Adelaide Park Lands Association

View Original

Exposed: "smaller footprint" BS

Shane Sody

by Shane Sody

The Lord Mayor, Jane Lomax-Smith is one of many who’ve been deceived by State Government propaganda, claiming that a $135 million new Aquatic and commercial centre would have a reduced “footprint” over your Open Green Public Adelaide Park Lands.

City Councillors will vote soon (likely in late September) on whether or not to grant the State Government a 42-year lease and a construction licence over three hectares of your Open Green Public Park Lands.

Like the Lord Mayor, few of the eleven City Councillors would be aware that claims of a “reduced footprint” for a new Aquatic centre are bogus.

Destined for destruction, based on false claims of a “reduced footprint”. These decades-old sugar gum trees are among dozens of trees in Denise Norton Park / Pardipardinyilla (Park 2) set to be destroyed. Photos: Jason Lye. (Yes, the koala was in this Park!)

The Lord Mayor has written to many of her constituents defending the proposed development:

“Through discussions with the State Government, this Council has been able to achieve several improved outcomes for the Park Lands and residents, most notably a reduction in the overall footprint and improved siting of the facility. Council remains committed to achieving further reductions in the size of all hardstand areas surrounding the new facility and has also sought commitments from the State Government to minimise any tree loss and an overall net increase in tree canopy within Park 2. “

Adelaide Lord Mayor, Jane Lomax Smith

However analysis of Government plans has revealed that a promise of a reduced “footprint” is a mirage. In fact, the proposed development would have a significantly larger area of paved, fenced, and built form, than the current 2.9 hectares of the current Aquatic Centre. Its total floor area would be almost double the existing centre and its sheer double-storey bulk would dominate the northern Park Lands even more than the current centre.

How much bigger would it be?

As analyst John Bridgland points out: “The best way to confuse anyone is to compare apples with oranges, but not point out the distinction.” Nevertheless, examining the 700-page development application for the new centre makes it very clear that what the Lord Mayor describes as “the overall footprint” (increased car parking, increased paving, increased fenced area, and increased roadway in the Park) would be significantly larger.

At a minimum, based on the Government’s own documents, the “footprint” would be at least 1,600 square metres larger than the existing footprint, and that figure does not even include the expanded car parking area.

The total floor area of the new building would be almost double that of the current building. (Existing 3,802 square metres: Proposed 7,439 square metres.)

In recent months, State Government and City Council bureaucrats have collaborated to push through a mountain of technical and legal documents:

  • A Planning Code amendment (to re-zone this large slab of Denise Norton Park / Pardipardinyilla (Park 2);

  • A new Park Lands “Community Land Management Plan” to authorise new buildings on all of your Park Lands;

  • A draft 42-year lease of the proposed three-hectare (30,000 square metre) site; (for an undisclosed but “nominal” rent);

  • A construction licence to allow building to commence as soon as 1 October 2023; and

  • a Development Application of some 700 pages for the proposed new building (which has revealed the truth that the “overall footprint” will be larger, not smaller); while

  • yet another document, a “prudential report” required under the Local Government Act 1999, will be produced soon.

Yet none of these documents has taken into account nor even acknowledged the huge community reaction to the flawed choice of the site, within your Park Lands. Nowhere in any of these documents is there any discussion of alternative sites, as the community has so clearly demanded.

The public response

98 per cent of respondents to City Council “consultation” for the proposed development have urged the Council not to cave in to State Government pressure, and push instead for a win-win, by getting this massive new two-storey building switched to an alternative brownfield site.

A petition, calling on the Premier to “Save These Trees - Choose a Brownfield Site instead” has attracted more than 7,400 signatories.

Nevertheless, there are fears that a majority of Councillors may disregard this clear community view, and clear the way for Park Lands destruction, without even proposing any alternative site.

See this content in the original post


What Can You Do?

Councillors need to hear directly from you, before they consider this matter at a meeting expected before the end of September 2023. Contact the Lord Mayor, and all Councillors individually to ensure that they get the message directly; i.e. not filtered through the Town Hall bureaucracy.

Clicking on any or all of these email addresses will open up a short simple draft email, alerting each Councillor to the Government’s false claim about returning land to your Park Lands, and asking each Councillor, in turn, to Love Your Park Lands and help the State Government find a better, brownfield site, to secure a win-win outcome for swimmers and your Park Lands.

Here is a plain text of the suggested email that you can copy and paste.

You can also:

  • ATTEND the Council meeting at the Adelaide Town Hall, when the item is on the agenda (it was previously scheduled for Tuesday 12 September but has been postponed, likely to a date later in September);

  • SEEK PERMISSION to make a deputation of up to 5 minutes; i.e. to speak directly to Councillors before they debate this matter. Here’s where you can register to make a deputation. A deputation request needs to be lodged by 12 midday on the day prior to the scheduled meeting.

Read more

See our ongoing coverage of the proposed new Aquatic Centre: