Filed under: Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Planning, Politics, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Sprawl | Tags: 30 Year Plan, Delfin Lend Lease, Gawler, Gawler East, Para Woodlands, Planning, sustanability
It is important that the draft “commitment” deed for Gawler East has finally been released.
Although it is a working document it does provide a very good indication of the possible make up of the final deed.
What is very interesting is the lack of financial commitment by Delfin Lend Lease.
In fact Delfin is quite upfront about their primary objective: achieve commercially acceptable returns.
Reading the document it sounds that Government departments and the community become de-facto agents of Delfin to ensure they turn a profit.
Issues like undergrounding the power and water (which are vital for Delfin to ensure the housing density they need) are placed at the feet of the organisations that own them. It is proposed they are pay for the upfront cost. An ‘equitable portion’ will be recouped from, for example Delfin, in a manner to be agreed with Delfin after the site is developed. There is no commitment to pay all of the cost, just a proportion sometime in the future.
The connector road from the north to the south of the development is proposed to be funded by the State Government and the Gawler Council. It will be a local road and is therefore unlikely to provide any long-term solutions to general traffic congestion in the town
A very worrying point is the proposed location of a waste water treatment plant, water storage dams and power generation within the Para Woodlands Conservation Park. The Para Woodlands, with funds to manage it, was generously donated to the whole community for revegetation and as a sanctuary for animal life. This Park is an important element in the State’s program to halt species loss, ensuing the long-term survival of plants and animals.
Proposing to site infrastructure in Para Woodlands shows a total disregard for the value the community places on its conservation area over the need for profit.
The document shows how a situation can be skewed towards one entity at the expense of others. The document highlights the problems that are generated when projects are rushed. It looks more and more like Delfin has not done its home work before bidding for the site and now is trying to reduce its financial obligations to ensure its profitability.
Surely this process is not healthy for the developer or the community. If a structure plan had been completed originally, developers would be able to bid for land knowing full well the cost to develop the site.
We currently have a developer who at the beginning of the process was promising a lot of outcomes. They propose to back away from many of them and are relying on the community to fill the gaps in their plans.
The whole approval process should be halted until all the issues around the development are resolved. The State Government and Gawler and Barossa councils need to avoid a rushed process favoured by a powerful corporation that believes it can bring pressure to bear politically
Filed under: 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Barossa, Biodiversity, Concordia, Development, Environment, Gawler, Habitat, Paul Holloway, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Pacific, Urban Sprawl, ugb | Tags: Barossa Regional Land-Use Study, Concordia, Development, Environmental Impacts, farming land protection, rural land protection, SA Carbon Neutral Pretenders, Uban Pacific
Why would the government choose to house 15,000 people in Concordia when one of its own studies as far back as 1997 in this
Rural land assessment 1997 concluded that most of Concordia had ‘class 1′ ‘high productive potential’ ‘requiring only simple management practices to maintain productivity’. Here’s something that is sustainable without having to try!
Filed under: 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Barossa, Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Paul Holloway, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Sprawl | Tags: 30 Year Plan, 30 Year Plan Greater Adelaide, Gawler, Planning, Public Submissions, Transparency in Government and Development Decisions
Apparently the State Government is not planning to publish submissions on the 30 Year Plan. So in the interests of public debate and transparency blogawler has approached people who we know have made submissions.
Please find attached a copy of the submissions of Sue Coldbeck and A Shackley and the views of Graham Brookman.
We hope to add to the submissions as we collect them. Mark Parnell MLC has also made some observations about the population projections in the 30 year plan and conflicts of interest see http://markparnell.org.au/speech.php?speech=798
More submissions: Paul Koch for the Gawler Urban Growth Boundary Forum Committee.
Helen Wilmore for the Cheek Avenue Area Residents Group
The Gawler Environment and Heritage Association has also provided their submission.
Filed under: Development, Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability, The Bunyip | Tags: Community consultation, Delfin Lend Lease, Gawler East
The Gawler East development is in many people’s mind now only an exercise in spin over substance. At the start of the process the developer was more than happy to talk to community groups to ‘understand’ what the community wanted and to form a ’shared vision’ for the site. Over time this relationship has gone a little cold and now the developer seems only concerned about the approval process, not talking to the community.
