Opinion New AFC HQ: We're on like Donkey Kong!

What should we do?

  • Total voters
    155

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dc9798 said:
In other Thebby related news, the NIMBY's around Thebby have posted some 'info' on their website
Had a bit of a laugh at 'anti-social behaviour' and the lighting findings.
https://www.savekingsreserve.com/
Click to expand...

I have a street light directly outside my main bedroom - might have to complain to my local council.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The state planning commission meeting to presumably decide the fate of this project started this morning, assuming it’s still going

Meetings and agendas

Meeting dates - Meeting papers - Attendance at SCAP hearings - Previous meetings - Current agendas and minutes - Current agendas items
www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au
 
bonehilda said:
The state planning commission meeting to presumably decide the fate of this project started this morning, assuming it’s still going

Meetings and agendas

Meeting dates - Meeting papers - Attendance at SCAP hearings - Previous meetings - Current agendas and minutes - Current agendas items
www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au
Click to expand...
1900 pages of reports there but they recommend that the proposal should be accepted.

From the executive summary for the preliminary works application:
Public Notification was undertaken in accordance with the Table 5 – Procedural Matters – Notification of the
Planning and Design Code (Code)’s Recreation Zone, as the subject land would involve partial demolition of
a heritage place (specifically, the playing surface of Thebarton Oval, seating structures and earthworks
surrounding Thebarton Oval). While some support for the proposal has been registered, most representors
have indicated opposition to the proposal based on removal of community assets, removal of unregulated
trees and associated habitat for fauna, assessment of the overall proposal in separate stages, impacts on
heritage places and the appropriateness of the intent to change the use of land in this location.

Despite the proposed demolition of community assets considered to be of significant value by members of
the community, the proposal would be expected to adequately satisfy Recreation Zone (Land Use and
Intensity) PO 1.1 which anticipates development associated with or ancillary to the primary purpose of
structured, unstructured, active and / or passive recreational facilities which would be expected to be provided
as part of the overall development of the land should any development approval be granted for application
ID 23037913.

This preliminary development would also ensure the retention of built form designated as having heritage
significance and be subject to preparation of an appropriate access methodology plan and construction
environment management plan addressing potential impacts on the local road network and surrounding land
that could eventuate because of the proposed demolition activities

Subject to the applicant’s adherence to the reserve matters and conditions recommended for assignment to
any planning consent granted, the application is not considered to be one that could reasonably be
determined to be seriously at variance to the relevant policy provisions.
Click to expand...

From the main works application:
Public Notification was undertaken in accordance with the Table 5 – Procedural Matters of the Recreation
Zone, as the development would incorporate an indoor recreation facility, swimming pool, sporting club
rooms, office and shop components that would exceed 80 square metres in floor area. The subject land is
also adjacent to land used for residential purposes in a neighbourhood-type zone.

The application was publicly notified between 29 February 2024 and 21 March 2024. A total of 164 valid
representations (excluding duplicates) were submitted, mostly in opposition to the proposal. 93 representors
indicated a wish to be heard by the State Commission Assessment Panel, either personally or by a third
party. Opposition to the proposed development is generally based on the intensity of the proposed use,
consequential traffic impacts, increase in on-street parking, tree damaging activity and removal of community-
use assets including occasional access restrictions.

The applicant has provided a response to representations addressing the several concerns raised by
representors, including supplementary consultant advice regarding implications for generation of noise and
lighting, traffic distribution, vehicle parking, event management, tree removal and planning matters.

On balance, the proposal is considered to adequately satisfy Planning and Design Code policy expectations,
subject to certain matters being reserved for further assessment and adherence to conditions to be assigned
to any planning consent (either by direction or recommendation). Provided these measures are appropriately
addressed, the application is not considered to be one that could reasonably be determined to be seriously
at variance to the relevant policy provisions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
frinkiac-com-qxjli-jxr4hs-gif.470446
 
Dc9798 said:
In other Thebby related news, the NIMBY's around Thebby have posted some 'info' on their website
Had a bit of a laugh at 'anti-social behaviour' and the lighting findings.
https://www.savekingsreserve.com/
Click to expand...

Anti-social behaviour?

The only anti-social behaviour at AFLW matches is the substandard umpiring 😂
 
AC07 said:
Wrong! If it had full dev approval and the SANFL process was holding it back it would be stalled.

At this stage it is on track!
Click to expand...
At this stage it is subject to the City of Charles Sturt greenlighting the SANFL's return to Football Park.

All they have presently is a draft Community Land Management Plan and are in the early stages of the dreaded Community Consultation which as we know too well, can take a while.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
At this stage it is subject to the City of Charles Sturt greenlighting the SANFL's return to Football Park.

All they have presently is a draft Community Land Management Plan and are in the early stages of the dreaded Community Consultation which as we know too well, can take a while.
Click to expand...
Consultation is finished and apparently a council meeting later in the month?
 
George Kramer said:
Consultation is finished and apparently a council meeting later in the month?
Click to expand...
Yep

Report on the community consultation to come later in June

Hopefully gets the tick of approval
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
At this stage it is subject to the City of Charles Sturt greenlighting the SANFL's return to Football Park.

All they have presently is a draft Community Land Management Plan and are in the early stages of the dreaded Community Consultation which as we know too well, can take a while.
Click to expand...
Either way it’s not stalled. If they were ready to build and we’re still waiting then, yes it’s stalled.
 
AC07 said:
Either way it’s not stalled. If they were ready to build and we’re still waiting then, yes it’s stalled.
Click to expand...
Everything getting pushed back and back and back and back by things completely out of our control is stalled in my book.


Mr Olsen said the Crows would now work with the local council to "take the process forward from here".

He said he hoped the consultation and approval process would be complete by the end of this year, with tenders to go out early next year.

"I would hope construction would commence in May and June with a target of being able to have our first W game at the start of the '25 season and move into the facility from West Lakes in the February/March '26 period."
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Everything getting pushed back and back and back and back by things completely out of our control is stalled in my book.


Mr Olsen said the Crows would now work with the local council to "take the process forward from here".

He said he hoped the consultation and approval process would be complete by the end of this year, with tenders to go out early next year.

"I would hope construction would commence in May and June with a target of being able to have our first W game at the start of the '25 season and move into the facility from West Lakes in the February/March '26 period."
Click to expand...
So it was stalled? You’re just going on the ‘Vibe’ now. 😝
 
In my view it is stalled now until the bulldozers move in which Rowey claimed was going to happen 12 months ago. Until that happens there is always a chance someone puts up a new hurdle.
 
crows dude said:
Where do SANFL move while demolition is being done? They cant move into West Lakes until we have moved out I would have thought.
Click to expand...
They only need an oval don’t they? Offices are at AO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

M
Opinion New AFC HQ (Part 2): Family picnics on hiatus
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
553
Views
23K
Cromulant
C
GROTTO
  • Poll
Prediction How many games will the AFC win in 2025?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
cleanhands
C
Scorpus
Competitions AFC Board Draft Game 2024/25: Want to Play?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
1K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
Competitions AFC Board Draft Game 2024/25 Main Competition Thread - Starts Dec 11th
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
24K
adelaidecrows
adelaidecrows
Rory Walkerfield
Roast AFC: Gaslighting its youth since…. Culture Change Needed
Replies
23
Views
885
Samcro24
Samcro24
ThePrideOf
Invoking a process for change at the AFC
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
Drummond
Roast The Rotten Stench of the AFC
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
315
Views
14K
Salibahandball
S
Back
Top