Huang. Gehl left Adelaide a detailed report on how it could rid itself of car-induced congestion, which 10 years later sees 20,000 cross-city car journeys daily, many of whose drivers are tempted by the city’s 42,700 on- and off-street car parks – far more than many other similar-sized European cities (and 10,000 more than Melbourne and 16,700 more that Sydney). It was left largely untouched for eight years until new Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood, won office in 2010, brought back Professor Gehl, commissioned an update, then included its recommendations in a new report. In May he let it loose on the car-obsessed city population, as well as the suburban community surrounding the city who daily drive through the city and clog it when they park.

“Our Integrated Movement Strategy is fantastic,” Yarwood emailed potential respondents to the community consultation. “It’s about moving from car dependency, which induces more cars (which will result in the city becoming less appealing) to a focus on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Many of the ideas are very progressive and will make the city a much more attractive place to live and spend time. If you agree, we need as many submissions as possible to help make our councillors (and staff) brave enough to be a part of this historical change.”

Brave indeed. It was especially so to poke a stick into the ants’ nest of Adelaideans’ pent-up frustration at a poorly coordinated public transport network around and across the city. Gehl, it must be said, did warn that ‘pedestrianising’ the city (a favourite Yarwood term) would take many decades. In the subsequent court of public opinion, the Lord Mayor was roasted, while transport-responsible parliamentarians watching from the sidelines did their best to keep out of the furore. Worse, a handful of city councillors influenced by the strong retail lobby soon after contradicted the push, implementing lower city car park fees to attract more drivers to Rundle Mall’s retail heart. It was not a good look.

On the heritage front, in June the city’s response to a bid to list 77 historic city properties was released. It had been pared down from an original 250 by invisible government procedures that never get publicly revealed. Of the 77, 46 property owners, assisted by experts, mounted spirited defences. Distilled, many featured the Hanrahan response: ‘We’ll all be rooned’, a defence well practised among Adelaide property owners and investors, even though earlier council attempts to list these properties had given them almost 20 years’ forewarning. In 1993 a similar city council heritage-listing push saw 321 properties endorsed for listing, but abandoned immediately following a council election.

One man who was there (and 20 years later is back for more) was deputy Lord Mayor Mark Hamilton. Now an area councillor, he is well qualified to reflect on Adelaide’s traditional post-war tussle over its heritage assets.

“The public would be shocked to learn that there are probably 350 to 400 heritage buildings throughout the whole City of Adelaide which are not protected by heritage listing,” Hamilton told councillors and community groups. “This has a large part to do with the council’s approach, in recent years, of dealing with the issue of listing these buildings in camera and then requesting the state government planning minister of the day to interim-list the building. This ‘transfers’ some perceived political risk to the minister. This is an obviously flawed and failed strategy given that the planning minister is then not exposed to public scrutiny and public opinion regarding the listing of the buildings.

“Back in my previous career on council, council proceeded on the basis that the planning minister would not wish to take the political position of interim listing. The council therefore published proposed listings and conducted hearings and made a final recommendation to the minister. This, of course, involved the possibility that buildings, earmarked for protection, would be demolished. However, this resulted in the listing of some 2100 buildings (one way or the other) over a five-year period.

“I think that the council should abandon its approach – and proceed with a public process to enable the public to indicate to the government that it supports the retention of Adelaide’s heritage.”

The public perception created by the current procedure allows property owners to paint a picture (at great expense via their expert advisors) of a local government authority that only has eyes for locking up the city’s past. But there are many old city properties that aren’t protected and open to the development whims of owners.

The tussle between the big hotels and the wine bar aficionados is relatively recent in Adelaide, but has been all but resolved in other Australian states, in favour of a quiet glass of wine in a boutique corner of the city. The concept is linked to the Gehl-initiated bid to make Adelaide more accessible, especially after hours: tagged by the city council as “the evening culture”. That this struggle is only warming up in a state that prides itself for being at the centre of the Australian wine industry once again says a lot about the grip held on the city by the hotels lobby, which has, via parliament, made it difficult for wine bar applicants to get a licence. As the city council observed in June: ‘The South Australian liquor licensing legislation fails to accommodate the concept of small bars by creating a regulatory environment that discourages competition and inadvertently provides commercial competitors (existing major hotels and nightclubs) with the power to greatly influence the outcome of a licence application.’ Bids must wrestle with what is described as a “needs test”. The council reports: ‘Other states have replaced the needs test ... with a ‘public interest test’ and they have relaxed restrictions on restaurants serving liquor without a meal (as in Victoria). Western Australia and New South Wales have introduced a new category of licence for small bars.’ Queensland is following suit. The results can be best highlighted in that city of tourists, Sydney, with it approving 70 small bar licences since the small bar licence was created.

While Adelaideans wait for resolution on the wine bar idea, it might be very convenient for influential and well-resourced retail, developer and beer barn lobbyists to let the smoke get in the eyes of those who hold alternative visions for tomorrow’s city, thronged with cyclists and pedestrians and admiring the traces of its heritage streetscapes as they seek to sip a shiraz in some quiet side-street, somewhere.

[david]

In a quick response to rev's quick question....

The Council - through its DAP - supports the general thrust of the Minister's DPA including the increased heights and would work to whatever form the Minister's DPA for the Capital City finally takes, when it gets its planning assessment powers back.

With the majority of DAP members being independent I cannot see how the hoary old chestnut of 'minority self-interest groups' can have any legs as a valid argument against the Council having more say in the planning of the city. Those independents are in effect the voice of the wider community.

Incidentally, height, per se, is never really the problem except where tower blocks are built alongside 1 and 2 storey cottages. The real issues are the need for podiums and set-backs to better articulate building mass and to allow buildings to better relate to the streets and public spaces of which they form an integral part.

Sorry, not quite so quick after all!!!

David

[Ben]

NO NO NO NO aRE YOU KIDDING ME? SURELY THIS IS A JOKE?

Just when I thought the council were doing something positive by removing the tackiness of the coins in the concrete they go and return them! Speechless!

City Council unveils Rundle St's rich artwork plan

by:
Alice Higgins
From:
City Messenger

September 04, 2012

More than 1000 donated coins of all sizes, materials and nationalities will be laid into the northern and southern footpaths on Rundle St this month.

Artist Michelle Nikou, who laid 1000 coins in the northern footpath in 2006, has been commissioned by the City Council to install the coins in both footpaths from Pulteney St to East Tce.

"My grandfather had spontaneously put coins in the paving of the house he built," Nikou says.

"I thought long and hard about what I wanted to do (on Rundle St) and that memory came back to me.

"I wanted something on the street that weathered chewing gum and paper and walking on."

The council is spending more than $2 million upgrading the northern footpath which is due to be finished next month.

The public can donate coins, which will be installed at random using a core drill, to be used in the artwork.

Nikou says she received positive feedback when she laid coins into the old northern footpath and is looking forward to recreating the work on both sides of Rundle St.

"It managed to be appreciated across the board," Nikou says.

"I had people from interstate in the arts telling me how much they liked the piece.

"I enjoyed watching children because they would marvel at it and got excited.

"People from other countries also enjoyed finding the coins from their home."

The project, which will take about six weeks to complete, will begin at the end of the month.

The public can donate coins at the council's customer service centre in Pirie St.

[Wayno]

i kinda like the coins - am i the only one?