A good example of this ‘converstion’ can be seen in a letter printed in the 16th of September edition of the Bunyip from Dr Helen Wimore.
Helen asked questions the community wants to know answers for but received few answers at all.
What has happened to the shared vision, or is the pursuit of profit the only thing in focus here.
More questions for Delfin
MADAM – Scott Fraser’s letter (The Bunyip, September 9) highlighted the secrecy surrounding Delfin’s commitment to provide external infrastructure to accommodate the proposed Gawler East development.
I have found a similar level of secrecy regarding what Delfin plans to do within the development site itself.
I spoke to Delfin’s Gawler East project director, Anthony Jansen, at the Delfin stand at the Gawler Show. I was hoping he could give me an indication as to what the company plans to do with the site, and perhaps allay my fears that the development is likely to be inappropriate and unsustainable for Gawler.
However, I found the same lack of information that Scott Fraser has written about.
Mr Jansen was unable to tell me even in general terms what lot sizes were planned for Gawler East, referring me only to “typical” lot sizes as used in other Delfin developments. He said there were no plans drawn up as to what Delfin might do with the site or where roads and houses might go.
In December last year, Delfin was reported to be considering four different layouts for the “village centre”, which included schools, a community oval, offices, restaurants and possibly a hotel (The Bunyip, December 10, 2008). None of these layouts were shown to the public or open to community consultation. Moreover, when I questioned Mr Jansen recently as to what Delfin now plans to put in this area, he was unable to give me any information whatsoever.
Mr Jansen couldn’t tell me what buffer Delfin planned to have between residential development and the neighbouring Para Woodlands. An adequate buffer would be important to protect houses against bushfire risk and also to protect the Para Woodlands, a unique area reserved for investigating revegetation with native plant species.
I particularly wanted to know where the proposed waste water treatment plant would be located. This plant would recycle water from the development and return it for use on gardens and in toilets. Mr Jansen said Delfin is still looking into the best location for the plant and that it could be within the development itself. Simple calculations show that the 1 hectare plant surrounded by a 300m setback, as per EPA minimum requirements, would occupy at least 40 hectares. As the Delfin-controlled land amounts to 219 hectares in total, I find it hard to imagine them setting aside such a massive chunk for a waste water treatment plant.
Mr Jansen also suggested the plant could be located at Bolivar. This hardly seems a sustainable option, requiring transportation of the water to Bolivar for treatment and then back again. There is also the issue of providing the infrastructure for this transportation, given that a significant portion of the Gawler sewerage scheme is already acting at or above capacity.
In addition, there could be a problem with continual use of salt-laden reclaimed water on gardens, which can detrimentally affect soil structure. As far as the public are aware, there has been no hydrology study of the area to assess its suitability for using reclaimed water in this way.
A lack of the necessary infrastructure within the development itself could prove very costly to Gawler’s residents as it puts further strain on the town’s existing infrastructure and our Council’s limited financial resources.
It seems incredible that this land is in the final process of being rezoned for urban development without such issues being resolved and there being no “master plan” for the area.
Dr Helen Wilmore, Gawler East
Filed under: Development, Gawler, Planning, Sustainability | Tags: Blandy Report, Delfin Lend Lease, Gawler East, Morrison Low report
The issue of who will pay for the different infrastructure needs of the Gawler East Development is a hotly contested issue. Delfin was very happy to promote the report produced by Professor Blandy that provided modelling that delivered Gawler a huge pot of money to fund all the infrastructure needs. Although the public has not been allowed to look at the report it was stated publicly that Gawler Council would reap over 100 million dollars from the development.
Call people sceptics, but Gawler Council then commissioned its own financial modelling of the development. Its report has come out with a completely different result. In fact it predicts Gawler could be over 55 million dollars in the red.
The council’s report, the Morrison Low report, is publicly available for people to read and come to their own conclusion. Delfin’s Blandy report has still not been released and will remain shrouded in mystery. It is difficult for the community to accept the findings in the Blandy report when it can not be viewed and tested by the public.
The community again calls on Deflin to release the Blandy Report, especially as there appears to be a 150 million dollar discrepancy between the two reports.
