70% support for Plan 3,
with weighted rating of 2.6%
16% for Plan 1, weighted to
1.6%
12% for Plan 2, with 2.1%
weighting
? for 100% open space
If Plan 3 favoured, how does 40%
open space look like?
Well, it was the largest plan
depicted in The Advertiser (see LMC concepts). Oddly, exponents of re-zoning (Section
5.2) were expousing the preference for one large open green
space, yet chose the most disjointed of plans - Plan 3. As
acknowledged in the Community Consultation process, besides not
necessarily being representative of the community due to the
number of responses, many responses were also submitted on the
same day, and this also produces skewed results.
(6.2) "Analysis of the responses indicates
that preferences for the broad concept plans were
primarily influenced by opinions regarding the location
of the main park/s and to a lesser extent whether there
were one or two main parks."
Have a look at the
questionnaire for Stage 2, Question 3. Your preference was to
decide on one park or two. The bias was inherently contained
in the questionnaire.
All plans by the LMC do not
show any areas of the park that will be converted to car
parks to support such "regional assets" for the proposed open spaces
(6.3), let alone the location of major retail
sites, and its associated car parks.
6.3 "increased traffic congestion on
Woodville Road with more traffic entering/exiting the
site (via the former Sheridan site)". Surely, the Parade was not
ignored? The plans indicated many entry/exit points along
this Parade more importantly, and not Woodville at all,
including beside the Outer Harbor train track.
Those who are happy to
accept housing development naively wanted to ensure: "retention of vistas to
hills" (5.2).
Once the standard 2-storey development happens you will
have no further say. Development
companies aim for profit and will not give a stuff
whether you can still see the hills or not.
6.2 "... buffers along main roads
(although one respondent considered this use of open
space is biased towards new residents)". Of course it is, how else will
a new suburb attract the right investors?
Where is Viscount Plastics
in the plans? What buffer zones of valuable green space
are needed to protect the new suburb residents from the
noise? and from the smell?
As indicated to our Group,
our facts are wrong, and on several occasions. It should
be noted that Section 1.1 contains the following error:
"As they own the
Cheltenham Park Racecourse site, the SAJC does not need State
Government approval to sell the land. However, the land's
appeal to potential buyers is limited because the Special Use
zoning excludes many forms of development including
housing."
The error is fundamental.
Rezoning on this Special Use Zone must be presented by the
State Government to the Governor General by formal
application to revoke the proclamation of the Governor
General of the day who documented in the Town Act not only subdivision prohibition of
any kind, but proclaiming this land for the enjoyment of the
people. This omission repeats our call for a politically
independent group to oversee future decisions on land held
for the constituents of Adelaide. (See responses by the
Governor General as it will do what is decided by
the government of
the day.)
Possibly being nit-picking,
but Cheltenham is considered the best wet-weather track
in Australia, not just Adelaide (4.5).
Being nit-picky, "better financial management
by SAJC the site would not need to be sold." (4.5).
All 3 plans heavily divide
the Sheridan Actil site with no open space. Will this be
where the affordable housing is to be located? No mention
too where the new Pokies place will be,
nor the drive-thru bottlo.
All 3 plans have green
spaces non-contiguous. Surely greened roadsides or
streetsides are a given and not counted towards open
space allocations? There is no telling with these plans.
How can you show the public
plans that show residential areas (in green) and green
areas (in red) and ask them to decide whether the
concepts show "balanced
social, environmental and economic outcomes" (Have Your Say - Stage 2,
question 2)? They were not asked to provide social and
economic comment.
This extra
stage of community consultation already mirrored the
initial summary gathered by Jay Weatherill, MP, many
years ago (results). The results of the QED public
consultation remain privy to the Council so it cannot be
suggested that this was the same.
Despite the
low percentage of respondents (171 total), 63% is still
an overwhelming majority. Those who supported Rezoning
totalled 53 (= 37%). The statistics are in favour of an
overall poor concept plan. This is regardless of those
who wanted a design of 100% open space.
The entire
LMC plans 1, 2 & 3 are all concepts that Developers
will revel in.