U/C: [Cheltenham] St. Clair | $500m

[rhino]

St. Clair isn't just a made up suburb name, see http://www.casaleisure.com.au/?page_id=16

Ahh, the St Clair Recreation Centre - I used to go rollerskating there when I was a teenager - back in the days before in-line skates

[Xaragmata]

Can't be any doubt - it is a big improvement over the old race course. Question - now that Cheltenham is gone, what is the fate of racing at Victoria ParK? Is it gone so only Morphettville is left?

And Gawler racecourse, which is being rebuilt at the moment, new stands and track surface.

St. Clair isn't just a made up suburb name, see http://www.casaleisure.com.au/?page_id=16

I can remember when St Clair was being built in the early 1960s when we lived in Woodville Gardens - from memory, a storm blew part of
it down during or shortly after construction - the "Indusfair '68" was held on the oval behind - like a mini World Expo.

[skyliner]

Thanks for all the info guys - very green on all this - not aware of Gawler nor Morhphettville developments.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[ozisnowman]

Obviously this plan has been approved by the State Government and Council, which seems to make a mockery
out of the State Governments so called TOD's. If you look at the plan their is minimal high density living occuring
close to the railway line. Most of the limited high density seems to be placed on Torren's Road. This is a major
stuff up if you are trying to promote TOD's as a way of the future. St Clair as it stands has been gifted to the
developers to make the quickest buck possible, with little thought gone into transport, educational and environmental
consideration.

This development in current form definetly gets the thumbs down from me.

[Howie]

I think under the latest site diagram, the land adjacent the Woodville Station is zoned TOD with no further details. I assuming that this will be the high-density TOD area they're talking about.

[fabricator]

If you look at the plan their is minimal high density living occuring
close to the railway line. Most of the limited high density seems to be placed on Torren's Road.

We really should have a law against building dense residential right on busy main roads.

Stupid developers make no attempt to block the road noise (trees, gardens, courtyards) or at least locate the building in a side street and put the parking out the front. End result of building apartments on a main road is high density slum or dormitory building for the low paid (if you can sleep !).

[AtD]

If you look at the plan their is minimal high density living occuring
close to the railway line. Most of the limited high density seems to be placed on Torren's Road.

We really should have a law against building dense residential right on busy main roads.

Stupid developers make no attempt to block the road noise (trees, gardens, courtyards) or at least locate the building in a side street and put the parking out the front. End result of building apartments on a main road is high density slum or dormitory building for the low paid (if you can sleep !).

Have you never stayed in a hotel? The noise isn't that bad if the building is designed right. I've stayed in one that was right on the Western Distributor in Sydney and unless you had the windows open, you could hardly tell.

[Howie]

Exactly, double glazing + insulation on the street facing wall should fix that problem.

[fabricator]

I think under the latest site diagram, the land adjacent the Woodville Station is zoned TOD with no further details. I assuming that this will be the high-density TOD area they're talking about.

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/cont ... 710195.htm

What has not been mentioned so far is that section of land is currently parklands, and the Council are involved in a land swap with the developers. That section of the park which has most of the trees, gets bulldozed and turned into high density.

What annoys me is that if this has been planned for so long, why has no attempt been made to construct the replacement for this parkland ?

[AG]

Ministers admit land confusion
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
BRAD CROUCH
November 15, 2009 12:00am

SENIOR Cabinet ministers have admitted the State Government has failed to explain one of its biggest infrastructure projects and now faces a community backlash as a result.

Environment Minister Jay Weatherill and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson are both expected to face challenges from independent candidates at the March 2010 election - amid public anger over open space issues in Adelaide's western suburbs.

The plan to turn St Clair Reserve, Woodville, into a housing development while a new park is developed on a nearby former factory site is the latest community battleground.

Both MPs say the Government has failed to sell the message that the St Clair land swap is integral to the planned light rail extension from the city to Semaphore via Port Adelaide and West Lakes.

Mr Atkinson has had pamphlets printed explaining the wider transport plan and has been doorknocking his Croydon electorate to tell residents how the land swap is critical for a new transport-oriented development (TOD) at Woodville.

The high-density housing TOD hinges on fast, frequent tram services to the city.

"I knew we were in trouble when my wife told me she did not realise the tram would be coming up this way," Mr Atkinson said.

"We haven't sold our message and I don't think people understand how the land swap is critical to the TOD.

"If we can't get the TOD beside the light rail, it puts the whole concept in jeopardy.

"This is about location, location, location - the development has to be beside the transport hub. We are going to the next election with a visionary concept but we have to explain it better.

"The TOD at St Clair will see Woodville Rd thriving, property values rising and rejuvenating the area."

Mr Weatherill agreed the Government had failed to fully explain its $2 billion transport plan.

"We are being criticised for decisions that are going to be beneficial to the community - we have to get out and explain it better," he said.