Click on the link below to read the Morrison Low report.
Filed under: Gawler, Planning, South Australia, Sustainability | Tags: Blandy Report, Community consultation, Delfin Lenad Lease, Economic sustainability, Gawler East
Media Release – Gawler Urban Growth Community Forum Committee
The Delfin Lend Lease’s proposal to develop a site in Gawler East has generated a large amount of concern. High on people’s concerns are the impacts on Gawler’s character, environment impacts, the increased pressure on the already over crowded roads and access and the provision of essential services such a health and education.
Central to a lot of the arguments are the issues of who would fund the upgrades and the timing of delivery.
At the DPAC hearing on the 30thof July Mr Stephen Holmes representing Delfin Lend Lease spoke about an economic study by Professor Blandy which provides modelling of the economic benefits of the development.
Committee spokes person Mr Paul Koch said.
“It was very interesting that Delfin choose this time to present the report. The report apparently concluded the Gawler Council would reap a huge economic benefit from the development that would be more than enough to fund infrastructure upgrades. That suggested bonanza had been rejected in Gawler Council’s presentation”
“When I asked for a copy of the report from Delfin, I received no response. The community is justifiably concerned that a report that was presented in a public forum and could have an enormous influence on recommendations to the Minister cannot be accessed.”
“We have had a lot of talk about openness and providing information to the community. But here is another example of the community not being allowed to be involved in the conversation, and the Big End of Town thinking it should be allowed to do all the talking”.
“We understand Gawler Council has also been preparing a response to the Blandy report. Both reports should be made available to the public as soon as possible” Mr Koch said.
“This is essential so the community can have an opportunity to look closely at the issue before the DPAC makes its recommendation to the Minister. It may in fact allay the community’s fear about the provision of infrastructure. Not releasing it only heightens these concerns”.
Filed under: Biodiversity, Development, Environment, Gawler, Habitat, South Australia, Sustainability | Tags: Bush fires, Delfin Lend Lease, Gawler East, Sustainable Development, Tourism
Public comments to DPA shed light on the many issues that have clouded the Gawler East Development from the start.
From the time the development was proposed in 2007 the community has endeavoured to highlight major issues and their consequences. Although there has been a lot of talk the issues have still not been resolved and the DPA has not provided the essential framework that would be needed to provide solutions. In many people’s eyes the DPA has only served to confirm their fears.
In particular, the process has brought into focus the initial question of the appropriateness of the site for this development and then its long term sustainability: financial, environmental and cultural.
Over 270 submissions were lodged with SA Planning, with the overwhelming majority against the development or having serious concerns about details in the DPA and the implications.
Listed below is a sample of the public submissions that were lodged. A short summary is provided to help you navigate through them.
All of the submissions can be viewed on the Planning SA web site.
The submissions.
The Town of Gawler.
This submission provides a detailed analysis of the DPA. In concludes that the DPA does not provide for sustainable urban development. It also highlights issues around essential services and infrastructure provision. It recommends that the area in the DPA should not be rezoned for urban development.
Gawler_East_DPA_-_Council_Submission
P11. W and A Marsden. This submission looks at the issues surrounding traffic management around existing roads in particular Cheek Avenue.
P13.G and J Miller. This submission looks at the need to plan and develop correctly so new developments can be a success.
P14. A Sadler. The need to put in an eastern bypass to cater for the new development is highlighted. There is also a call for any new development to not rely on existing roads to service it.
P20. A Brampton. Questions the appropriateness and sustainability of the proposal.
P27 M Williams and H Wilmore. Looks at the effects on local roads, in particular Cheek Avenue, also the sustainability and appropriateness of the development.
P27-GawlerEast-MWilliamsHWilmore
P41. I Hartwich Looks at the broad issues around the development. This includes traffic, effect on residents around Bentley Road, environmental issues, erosion of Town character and provision of essential services.
P56. G McDonald. The need for infrastructure around the development and the time table for delivering them are examined.
P63. Gawler River Pony Club, highlighting how a traditional community event would be excluded from the site and the need to include multi-use trail systems in the Gawler East Development Plan.
