News & Discussion: The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

[Nathan]

Studies were done into the pollution/smell from the brewery for Bowden. From what I recall, the findings were that height had more of an effect on how noticable the smell is, rather than shear proximity. As long as any nearby apartments down wind are kept a reasonable amount lower than the stacks, then it shouldn't have a major effect.

I completely agree about keeping the larger employment there with the brewery, Coke and Wigg & Son. Thebarton & Mile End are already a mix of light industrial and residential. I used to live right in that area, and it wasn't a problem at all. There's no reason why medium to high density living can't mix in with the light industrial in the way the low density living already does.

[zippySA]

I lived not too far from the old Coopers Leabrook brewery - and that hops smell is now one of those favourite childhood memory types. We seem to all be getting way too sensitive on these sorts of matters. It wasn't too long ago that every suburban house had a concrete incinerator in the back yard, and come every Sunday afternoon, there was smoke billowing out of every second back yard.

Provided people are aware of what the local conditions are, it is up to the market to determine whether there is demand for residential here, the planning regime should simlpy enable the opportunity for those who wish to accept the risks and invest and get out of the way!

[claybro]

It wasn't too long ago that every suburban house had a concrete incinerator in the back yard, and come every Sunday afternoon, there was smoke billowing out of every second back yard.

This used to be my dads favourite times of the week. I reckon anything not nailed down got burned! Good thing times have changed in that regard, but I agree, we are becoming far too precious regarding our surroundings and some inner suburbs are at risk of becoming too sanitised and lacking the character of true mixed use.

[rubberman]

Provided people are aware of what the local conditions are, it is up to the market to determine whether there is demand for residential here, the planning regime should simlpy enable the opportunity for those who wish to accept the risks and invest and get out of the way!

Philosophically, I would like to agree with you.

However, the practical reality is that people will buy up land next to factories, airports and sewage treatment plants knowing about the noise and/or smell. They then demand that those facilities move or undertake expensive modifications. Once you get a few hundred houses with two or three voters per house near those facilities, the politicians buckle at the knees and either the taxpayer has to pay for funding noise insulation, or curtail operating hours, or the industry has to move at crippling cost to the economy. All this so that people who have bought cheap houses near industry can force those industries to shift and give them a nice little capital gain at taxpayers' cost.

Until we get home buyers who truly are prepared to accept the risks (strike one), or politicians who are prepared to resist unreasonable demands (strike two), or get a general populace who is prepared to tell these people to live with their decisions (strike three), then the only choice is either regulation (not good) or see industry move out even faster than it is and massive costs to taxpayers to cover the risks of the home buyers so they can make a nice little capital gain (worse).

I choose not to allow people to make unjustified capital gains like that at my expense, and if it requires regulation, so be it. I am not prepared to wait until politicians develop spines.

[Norman]

News on the revision that is due out soon. The plan is to move to 85% infill. Now that's ambitious, but we are on the right track with our targets!

Housing focus on inner city as Planning Minister John Rau aims to increase development within Adelaide footprint
State Political Editor Daniel Wills, The Advertiser

FUTURE Adelaide housing developments will increasingly focus on the inner city, as the State Government moves to crack down further on urban sprawl as part of a major planning review.

Planning Minister John Rau has told The Advertiser that he will increase the long-term target for development within Adelaide’s existing footprint from 70 per cent to 85 per cent.

Former premier Mike Rann in 2010 released the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, which laid out how the city would grow over three decades and where new housing would go.

The plan is required by law to be updated every five years. A draft update, which also factors in changes to the state’s population growth rate and industry transformation, will be released on Thursday.

Mr Rau said he had been surprised by the high demand for inner-city living in the past five years since the development of the Adelaide Oval and growth of small bars in the CBD.

He said more people living close to the city helped reduce infrastructure costs for all taxpayers, and the Government wanted to further limit the growth of urban sprawl.

The development policy change means subdivisions in existing city areas, such as former industrial sites in the western suburbs, will take preference over new developments on farming land.

Mr Rau said an even stronger focus on inner-city development would boost consumer choice.

“What we’ve been able to see over the last six years is that a number of underpinning assumptions (in the original plan), particularly those about the market’s preference for peripheral land, have changed significantly,” Mr Rau said.

“This is being demonstrated by a dramatic and quite unpredicted increase in the amount of infill which has occurred over the past six years.

“In effect, what we’ve done is reach the 30-year target for infill within six years.”

Mr Rau said there was a clear change in taste in consumer preference for inner-city living.

“It’s a combination of things,” he said. “But we want to keep the foot on the accelerator.

“Predominantly we’re talking about things like two-for-ones.

“We expect, with all of the rezonings that we’ve been doing, increasingly we’ll have things like Bowden or Glenside.

“What we want to offer to communities is yin and yang. One side of the equation is (protecting) the classic character areas. The other side is finding other areas close to the city, like (in Thebarton) where Coca-Cola is ... to enable eight-storey buildings. It’s the mix.”

Mr Rau said ample outer-suburban land had already been released for those who wanted it.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Daniel Gannon said major public developments in the CBD had driven new interest in living in the inner suburbs.

“What we need to be doing is leveraging off that development activity within the CBD around Adelaide Oval and the Riverbank,” he said. “This is welcomed by the state’s biggest industry.

“We are seeing a much bigger preference for inner-city living, and it seems to be a no-brainer.”