"The land swap will result in a green corridor from Cheltenham to Woodville as well as a sustainable development next to the new tram corridor, which will revitalise the western suburbs. But clearly, we haven't got the message out. People are not linking the land swap with the tram plan."

The ministers' admissions come as informal talks are being held this weekend among groups opposed to the sell-off of St Clair Reserve, the former Cheltenham Park racecourse, parts of the Glenside Hospital grounds and the planned bulldozing of the Royal Adelaide Hospital - to see whether a loose coalition of interests can be formed.

St Clair Reserve Ratepayers Association spokeswoman Kirsten Alexander said: "We are having a call to arms of like-minded people sick of suddenly finding governments selling off their open space to developers.

"We have had offers of support from as far afield as Mt Gambier and Mannum - people are fed up with being ignored. We intend to run candidates in opposition to sitting government MPs and are speaking to other community groups to see if we can work together.

"It's time the State Government took notice of the people who put them in power - we've had enough and we're not taking any more."

Meanwhile, independent MPs say they are being bombarded for advice by potential new candidates.

State independents Kris Hanna, Bob Such and David Winderlich, along with Senator Nick Xenophon, all say they are receiving a steady stream of calls from credible people seeking counsel about standing for State Parliament.

"There is a bit of a buzz in the air about independents at the moment - people are sick of Labor's arrogance but they don't think the Liberals are ready to govern," Mr Hanna said.

Former Labor Party state deputy leader Ralph Clarke and former federal MP Rod Sawford both also believe the State Government is vulnerable to multiple challenges in its western Adelaide heartland, despite hefty margins held by MPs such as Mr Weatherill, Mr Atkinson, Kevin Foley and Michael Wright.

Mr Clarke, now an Adelaide City councillor, predicted a "long, hot summer" would add to public disillusionment.

"The Government is seen as competent but also arrogant, and some of its actions back up that perception," he said. "If the heat continues through the new year and people are annoyed about things like the St Clair land swap, the Cheltenham sale, Newport Quays and the fact the public is not being listened to, it becomes a volatile cocktail that a credible independent could tap into.

"Many people in the western suburbs remember Labor was elected on a slogan of 'Labor Listens' - but they have seen little evidence of that," said Mr Sawford.

Both ruled out running as independents. Former Democrat MLC - now independent - David Winderlich said: "There is a lot of ferment out there but to be successful, an independent would need a lot of things to go right, including considerable resources.

"However, there is huge potential, given the level of public anger over the Cheltenham Park and St Clair Reserve sell-offs - people feel the Government is arrogant and remote."

Four new political parties have registered with the Electoral Commission SA in recent months, with a view to running candidates in the March election - the Save the RAH Party, Democratic Labor Party, FREE Australia Party and Dignity for Disability.

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Boos for St Clair land swap approval



HUNDREDS of protesters have booed a decision by Charles Sturt Council tonight to go ahead with its controversial St Clair land swap deal.

Locals opposed to the proposal to turn St Clair Reserve, Woodville, into a housing development and create a park on a former factory site rallied outside the council chambers.

The council rejected a motion to retract the application to Local Government Minister Gail Gago and passed a motion to go ahead with the land swap by revoking the community land classification for the St Clair Reserve land.

Save St Clair spokeswoman Kirsten Alexander said she was "sick to the stomach".

"This is supposed to be a democracy, clearly this is not a democracy," she said.

"They are not fit to be called a council and they have sealed their fate because this whole St Clair thing will be an election issue."

Police monitored the protesters, who packed the public gallery and the council's foyer.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted opponents of the land swap leave to appeal against the State Government's approval of the plan.

Justice David Bleby told Ms Alexander that Ms Gago, who approved the land swap, had a case to answer.

Ms Alexander said the decision was vindicated, but regretted it had come to this.

"We're very happy," she said. "It means all the hours we've put into this cause have been worthwhile.

"But it's disgraceful we've been forced into this position."



Last Thursday Ms Gago approved the council's planning and consultation process in preparation for the swap, saying it was up to the council to decide if it would go ahead with the plan.



Independent MLC David Winderlich said Ms Gago had "jumped the gun" with her approval before the recision motion had been dealt with.

"The whole St Clair process is a mess. The council has asked for approval from the minister even though they are voting on a motion to call off the whole land swap," he said. "This decision involves a Labor-controlled council asking for approval for a Labor priority project from a Labor Minister for Local Government."

Councillor Robert Grant admitted his recision motion had been unlikely to pass but he had put it on the agenda "on principle".

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

[stumpjumper]

I'm not questioning the planning here, but the transparency of the process, and the transformation of some ALP figures who regard the lack of transparency as normal, even essential.

In September, all was set for the residential development of the Actil site by AV Jennings.

Then something happened. We were told that because a TOD was now proposed, it would have to be on the 4.7ha 'St Clair Park' site, rather than a literal 'walk through the park' away at 4.7ha Actil site.