P63-GawlerEast-GawlerRiverPonyClub
P64. M Reid. Provides detailed information about biodiversity that will be at risk through development. Also an insight into the risk posed by floods and fires in the area. Issues around traffic management and the long term effect on the Town’s character is also discussed.
P66. J Batey Looks at issues around transport, in particular the lack of public transport, the current pressure on existing services, no signed Deed of Commitment and the lack of community consultation.
P67.P Smith Questions the motive behind high density, is it affordable housing or a mechanism to boost profits, the erosion of open space in particular Dead Man’s Pass, exiting traffic problems being compounded by the development and whether the development is sustainable.
P68a and b. R Kerr Looks closely at the issues of using Somerton Road as a solution to the South East by pass proposal. Raises compelling arguments against using this road and Bentley to deliver the solution.
P71. B Thom. A very detailed and through analysis of the DPA and its implications. It highlights many flaws in the DPA and emphasises the need to work with the community to achieve a positive outcome.
P83.M Taylor A detailed submission highlighting concerns around the physical amenity of the Town, in particular the loss of township character and scenic views that anchor the Town into the landscape, the effects of development on the South Para including its natural flows and preserving precious habitats. The threats posed from bush fires and the provision of health services is also discussed. This submission draws on many years of living in the Gawler community.
P87.N Dempster Highlights concerns around social and environmental impacts of the development. Also questions if this site is the most appropriate for such a large development.
P88. A Ahrens A submission by the Chamberlain Group, a very highly respected locally based company, involved in land development and civil works across the State. The submission reinforces the need to resolve issues around the provision of infrastructure before the approval of a DPA. This includes the infrastructure needed, who will fund the upgrades and the timing of the upgrades.
P90. A Newman. Not opposed to the development but concerned the DPA is too broad and does not compel the developer to provide critical infrastructure. There is a need for a Deed of Commitment and more openness in the planning process. These are two requirements that need to be resolved before the DPA can be progressed. There is also a question raised about the sustainability of the development.
P92 J Arnott. Looks at environmental issues, concerns about the management of water and traffic management. It also provides an important insight into issues surrounding the potential fire risk of the site and scenarios to fight any fires. Ultimately, the appropriateness of the site for this size development is questioned.
P94 J Bagshaw, R Trevethan and B Trevethan. A very detailed submission that highlights a range of issues that revolve around good planning, infrastructure needs, environmental impacts and the direct impact on the existing Town of Gawler. It highlights the need for a development to demonstrate that it is sustainable, and at a pace that is sympathetic to the existing character and amenity of Gawler.
P94-GawlerEast-JBagshawRBTrevethan
P112 R and R Martin. Questions if the new development is sustainable and calls on the developer to provide all the necessary infrastructure. There are also concerns about the adequate supply of services such as power.
P114 D Fraser. Highlights important issues around bush fire potential of the site, provision of infrastructure, the appropriateness of stated housing density, and important environmental issues.
P115. S Fraser. Looks at the estimated cost of upgrading existing infrastructure such as roads. It was highlighted that there is no current commitment in place for this to be funded. The size of the retail area was questioned and the effect it will have on existing retailers. The blending of the new development was also questioned in particular the high story, high density dwelling juxtaposed against single story dwellings at lower densities.
P127 D and F Kernich. A detailed dissection of the DPA document highlighting how sections do not comply or conform with existing State Government Policies, in particular the Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region.
P128 P and G Caunce. Looks at the many issues that make a development sustainable and questions if this development is ultimately unsustainable. .
P131. The National Trust of South Australia. An issue of great concern to Trust members. Issues surrounding provision of infrastructure, density of dwellings, effect on the character of the Town of Gawler and the apparent lack of meaningful community consultation about the proposal. They feel they echo the feeling of not only their members but of the wider community who have also expressed similar concerns.
P131-GawlerEast-DTucker National Trust
P134 M Vadoulis. Concerns about the connector road and the direct impact that would have on existing residents. The need for adequate fire protection for any new development and the provision of appropriate open space for children.
P135 The Barossa Council. A detailed account of issues that need to be addressed to achieve the previously promised economic, social and environmentally sustainable outcomes.
