City of Charles Sturt Ratepayers & Residents

I attended the above workshop arranged by Council at the West Torrens Football Clubrooms on Wednesday 21st April 2010.  There were around 80 people in attendance, with each of the 9 tables of around 8 people having 2 Council staff, plus a number of other Council staff & members, including the Mayor Harold Anderson and the CEO.  The workshop was led by a Gilbert Rochecouste, employed by the to guide us in, I believe, accepting Council’s unmovable point of view.

The workshop commenced with  Mr Rochecouste providing a summary of what was proposed.  His view was that the precinct would be revitalised (with an additional 2,000 new residents & 4 new roads into Woodville Road – which he omitted to mention), by new shops, restaurants, cafes and markets as well as “Indian Traders” (what the?), & multi-story high density housing.  Mr Rochecouste claimed that such developments worked internationally and were warranted in the St Clair development to draw people to the Woodville Road precinct, with a particular target being those on the south side of Port Road (e.g. the QEH district) who currently had difficulty utilising the area.

The workshop progressed with a number of by-table discussions, wherein thoughts were gathered on participants’ vision for the area, and then compiled into lists by council staff.

Some of the key issues raised were:

• The development would totally change the heritage character of the Woodville area, something that was not favored.
• The increase in traffic into Woodville Road from new roads in the development, noting that all who lived there would not necessarily utilise the train station for transport to and from work, given that the rail network access to major employment centres other than the CBD was limited.  Each participant was asked to prepare post-it notes with the 3 major opportunities and  3 major negatives.  By a significant majority, traffic increase was the major concern, with the post-it notes covering over 40% of the window space allocated to stick them.  In summarising the 11 major issues identified however, Council staff produced a point sheet which just simply omitted to include that major issue, that is until I approached staff to rectify that anomaly.  If council does not even take record or notice of the most prominent of concerns, what hope do we have in being listened to and our concerns and opinions being taken notice of and acted upon by this Council?
• The lack of parking facilities.  One Council staff-member suggested the potential for underground parking, however that was quickly ridiculed by those at my table based upon the high ground-water table, which would ensure flooding of any underground parking development with some certainty.  Interestingly, I noted a conversation between one council staffer and a participant wherein the participant suggested Woodville would soon be beachfront.  The council staffer suggested his view that existing coastal suburbs were indeed at risk. If this is the case, what are Council doing about it?
• The security risks to children playing on St Clair Reserve (or what’s left of it), noting that the new high story TOD will overlook  playing and playground areas and form a barrier that Woodville High students must pass through on the way to the train station.  The sort of people that will live in this type of development must be considered in my view. As the high density housing will not have yards for pets or children, the likelihood of a typical family-oriented development is nil.  We must question just what type of people Council are targeting to attract to this area, given they most certainly won’t be families.
• Alarmingly, there was a suggestion by one group that a major shopping centre should be incorporated in the development (where will the space for that come from and how could it compete with West Lakes and Arndale?) and that Woodvile Road should be closed for markets. There was reasonable support for a market atmosphere generally, with stalls and the like.  It was also noted there were no hotels or drinking places in the area, and some support was heard for such facilities.
• Our group strongly supported a full and extensive and fully transparent engineering, roads and planning study, noting the high risk of flood in the area, particularly given that Cheltenham Racecourse, which should be a wetland in its entirety.
• Support was voiced for a significant “buffer zone” between the TOD and Woodville Road, primarily for the safety of children walking from school to the train station.  A council staffer suggested a corridor with a width of a mere 2 metres, grossly inadequate.
• Strong support was voiced for a low density development, which by council’s definition is still comprised of buildings up to 3 stories in height, which is by no means low density. Also that buildings maintain the heritage character of the Woodville area, rather than a Mawson Lakes type development or the dog boxes that no-one wants at the Quays in Port Adelaide.
• There was a call for the plaques council had removed from St Clair Reserve being returned and that significant trees be retained, noting that many had already apparently been poisoned.
• Strong support was maintained for retention of the St Clair Reserve as is, given that Charles Sturt had one of the lowest ratios of open space of any Council in Australia.

During the proceedings, a council staffer started filming participants, until I voiced my objection, as did the participant sitting next to me.  I requested that the video be deleted, however have no assurance this occurred.  For council to video us without authority is a serious breach of privacy in my view.  Our Mayor and CEO did not participate in discussions, but stood or sat at the rear of the room along with what I can only call were a number of “heavies”.  Other council staff and Mr Rochecouste milled around tables listening in on discussions and offering less than helpful opinions.

In summary, this was yet another attempt by a council that will not listen to the opinions of residents and ratepayers, to whitewash the real issues and to justify the corruption of the heritage of Woodville in favor of new residents, who won’t be families, who have never paid a cent in rates.

The heritage character of the suburb is in serious risk, as is the safety of children near such a development, and the resultant effect on traffic in Woodville Road will simply be horrendous.  Its all about a pack-em and stack-em development on a park that was given to the people, but stolen by the council. They are merely engineering a future slum in my opinion.

Why can’t council address the area the other side of Torrens Road and the housing opposite Arndale Shopping Centre which is ripe for development and refurbishment? The area is also in dire need of much more green space, something the City of Charles Sturt is determined to take from us all. Let council develop a Village there, instead of stealing our pristine park (which was never theirs to take) while giving us much less valuable contaminated land in return.

This proposal is all about stealing from existing ratepayers and residents and making money to their detriment.

Mark Walker

Note: Council will hold 3 more events as part of this review process:

1. Monday 17th May 2010 7.00 to 9.00pm at the Civic Centre
2. Wednesday 19th May 2010 7.00 to 9.00pm at the above venue
3. Saturday 22nd May 2010 2.00 to 5.00pm at Council (Open Day)

Phone 1300 116 747 to register attendance – all are encouraged to come along and voice their opinion and to fight for our heritage and open space.