The Charles Sturt Council and the Government are insisting on this reconfiguration despite very significant community opposition. Why?

At accepted transport user rates in TODs of about 15%, the TOD density of about 30 people per hectare rather than the usual suburban density of about 8 people per hectare, the 'yield' of bums on transport seats will be about 25 commuters instead of about 7.

All this fuss just for that? What other reasons could there be for wanting to redevelop the St Clair Park site, and who would be driving it.

Consider this scenario: Jennings is a significant donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business. Jennings discover that the cost of remediating the Actil site is unacceptably high, and appeals to the government for help. The government conceives the land swap which also has the benefit of allowing several minutes' quicker access by car (!) to the city via the new Glynis Nunn Drive through the old St Clair Park connecting the whole Cheltenham redevelopment to Woodville Road (regardless of the delays inherent in the new road junction near the rail crossing). This quicker access will add several thousand dollars to the value of every allotment in the whole development.

All of this is smokescreened by the supposedly unimpeachable aim of building 'a TOD' on the St Clair Park site.

The Charles Sturt Council, affectionately known by Attorney General Atkinson as 'my Council' and stacked with ALP sub-branch members, government staffers and other ALP associates, waves the changes through despite credible surveys showing over 80% opposition from residents.

Even the government's Development Assessment Commission, whose deputy presiding member is a senior employee of Charles Sturt Council, is not concerned.

Thus my concern - control by developers through a compromised state and local government of development.

I refuse to believe that the unfettered operation of the development industry delivers the best outcomes for the community.

If it does, then we should stop wasting money on the state and local government planning apparatus, rescind all the planning legislation and hand over control of the future shape of our city to unknown people in boardrooms in Sydney, Melbourne and overseas.

I think Labor at all levels has fallen under the spell of property development as the only game in town.

An addiction to property development is a long way from the traditional ALP devotion to the cause of social justice.

[bmw boy]

Is there any link with the TOD site being proposed on the park rather than the Actil site, due to the rail Grange rail spur diverting before reaching Actil?

[Prince George]

Stumpjumper, you fail to make it clear in your post whether or not your suggestion that the land-swap plan was at the behest of the developers was hypothetical. There's no doubt that Adelaide struggles to chart a course between the Scylla of unfettered development and the Charybdis of the perpetual time-capsule change-nothing-anywhere mindset, and muddying the waters with speculation doesn't help matters.

On the subject of the whole Cheltenham development, it has always struck me as being in a location that is "so near, and yet so far". The train lines run so close to it, yet neither of the stations is well situated for servicing that area: Woodville being a little far away, Cheltenham being on the wrong side of a busy road. Whatever the real causes of the decision to build a TOD on the oval, I think that the siting is a valid concern for the viability.

By coincidence, recently there has been much talk from our neighbouring city of Bellevue of where the light-rail connecting it to Seattle will be routed. Powerful developer / resident quangos are trying to push the downtown station to be by the freeway, about a kilometre out of the central area. Numerous members of the sustainable development community are upset at this idea pointing to two important considerations.

First, building by the freeway effectively halves the area around the station that can be developed, and second the ridership for transit drops precipitously as the distance from the station increases. The following graph comes from this paper on that relationship for work-sites, but we can expect the same relationship is true for houses or for shopping


At its original site, the St Clair development would struggle to attract a significant portion of its residents to transit, especially since the design parameters for it made it seem rather like a typical suburban subdivision. And like the freeway in this example, the oval and park could turn into a grassy moat preventing the area from reaching critical mass.

So I'm in a "love the sinner, loathe the sin" position (albeit perhaps the other way around). I'm in favour of the notion of this change to the siting, even though the mechanisms that made it happen appear to be reprehensible.

[AG]

Government backflip on St Clair land swap at Woodville
Article from: The Advertiser
LAUREN NOVAK, POLITICAL REPORTER
December 01, 2009 03:45pm

LOCAL Government Minister Gail Gago will comply with a Supreme Court order to "set aside" her approval of Charles Sturt Council's application over the St Clair land swap.

In Parliament this afternoon Ms Gago announced she would delegate her authority over the issue to Southern Suburbs Minister John Hill who would look at the land swap proposal "afresh".

On November 19, Ms Gago approved the council's planning and consultation process for a plan to turn St Clair Reserve, Woodville, into a housing development and create a new park on a former factory site.

At a meeting on November 23 the council voted to go ahead with the plan but earlier that day the Supreme Court granted opponents of the plan leave to appeal Ms Gago approval.

Justice David Bleby told residents respresentative Kirsten Alexander that Ms Gago had a case to answer.

Yesterday Ms Gago told Parliament the government "does not believe that it is in the public interest to be involved in a lengthy and costly litigation with residents".

Mr Hill will now hand down a new decision on whether the council followed proper consultation processes for the proposal.

If he gives the all-clear the council will need to hold another vote to go ahead with the swap.