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.

Have Minister Atkinson and Minister Weatherill now taken to pleading their case by admitting that the government has made mistakes?

Not a bad ploy really; if all else fails go for the old sympathy vote. Works every time, particularly if you have the moral high ground. How do you think you’re going in this respect fellows?

It's About

It’s hard to build much of a hill of morals when the government is taking a children’s park away and giving them less play space on suspect land with no significant trees.

By the way, we haven’t heard much from the man at the top over the issue. You know who we mean; the one who is always saying “It’s about this” and “It’s about that”.

Anyway, if the government (and the Council?) is in the business of admitting to mistakes we can readily give them a hand. Here goes a few:

It’s about not saying up front that you had to have St Clair for your TOD and your light rail (which is simply not true when the Actil site is located only 500m away).

It’s about subjecting the Woodville community to a farcical consultation process using the ALP Charles Sturt puppet show, with no intention of listening to the community.

It’s about putting the land swap in the Charles Sturt CEO’s performance agreement, and then leaving him in charge of the consultation process.

It’s about legislating a cute deal for developers in which changing the status of community owned land only requires consultation within a pitiful 500 metre radius (and then not listening to the residents anyway).

It’s about consulting in an area that has virtually no ratepayers (over a third of the land within 500 metres is encompassed by the former Cheltenham Racecourse, Woodville High School, the uninhabited Actil site and the Charles Sturt Council complex itself).

It’s about offering soccer clubs/associations brand new facilities then “consulting” them and claiming their numbers as part of the Council’s supposed “widespread support”.

It’s about forcing the hand of the Woodville High School Governing Council by threatening to re-open Brocas Avenue (which may yet happen). Is student safety the only reason that they have agreed to support the land swap and therefore not exercise the power of veto they hold over the land?

It’s about including the 1100 students of Woodville High School as supporters in your “widespread support” group without asking them what they think.

It’s about making promises about road closures that you possibly can’t keep (Woodville High please note).

It’s about the developer refusing to build houses on the contaminated Actil land, regardless of how well it is rejuvenated. Is this due to the possible risk of litigation in 30 years time from people who might become ill?

It’s about playing Russian Roulette with our children’s lives, and their children’s lives, by having them play on former industrial land instead of heeding the very sound judgement of the developer.

It’s about the supposed hectare for hectare swap of pristine land for a contaminated industrial site (Actil).

It’s about the Council not benefiting financially while giving away Woodville’s crown jewels to developers.

It’s about not disclosing who does benefit from the millions of extra dollars which emanate from selling prestigious St Clair Reserve blocks compared to blocks on the Actil site.

It’s about consistently and doggedly arguing that there is no other alternative for the TOD other than St Clair Reserve, despite the fact that there are clearly a number of other possibilities (check your own research guys).

It’s about ignoring the carpark site already owned by Council, located directly across the railway line from St Clair AT THE WOODVILLE RAILWAY STATION for the non-ambulant denizens of the TOD, who the government clearly thinks cannot walk further than 20 metres.

It’s about refusing to consider TOD locations further along the railway line to the west (for example the Actil site).

It’s about conveniently ignoring the advice of the experts that you are so fond of quoting about introducing TODs —at all costs avoid disadvantaging and alienating the folk who already live there by taking away their parks.

It’s about the refusal to have major traffic impact studies of the whole area conducted (fearing what you might be told?)

There you go; that’s a good start to the list of mistakes that the government and the Council could admit to making. Should be heaps of votes in that lot!

Where to from here Mr Rann? An investigation could be announced because some irregularities in the consultation process have suddenly been discovered? Perhaps that could last until after the elections in March?

Perhaps try making another heap of “It’s about” statements about an entirely unrelated area to try to take the heat off? Why not try threatening to sue a few of the people who voted you into power, but are disenchanted now?

Better get a move on with whatever you’ve decided to do. Woodville unrest has rapidly escalated from Save St Clair and now it has spread to all of Charles Sturt and beyond. We’re getting calls from groups and citizens all over the state who are disaffected by the government’s arrogance and failure to listen (remember your slogan at the last elections—‘Labor Listens’).

Maybe the simplest way out would be to back off St Clair Reserve altogether. Now that has a certain appeal about it…….Where did I leave that white horse tied up?

Dear Woodville High School students and parents; the Charles Sturt Council are counting the 1100 students of the school amongst the supporters of the land swap at St Clair, without actually asking you what you think of it.

If you are not in support of it, I urge you to make this known to the Council and to the WHS Governing Council as soon as possible, before it is too late and we lose this beautiful park forever. Council contacts can be found on this website.

The Council will vote on this again on Monday 23rd November; please join the rally at 6.30pm opposite the Town Hall to show your support. Also, join the forum and have your views on the land swap heard, and vote in our website poll on the issue (click here to see & vote in the poll – you must register with the forum & log in to vote).

The Woodville High School does have a say over what happens at St Clair, and the Council cannot proceed with this land swap without the school’s support. We gather that the school has basically been forced into the position of supporting the land swap as their request for a footbridge over Brocas Avenue to allow students to safely access the gym was refused on the grounds that it was too expensive. Apparently the school was laughed at when the idea was raised, but construction of a road straight through the centre of St Clair park was not considered to be too expensive!!

The loss of St Clair park would force students who catch the train to walk along Woodville Rd to reach it; who wants to walk along side a busy road when they could walk through a lovely green park with shady trees? Not me!

Please help us to get this ridiculous proposal stopped; we love our park and want it to stay right where it is!!