P135-GawlerEast-TheBarossaCouncil
P140 B and J Newman. Raises concerns about the sustainability of the development and the impact it will have on the township of Gawler. In particular highlights the lack of a commitment to, fund infrastructure and limit the adverse effects on Gawler.
P141 H Oermann. Focuses on the need to solve the existing traffic concerns in Gawler before adding more pressure to this already over burdened system.
P 142 Australian Trail Horse Riders Association (SA).
Reconfirms the cultural significance of horse riding in the Gawler area and calls for the inclusion of horse riding within the DPA.
P142-GawlerEast-CBeeson – Horse Riders Assoc
P143 G. Brookman , The Food Forest. This submission details the challenges SA faces to live more sustainably . In particular SA has the opportunity to implement developments that integrate state of the art solutions to issues around transport, water and nutrient capture and reuse, energy and food sufficiency and enhanced educational experiences. This can be achieved through master planning of a green field site. It is felt that this DPA falls very short of these objectives. This DPA should be rejected and a new, open and wide reaching DPA should be developed with a focus on true community involvement and engagement.
P143-GawlerEast-GBrookman – Food Forest
P145 G Short. Raises concerns around existing transport issues and the effect of an increased population. The accuracy of future employment predictions in the region, pressure on existing infrastructure and services and the ongoing viability of existing businesses. Biodiversity issues and the environmental effect of an increase in population were also highlighted.
P154. A Johnson. The main concerns raised were, the traffic, the Mixed Use Area and the environment. Traffic issues revolve around effects on the town of the increase in volumes, congestion and the lack of public transport. The Mixed Use Area has a high level of density and does not match in with existing Gawler East built form. With the environment, a need to identify any Aboriginal sites and provide protection, establish sufficient fire breaks, the effects of urban sprawl on increasing energy consumption and the overall reliance on motor vehicles this development will engender.
P155. N Percival. Looks at the availability of employment in the Northern Suburbs in the context of the GFC. Highlights the already struggling retail sector and the looks at the wisdom of increasing retail space. Considers the already difficult traffic conditions and the need to possibly site a development closer to the new NEXY development. Questions the Governments stance on greenhouse gas production and the developments reliance on motor vehicles. The issue of building over arable land is linked to global food shortages. Infrastructure and commitments to fund them is also brought up.
P157 P Koch. Looks at the many issues revolving around water on the site, including surface as well as ground water. The connection between ground water and permanent ponds in the South Para is made. Issues over the management of re-use water is also raised.
The effect on native vegetation, in particular when it is included as open space is investigated. The issue of small personal space being off set with public open space is considered and the resulting pressure this will put on native vegetation
P179. H Wilmore and S Garner. This is a comprehensive submission on behalf of the Cheek Avenue Residents group. It provides compelling arguments against the use of Cheek Avenue as a major ‘collector road.’ It includes copies of media releases, correspondence with various Ministers and a petition to the Minister requesting that the Cheek Avenue not be converted into a collector road. It highlights the genuine concerns and fears residents harbour about the development.
P179-GawlerEast-HWilmoreSGarner
P 180a and b. H Wilmore on behalf of the Urban Growth Community Forum Committee
Copies of all the press coverage around the development. It shows the broad community concerns that were voiced over a long period. The Petition demonstrates the level of concern within the community and the need to address serious flaws in the DPA process and in the final document.
P180a-GawlerEast-HWilmore – newspapers
P180b-GawlerEast-HWilmore – petition
P 190a. C Williams. Highlights issues around adequate community consultation, infrastructure needs, the effects of large popular increase on the Town of Gawler. Traffic issues are covered in detail including: the parlous state of existing traffic congestion, the safety concerns around increasing traffic loads, the historical layout of the town dictating traffic flows and the methodology of traffic data collection.
The threat to tourism in the area is also raised as well as the need to plan and develop sustainable futures which is not demonstrated in this DPA.
P191. S Humphrey. Provides a detailed list of concerns that are not adequately addressed in the DPA. These include issues around population projections, housing densities, the environment, traffic, public transport, stormwater management and waste water.
P234 W and L Isgor. Not opposed to the development but raise many serious concerns. In particular around the DPAs focus to ‘provide appropriate linkages with the established community without impacting on existing infrastructure’. In particular issues around time frames to deliver traffic solutions, impact of traffic on existing roads networks, the availability of water, power, capacity in sewer system etc. Also the need to finalise the Deed of Commitment to insure vital infrastructure.
