Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=891
How is this done? i seem to remember (in another thread far far away) there being a local company who removes contamination from soil (by the truckload).Pikey wrote:Next step will be the soil remediation
Essentially, that's it. I'm not quite sure what depth they have to go to, it depends what was there before (the areas near the service sheds would have to go deeper as opposed to a far off holding section)Wayno wrote:How is this done? i seem to remember (in another thread far far away) there being a local company who removes contamination from soil (by the truckload).Pikey wrote:Next step will be the soil remediation
AN ADELAIDE City Councillor has accused the State Government of acting as if it is "above the law".
Today it was revealed the February 21 demolition of rail sheds on the site, attended by Premier Mike Rann and sold as a "new chapter" in the state's history, was done without council permission. The State Government has confirmed it will seek retrospective approval for the destruction in its broader RAH application.
Veteran councillor Anne Moran, also a member of the council's Development Assessment Panel, today told AdelaideNow she would push for maximum penalties over the incident.
Ms Moran said the Government should willingly subject itself to penalties to avoid perceptions it was being given "special treatment".
"We should treat them just like any other bad developer," she said. "Justice should be seen to be done as well as done.
"When this planning law is so casually flouted, in full knowledge of the law, I think whatever penalties apply in this case should be applied. "It looks like they're saying: `The laws don't apply to me'.
Ms Moran said she would ensure the incident received special attention at the council's next planning meeting.
"We probably would have said yes, but that's not the point," she said. "Planning laws say you need to get permission."
State planning laws include significant penalties for construction or demolition without official approval and may lead to protracted court action and fines.
The sheds were removed as the final step in shifting Adelaide's rail operations from North Tce to Dry Creek and clearing the site for the RAH.
The Opposition has branded the bungle a major embarrassment which raises questions about the Government's ability to build the hospital on time and budget.
The dispute comes at a time of sensitive negotiations between the council and Government over developments including Adelaide Oval and Victoria Square.
An Adelaide City Council spokeswoman yesterday confirmed approval had not been granted before work commenced and said a retrospective application was expected to be lodged by the end of the week.
"Council was made aware that demolition work had begun on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital site and has been in consultation with the State Government to get the necessary development application lodged," she said.
Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon said it appeared correct process had not been followed but insisted the error could be corrected.
"I am told there is a view separate approval should have been sought for the old sheds themselves but in my view this a mere technicality," he said.
"The structures were of no heritage value and it would have been a mere formality for such approval to have been granted. They will be formally approved in the RAH process."
Plans for the $1.7 billion hospital have been endorsed by Adelaide City Council and will now be considered by the state's Development Assessment Commission, which has final approval.
Opposition planning spokesman David Ridgway said the unapproved destruction could be illegal and did not bode well for the future of the RAH project.
"It just shows how incompetent they are that they can't even get an approval to demolish some sheds," he said yesterday.
"It's meant to be the jewel in their crown and they can't even get the simple things right."
Agreed, but it does raise an interesting question: why should any owners of redundant industrial buildings which aren't heritage listed need council approval to demolish them?Wayno wrote:Fair enough, we can't have one rule for private enterprise, and another for govt.
Most of the site will be covered by a concrete slab so the contamination will essentially be capped so the amount of remediation needed might not be as much as people think, although will still significant.Pikey wrote:Essentially, that's it. I'm not quite sure what depth they have to go to, it depends what was there before (the areas near the service sheds would have to go deeper as opposed to a far off holding section)Wayno wrote:How is this done? i seem to remember (in another thread far far away) there being a local company who removes contamination from soil (by the truckload).Pikey wrote:Next step will be the soil remediation
Should be interesting to watch!