[Norman]

The draft plan is accessible here: https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/

[Llessur2002]

SA Government releases list of 11 rezone sites including Le Cornu on Anzac Highway



Specific sites are being targeted for denser housing developments around Adelaide, as the South Australian Government shelves plans for widespread re-zoning across inner-city suburban areas.

The move is part of the Government's 30-year plan for growing the greater Adelaide area.

The final plan released today also revised down population forecasts from 560,000 by 2040, to 545,000 by 2045.

In 2013, the Government controversially re-zoned major road corridors in inner metropolitan areas, to allow developments as high as six storeys.

It had planned on extending the zoning areas but today revealed a list of 11 individual sites, including the former Le Cornu site on Anzac Highway, it plans to re-zone instead.

The Planning Minister John Rau said there were already developers waiting in the wings.

"These are ready to go development opportunities now and we're keen to unlock them if we can get the process right," he said.

"They are all relatively large sites, they're not ordinary housing block-sized sites and they have a single owner.

"They represent an opportunity for development which is different from most landholdings close to the city."

He said the changes were not simply about height and would also include clauses to prevent any developments encroaching on neighbouring dwellings.

Consultation would be undertaken and the Government said it was hopeful the changes would be in place within months.

Mr Rau denied the Government was simply taking the path of least resistance, and said he was not convinced that pushing ahead with widespread re-zoning would lead to a surge in development.

"What we saw [in 2013] was some parts of those DPAs [development plan amendments] in a lot of change, for example Churchill Road, which sprung into activity," he said.

"But other parts have yet to actually take off."

Daniel Gannon from the Property Council said the proposed changes were at risk of picking "winners and losers".

"You might have a situation now where some developers, who are situated just next door, or across the road, are asking themselves why wasn't my property rezoned?" he said.

"What South Australia needs right now is demand, we don't have a supply problem in Adelaide, we have a demand challenge.

"Our population growth rate is trailing Victoria at a rate of almost four times.

"We can tinker with the supply levers, we can talk about re-zonings, but we have a major demand problem, we need more people to create jobs and grow our economy."



The final version of the 30-year plan stated the population of greater Adelaide was growing "but at a slower rate than anticipated in 2010", when the draft plan was released.

It puts that down to sluggish overseas immigration and the high rate of young people moving interstate to find work.

The revised projection of 545,000 people by 2045 would result in a total South Australian population of about 2 million people, requiring an estimated 248,000 additional houses.

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/u ... de/8568958

[rev]

Without turning the economy around, and creating new jobs, the population will not grow at any reasonable rate.
They can come up with rezoning plans and all they want.
No jobs = nothing.

[Goodsy]

Without turning the economy around, and creating new jobs, the population will not grow at any reasonable rate.
They can come up with rezoning plans and all they want.
No jobs = nothing.

It really wouldn't shock me at all if Jay is holding on to legalizing recreational marijuana and springing it on us just before the election

[mshagg]

Without turning the economy around, and creating new jobs, the population will not grow at any reasonable rate.
They can come up with rezoning plans and all they want.
No jobs = nothing.

People create jobs. Why we're not fighting for a bigger slice of the immigration pie is beyond my comprehension.

[rev]

Without turning the economy around, and creating new jobs, the population will not grow at any reasonable rate.
They can come up with rezoning plans and all they want.
No jobs = nothing.

It really wouldn't shock me at all if Jay is holding on to legalizing recreational marijuana and springing it on us just before the election

A marijuana industry alone won't save South Australia.

[rev]

Without turning the economy around, and creating new jobs, the population will not grow at any reasonable rate.
They can come up with rezoning plans and all they want.
No jobs = nothing.

People create jobs. Why we're not fighting for a bigger slice of the immigration pie is beyond my comprehension.

So you're saying government has no role in it?
Government runs the state. The state is unattractive at present to new industries, and existing corporations. Hence why none are setting up here unless it's for federal government defence contracts.

Government has a big role to play in creating a positive investment and pro business environment.

The immigration pie. Yeh let's fight for more so we can have African youth gangs running around terrorising suburbs like Melbourne.
But seriously, you want more people here? To do what? There's no jobs here.
Besides Adelaide isn't in the same category as Melbourne or Sydney etc, it's in the "regional" category.
And a lot of those who do come here(mostly Indians and such) end up leaving for Melbourne and Sydney as soon as they can.

We should be aiming to rebuild the economy first, and then people will come here without federal government immigration quotas.

[mshagg]

The immigration pie. Yeh let's fight for more so we can have African youth gangs running around terrorising suburbs like Melbourne.

Wow, classy bro. You know most people Aus takes in come from the UK, India and China right? Of course you do.

Rebuild the economy? With what population? I don't understand how you address the current malaise with supply-side stimulus. Give businesses more tax cuts? Let them off the hook for penalty rates? How does that increase economic activity?

[monotonehell]

Immigration! What have the Romans ever done for us?

The aqueduct.

Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

And the sanitation!

Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

And the roads...

(sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Irrigation...Medicine... Education... Health...

Yes... all right, fair enough...

And the wine...

Oh yes! True!

Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Public baths!

And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.(more general murmurs of agreement)

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Brought peace!

(very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!

[fishinajar]

...

Wow, classy bro...

Yeah, you can probably talk about any perceived problems with immigration without referring to any one culture/religion specifically.
An unnecessary generalisation.