P 250 K Fischer. Highlights the need to commit to and establish infrastructure at the beginning of the development as a must to avoid serious problems. There are concerns over water and the claim that the development would ‘blend seamlessly’ into the existing town. There are also reservations that the community may be held hostage to developers who may interpreter the detail laid out in the DPA to result in developments that the community feels are inappropriate.
P251 P Tow. Outlines the need to match growth around Gawler so it is sympathetic to the surrounding environment. Also that the planning process must include meaningful community consultation. Population densities should be matched to appropriate amounts of open space for recreation and distinct areas for conservation and revegetation.
P254 I and B Robbins. Reinforces the concern that the development would negatively impact on the character and image of Gawler. Issues of traffic were highlighted. The appropriateness of the actual site for development was raised with other possible locations put forward.
P255 and P 306. The Playford Council. Opposes the use of Somerton Road as the solution to South East by-pass of Gawler. It also reinforces the need to provide adequate services and infrastructure to support a new community in this area and to function effectively as part of the wider region.
P255-GawlerEast-CHannaford – City of Playford
P306-GawlerEast-CityofPlayford
P 256 M Linke. Highlights the issue of traffic management. The inability for the current system to cope with the existing flows let alone the increased flows a larger population would bring.
P257 D Kossatz. Focuses in on the existing traffic concerns in particular the natural barriers that are posed by the North and South Para which directs traffic through specific points. Raises the need to be involved in long term planning to create solutions.
P261 P Johnson. Brings in focus the contrary position between the State Government’s policy on townships as it is stated in Chapter 3 of the Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide. The development poses a direct threat to Gawler retaining its small scale nature and character.
Concerns are also raised around the town’s infrastructures ability to support this scale development on this location.
P278 I and R Tokin. A well laid out argument outlining concerns with the DPA. These include the threat to the Gawler’s unique built and natural environs, lack of consultation with the Gawler community, lack of appreciation of the South Para and importance of Dead Mans Pass. A shortfall in the health services with the community, no commitment to transport infrastructure for this development and possible future population growth. The inconsistencies between the DPA and the principles contained in ‘Planning the Adelaide We Want’, 30year plan was also put under the spot light.
P279. S Reid. Considers the new development would have a direct threat on the nature and atmosphere of the Gawler Township. It also considers that there are flaws in the DPA including new development not matching the existing housing densities, exasperating existing traffic problems and threatening native plant and animal populations.
P 280 C and L Sapio. A detailed submission that highlights many flaws in the DPA. These include the small allotment sizes and subsequent housing densities and problems accommodating rainwater tanks, bushfire storage tanks and problems associated with small front setbacks. Concerns over the Local Centre Policy Area and the proposed Structure Plan. The issue of traffic is also raised and existing congestion. Affordable housing and block size is considered, in particular the trade off of personal private space and the resulting consequences. The location of a waste water plant was also raised.
P282 T and J Davis. Highlights concerns regarding Gawler losing its character and becoming a dormitory and commuter suburb. Focuses on traffic issues in particular existing bottle necks. A connection is made between traffic congestion and being able to access different businesses in Gawler. There are also concern that development will only increase problems associated with larger vehicle numbers.
P 283 Gawler Business Development Board. Provides an argument against the proposed 10,000 square metres of retail space allowed in the development. They feel it will be detrimental to existing retail outlets. It is felt that there is existing capacity in the retail sector to cater for the population increase in Gawler East. They recommend a smaller area of retail space that would match the needs of the neighbourhood.
P283-GawlerEast-GawlerBusinessDevelopmentBd
P285 A Jamison. Raises important questions around the process involved in this development. The marginalisation of Local Government in regards to planning approval on the site was also discussed. The appropriateness of the actual site is questioned, in particular the steep slopes increasing building costs, the expense of pumping water and sewage across and around the site, the threat posed by bush fires and the loss of arable land. Transport issues are looked at with increased population only adding to existing problems and the proximity to public transport from the site.
