Sensational-Adelaide.com

I'm sick of this whinging, its just a bridge, it will help move crowds quickly to and from games, considering many people will be catching trains and trams it makes sense to have a direct route.

Isn't public consultation open until 20th march?

It's really started?? Good! They're actually getting on with it! Excellent link to the station, casino, riverbank - a great combination.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

About time. Well it was about time 20 years ago actually.

Better late than never.

If I had a dollar for everytime a news story got printed about trees getting cut down...

[Shuz] wrote:If I had a dollar for everytime a news story got printed about trees getting cut down...

I know, it's ,like we are the only place in the world with Trees.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for native trees...but sometimes progress gets in the way.

it isn't like they are grand old River Red Gums.

another story to get the anti-development mob to have a whinge about in the sadvertiser.

[Shuz] wrote:If I had a dollar for everytime a news story got printed about trees getting cut down...

So trees getting cut down for this development is okay but your against it for the upgrade of Rundle Mall? Seems a bit odd.

mattblack wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:If I had a dollar for everytime a news story got printed about trees getting cut down...

So trees getting cut down for this development is okay but your against it for the upgrade of Rundle Mall? Seems a bit odd.

Apples and oranges.

Oh the outrage. Bore off, Advertiser.

It's been in the Messenger and on AdelaideNow and the petition has 112 signatures. Not sure this one has legs.

[Shuz] wrote:

mattblack wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:If I had a dollar for everytime a news story got printed about trees getting cut down...

So trees getting cut down for this development is okay but your against it for the upgrade of Rundle Mall? Seems a bit odd.

Apples and oranges.

I'm with Shuz - fruit trees for Rundle Mall!

Now there's an interesting concept!

The trees (other than one big River Red Gum on the northern side) are renewable and don't matter.

The whole design is clearly described in the drawings in the 40Mb attachment to ACC's Development Assessment Panel agenda for its 18th February 2013 meeting at:

http://ncapps.adelaidecitycouncil.com/a ... hments.pdf

and the casino extension flythrough at:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6540002897

If we had the money, I'd be all for the footbridge. In fact I'd make it even bigger - 3/4 of a circle landing both at Elder Park and the Festival Centre Plaza. Who else has something like that?

As it is, I think we should save our money until we can afford it. We have other priorities for a lazy $40 million.

I have an answer for DaShyFreak.

Yes, the public consultation period finishes on March 20rth. Yes, work starts on March 6th, with compaction of the sites for the bridge supports. In this case, the public consultation is pointless.

The government began proceedings relying on the inclusion of 'bridge across the River Torrens' in the list of works that don't require development approval under Schedule 1A of the Regulations to the Development Act. Schedule 1A includes clotheslines, small carports etc. Now it meant that anyone at all could build a pedestrian bridge over the Torrens without any sort of approval from anyone. The government was called on this ploy by the Liberal member for Adelaide, who won a 'grievance motion' in the Legislative Council and got the legislation thrown out. Round 1 to the Libs.

A few days later, Labor invoked a clause in the Development Act:

"Where the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of the orderly and proper development of an area of the State that an amendment to a Development Plan should come into operation without delay, the Minister may, at the same time as, or at any time after, a DPA in relation to the amendment is released for public consultation under this Subdivision, and without the need for prior consultation with any council or other authority, by notice in the Gazette, declare that the amendment will come into operation on an interim basis on a day specified in the notice."

The amendment in this case disallowed any objection to the Minister's intention and the Minister's intention was to build a bridge. The immediate 'interim effect' means that both the Minister's intention and the suspension for the time being of the Development Act including the public's rights under it are effective immediately. There is no objection and no appeal. The Minister has total control of the work. So the public consultation is a waste of time, except as opinion which the Minister may ignore, provided he or she can substantiate

"that it (the work) is necessary in the interests of the orderly and proper development of an area of the State".

Game, set and match to the government.

It's a sweet bit of legislation, if you are the Minister.

I don't like the clause - I think it gives the Minister too much power. I have a couple of questions about the present design anyway:

1. Why does the footbridge budget include new office space, a new kitchen and a new dining area for the casino bistro? This was denied by ACC planner Don Donaldson at the last Adelaide Park Lands Authority meeting, and later by Cr Anne Moran, yet both the contractor's Referral and the drawings make it quite clear that the re will be additional office space for AFC, as well as a new kitchen and dining area.

2. Why is the casino barely mentioned in the documentation? Shouldn't we be up front about the commercial sense of linking sports crowds exiting the oval to the casino? After all, the casino expansion flythrough shows that even to reach the railway platforms, the crowds will have to walk past the casino's doors.

3. Is it true that the footbridge cost will come out of the Convention Centre's budget?