News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Clr Yarwood]

I cannot recall re motor bike parking - fair call, will chase this up.

Re bridge - we are waiting on a commitment by State Government as it is an expensive job and they MUCH more $ than us.

[Maximus]

I cannot recall re motor bike parking - fair call, will chase this up.

Re bridge - we are waiting on a commitment by State Government as it is an expensive job and they MUCH more $ than us.

Many thanks, Councillor.

Does this mean the bridge is a definite go-er if the State Government commits funds?

[Clr Yarwood]

At this stage it has "indicative" support from ACC - So I assume so.

We would need to sign off on it and I know a c ouple of councillors have concerns but on balance we are a pro pedestrian council so I would assume it would get the tick.

[Ben]

Clr Yarwood, something the council needs to look into urgently is rubbish bins at the CBD Tram stops. Everytime I catch the tram there is litter all of the stop as there is nowhere for it to be disposed of in a close proximity.... just an idea

[Shuz]

Clr Yarwood, something the council needs to look into urgently is rubbish bins at the CBD Tram stops. Everytime I catch the tram there is litter all of the stop as there is nowhere for it to be disposed of in a close proximity.... just an idea

I was only looking into that the other day, reading through all the design briefs regarding the tram extension, and it was decided at the time that rubbish bins would not be provided as they would be a vandalism risk and safety risk.

[omada]

Shuz wrote: I was only looking into that the other day, reading through all the design briefs regarding the tram extension, and it was decided at the time that rubbish bins would not be provided as they would be a vandalism risk and safety risk.

So they prefer syringes on the ground rather than in a bin eh?

[Clr Yarwood]

Correct– we have asked this question and been advised that Transport oppose bins because they are a security risk re bombs being planted.

[Ben]

Correct– we have asked this question and been advised that Transport oppose bins because they are a security risk re bombs being planted.

I agree it is a risk but where does it stop? There are bins along roads like Grenfell st, King William and more importantly Rundle mall. I really don't see the risk being higher at a tram stop then say Rundle Mall, but i'm no expert. the only reason I brought it up is because, disembarking on the trams these days is like walking through Wingffield dump.

[cruel_world00]

Correct– we have asked this question and been advised that Transport oppose bins because they are a security risk re bombs being planted.

I agree it is a risk but where does it stop? There are bins along roads like Grenfell st, King William and more importantly Rundle mall. I really don't see the risk being higher at a tram stop then say Rundle Mall, but i'm no expert. the only reason I brought it up is because, disembarking on the trams these days is like walking through Wingffield dump.

If places like Paris can have those clear plastic bins in their train stations, I think places like Adelaide could manage too. The only difference I see is that we don't have armed forces patrolling our streets. Is this reason we can't have bins?

[crawf]

One thing that annoys me is that there is no bins in Adelaide station, only just poxy signs saying the nearest bins are on North Terrace.

Pretty handy if your running late for a train

[AtD]

Yet there's bins on the trains. Go figure!

[nimeton]

SA Govt limits Adel City Council powers
Posted 28 minutes ago
Updated 27 minutes ago

ABC News online


City council powers curbed (Mark Sibly)

Map: Adelaide 5000
The South Australian Government says it is restoring independence to building planning in Adelaide by limiting City Council powers.

From this week, any application for a building in the city area worth more than $10 million will be considered by an independent development assessment commission.

The State Government says the decision is in line with recommendations of a recent planning review.

SA Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon admits the City Council will not like the changes but says building companies need confidence that their applications are being judged independently.

Tags: local-government, states-and-territories, adelaide-5000

[Ben]

SA Govt limits Adel City Council powers

ABC News online

City council powers curbed (Mark Sibly)

The South Australian Government says it is restoring independence to building planning in Adelaide by limiting City Council powers.

From this week, any application for a building in the city area worth more than $10 million will be considered by an independent development assessment commission.

The State Government says the decision is in line with recommendations of a recent planning review.

SA Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon admits the City Council will not like the changes but says building companies need confidence that their applications are being judged independently.

WOW THAT'S HUGE!!!

[crawf]

*Prays for a building taller than Westpac*

Yet there's bins on the trains. Go figure!

Even still there should be bins in the train station...

[UrbanSG]

Wow! From adelaidenow.com.au:

RUSSEL EMMERSON
July 14, 2008 03:30pm
ADELAIDE City Council has been stripped of its planning powers for projects costing more than $10 million.

Large-scale commercial planning applications will be heard by the state-run Development Assessment Commission, which currently assesses projects of "state significance".

Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon said the decision aimed to remove the local politics from the development process.

"What happens in the city affects all South Australians, so it is important that decisions are made by an independent body and beyond the influence of local politics," he said.

But it will not help Aspen Group, the developers who motivated the change.

Adelaide City Council's Development Assessment Panel last week rejected Aspen's $180 million Tower 8 proposal for its City Central development.

The panel later said it rejected the development rather than allowing the developer to amend its proposal because it wanted to "send a strong message" that it was taking its heritage and planning powers seriously.