P 287 Conservation Council of South Australia. The peak community environment organisation in South Australia. Is supportive of Transport Orientated Development (TOD) over urban sprawl which uses up viable framing land and makes development motor vehicle dependent. It is felt there is a lack of information around the environmental consequences of the development including water supply, bushfire risk and the impact on the natural ecosystem.
P287-GawlerEast-ConservationCouncilofSAInc
P288. Urban Growth Community Forum Committee. This is a group that has been advocating on behalf of the community for a number of years. Their submission raises concerns about meaningful community consultation and the regular dismissal by the Governments of its concerns.
It highlights commitments undertaken by the Minister regarding the development that have not been fulfilled. It also registers concerns about increased traffic, environmental damage, pressure on existing infrastructure, no deed of commitment, and the erosion of Gawler’s identify.
P288-GawlerEast-UrbanGrowthCommForumCttee
P 290 Mr Mark Parnell MLC. Is vocal critic of urban sprawl with the associated environmental, social and economical problems that can result. Highlights the need to embrace the issues around a carbon-constrained future and also the impact of Peak Oil. Urban sprawl away from public transport can ultimately create disadvantaged dormitory suburbs.
The lack of commitment in the DPA to public transport was also noted.
The issue of conflict of interest was raised where private planning consultants are working for both the Government and Developers for the same area of land. This question was asked of the Gawler East Development.
P 291. S Dunk. An encompassing submission looking at many of the issues already made. The submission mainly focuses on Gawler’s natural geography, in particular being sited at the convergence of two rivers. It is argued that these natural barriers have constrained and influenced development as well as the way daily activities are carried out.
It ultimately questions the suitability of the site for development as an increase in population would magnify the existing problems.
P293 Daycorp Pty Ltd. The developers of the recently opened Phoenix Plaza considers that the retail space quoted in the DPA is too large and a smaller area would be more appropriate for the development.
P 295 R and L Cockshell. A well laid out submission that looks closely at different critical issues in the DPA. A large focus is on traffic management and the way traffic currently flows and the problems increasing use will create.
The interface with the Hills Face Zone is also considered.
The phrasing of outcomes in the term “Desired Outcome” is considered with the implication on future policy changes that may be quite different to what is currently portrayed in the DPA.
P 298 C Pengelli. A detailed submission highlighting a range of detrimental effects on the town. It considers that the site is inappropriate for the development and the DPA paints a picture of an unsustainable development.
It argues for meaningfully consultation with the community to create a development that does truly fit with the exiting town.
P 299. Gawler Environment and Heritage Association. This group has almost 30 years of advocating on behalf of the Gawler Community on issues of planning, the environment and heritage.
The submission provides a very detailed argument against the adoption of the DPA.
It also calls on an investigation into Gawler’s ability to accommodate rapid population increases considering its long established character and its importance in South Australia’s history.
P299-GawlerEast-GawlerEnvironmentHeritageAssocInc
P 300 L and J Hansford. A very important submission from a long term resident who has witnessed and experienced the conditions in the area. Provides first-hand knowledge about traffic congestion, flooding of the rivers and potential bush fire risks. This intimate knowledge and insight of the area and the actual site can not be gained from ‘desk top audits’.
The concern about the loss of valuable farming land is also raised.
P 303 S Renshaw. A submission covering many of the issues around the development. In particular highlighting the lack of a Deed of Commitment and the effect on future provision of services and infrastructure. Public consultation was raised noting that the many valid concerns that were voiced by the public have not been answered in the DPA.
Ultimately it is considered that the site is not appropriate for this type and size of development.
P 326 A Shackley. Detailed arguments outlining the reasons not to approve the DPA. This revolves around the need for good modern planning that focuses on appropriate inner Adelaide renewal, creating vibrant centres , not urban sprawl with all of its associated problems.
The submission provides detailed information about the native plants and animals on the site and the threats they face through urban development.
P 328 P Whimpress. A very detailed submission that starts to tie down many of the elusive terms, such as “flexibility” and “ affordable housing” in the DPA. It looks at what these terms will result in, in real and practical terms.
Equally as important some of the supporting claims made in the DPA are challenged.
The need for a signed Deed of Commitment is also emphasised, concluding that the DPA should not be approved until this is finalised.
