Re: More Development for Mt Barker
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:02 am
will be "they tuk ur jerbs":crawf wrote:Also can't wait to hear the locals reaction
Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5356
will be "they tuk ur jerbs":crawf wrote:Also can't wait to hear the locals reaction
best episode evermetro wrote:will be "they tuk ur jerbs":crawf wrote:Also can't wait to hear the locals reaction
“The rezoning accommodates a relatively modest pace of growth in population with an average
annual rate of about 400 homes expected to be built during the next 20 years depending on
demand,” Mr Snelling says.
http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/images/sto ... barker.pdfMr Snelling says the Government remains committed to protecting high-value agricultural land and,
as outlined in The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, some 375,000 hectares of the state’s most
productive land has been protected.
“The area of land around Mt Barker that has been rezoned isn’t part of the high-value agricultural
land identified in the 30-Year Plan,” he says.
Why is Mount Barker in the Regional forum, but Sellicks Hill is in the metropolitan forum?MOUNT Barker residents and council have failed in their last-ditch bid to stop 1300ha of rural land being carved up for housing.
At today's Environment Resources and Development Committee hearing members voted to accept the State Government's long-term growth plan for the area.
Despite the Liberal Party members and Green MLC Mark Parnell, who were on the committee, voting together to throw the Development Plan Amendment out, the Government had the numbers on their side and was able to defeat that motion.
Mayor Anne Ferguson said she was "very sad" the community had lost its fight.
"I just fell sorry for all the people who put hundreds of hours into this, their hear and soul and to just be dismissed," she said.
Representatives from the Department of Planning and Local Government gave evidence at the meeting, which responded to criticism the rezoning failed to address vital infrastructure requirements for the area.
DPLG deputy chief executive John Hanlon said there was a widespread misconception that a Development Plan Amendment was supposed to deal with infrastructure, when in fact it was not.
Despite this, he said the department was working with other government agencies and developers to ensure infrastructure needs were met.
Mr Hanlon said there was already an agreement with developers in regard to road infrastructure.
"I can understand the community saying 'but will they actually do this' but we have signed a heads of agreement," he said.
Enter Connor Holmes, who made four separate representations to the Minister on behalf of private developers including Platinum Property Group and Hickinbotham Group. The developers argues for the rezoning of farming land around Mount Barker, over which they held options, to be rezoned for subdivision.Mr Holloway said that once newly rezoned land in Mount Barker and surrounding townships was developed, 'Mount Barker would probably be getting close to its growth boundary. We certainly wouldn't be contemplating increasing that growth boundary without at least discussing it with the council and undertaking a significant review', he said. 'Obviously there is an optimum size to Mount Barker and, if it goes beyond that, it is going to put added pressure on major infrastructure like the freeway. To go beyond that is something we are not contemplating.'
And in making decisions, doesn't the government take note of the advice of Connor Holmes? If not, why waste money on them?Mr Moseley outlined that Connor Holmes has a dual role, one to advise state government with respect to its 30-year growth strategies and a separate role to represent commercial clients. Connor Holmes is conscious of its dual role as an adviser to government and noted that any decisions on growth are ultimately left to the government to make.
Thank goodness for that!Minister Holloway's office: Mr Stumpjumper, your concerns [about a conflict of interest in Connor Holmes advising for fees both developers and the Minister] are unfounded. I think you can rely on the integrity of the Minister and his staff to separate Connor Holmes' advice to their clients and their advice to the Minister.
Stumpjumper: So there is no such thing as a conflict of interest?
inister Holloway's office: Not in this instance, no.
.Mall, apartments in centre's future
http://thecouriernews.blogspot.com/2011 ... uture.html
A new community, culture and high-rise living hub could be built in the heart of Mt Barker as part of plans for the centre's future development.
A museum, cultural and entertainment precinct, Indigenous interpretive centre, apartment blocks, shops and a new Mt Barker Council civic centre have all been mooted for land near the town's railway station.
The draft proposal, drawn up by a consultant for the council after extensive community consultation, also recommends that part of Gawler Street become a pedestrian-only mall.
Under the plan, an arts and community hub is earmarked for the former council chambers on Mann Street, with high rise residential living off Dumas Street near the TAFE complex.
Excerpt from The Courier [Courier home].
INFRASTRUCTURE to support Mt Barker's radical expansion will be vastly more expensive than other districts.
The Department for Planning and Local Government has told The Advertiser hilly terrain at Mt Barker means the infrastructure cost per block will reach between $60,000 and $70,000.
It compares with $30,000 to $40,000 in other, flatter areas and follows evidence to a parliamentary committee last week that the land release will be one of the most expensive in state history.
The costing detail comes amid ongoing debate about the State Government's decision to target Mt Barker for growth and refusal to release developer submissions to the 30-year development plan.
A department spokesman said the cost difference was due largely to topography but maintained Mt Barker was selected and one of the regions "best suited" to expansion after a city-wide audit.
The audit also considered Murray Bridge and areas along the Southern Expressway for major growth.
Mt Barker's expansion will increase the town's population by about 20,000 people over 20 years and infrastructure development is expected to begin by late next year.
Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon in December announced a $550 million blueprint for spending which is expected to be shared with the local council and possibly the Federal Government.
Urban Development and Planning Minister John Rau's office yesterday directed questions about the per block taxpayer burden to a departmental spokesman.
The spokesman said the costs would be shared with developers.
"The cost difference at Mt Barker is due to the fact that a new sewer plant needs to be built to accommodate the increase in dwellings," he said.
"The building of a new interchange has also added to the costs. Mt Barker was already one of the fastest growing regional centres in the state.
"Its closeness to Adelaide and the popularity of its lifestyle made it an ideal location (for expansion)."
The expansion was approved by former planning minister Paul Holloway.
Mr Rau has since declared "urban sprawl must end" and "we cannot continue to build suburbs on top of our best agricultural land".