PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. community land should be for a community, not a corporation. The traffic, unwanted noise and uncharacteristic buildings should not be allowed in a heritage area and will severely effect local residents.

2. Community land needs to remain community land!! It shouldn’t be used for the purpose of profit for an AFL club. The increase in traffic, unwanted noise and crime that this proposed development will bring will impact negatively on a heritage rich area.

3. The Oval Has been always Public Land Despite Leases. Community has different ways of expressing itself. Since the Australian Rules has been managed from Victoria, real true positional local support for your community has been lost to Private Business based on a 100 years of GoodWill, Locality, and Best local Community Tactics. We need our community land back. A massive business in our historic neighborhood, vainly tied to a truly local local team, must reassess its future and its neighbours; Locals. The buffer Park 10 yerars ago was partly destroyed with a training extension and carparks too close by for very fit men. The whole of Alberton and Park for 44 training men on community land is wrong , led jointly by a Victorian business and Councils who have forgotten their great neighborhoods , Alberton and Cheltenham.

4. Profit before people 😢. A beautiful heritage area slowly being destroyed by AFL. TOTALLY unacceptable. This is PUBLIC land. Residents affected by all these proposals MUST be given first priority. Increased traffic, and noise.
   Local residents will be the big losers.

5. This is contrary to good public policy from a planning, community well-being, climate change and financial perspective. There is a significant shortage of open green space in the western suburbs of Adelaide (look at any map of metro Adelaide) and they want to build a three storey structure in a suburban setting, with a black bitumen car park and a fake grass soccer pitch. Bewildering. Apparently they are a professional club in a multi-million dollar competition. They should pay their way and stop sponging off the public purse. They are on public land, want to get public money from State Government, public money from Federal Government to pay for it, and now want more public land on which to build it. When will they stop and take responsibility for their own future? The Port Adelaide Enfield Council is aiding and abetting this utterly cynical proposal, having already given in-principal support. Having done all the groundwork to facilitate the project, they are now going to public consultation, knowing full well that they will decide to proceed; and it's us, the public, the local residents fighting a rear guard action who are labelled as being cynical.

6. I understand that the land in question was donated many years ago to the people of Alberton/Cheltenham by a generous local resident. No doubt he understood the need, and benefits of green spaces. When donated, it was likely his intention was, that the land be used in a traditional sense. He would have probably never entertained the possibility that all of the land would become privately owned or managed by a large national company, out of any control of residents of the area, nor filled with buildings and infrastructure on such a vast scale. The donor would have possibly imagined magnificent trees, grassed areas, shrubs, shady vistas, and possibly park benches… a little as it is today… a park to suit every person’s taste and use. I am therefore deeply concerned that the park, the last remnant of the land, is now to become something else — the spoils of a single-minded entity, which opportunistically sees this as a free-land grab, with residents paying, and with Council supporting their wants. This is so wrong.
   
   The park is highly valued by people in the local area, and many would have purchased their homes because of the park. It would be a considerable loss to those who live nearby. That the land, of which the Council is merely the custodian, may simply be handed-over, without meaningful involvement of local residents; without any real consideration of their needs, losses (financial, psychological, or emotional), and with no mention to date of recompense, is viewed most unfavourably.
   
   Residents may be about to lose a much-loved and enjoyed amenity, a place to recharge, relax, walk their dog, commune with nature, and enjoy all of the positives that the outdoors and fresh air may provide. The fact that it may be lost to a large profitable business which is quite capable, financially, of purchasing its own land on which to build the facilities it says it needs, is to show blatant disregard for people who have chose to purchase their homes, or investment properties in the area. This seems, unfortunately, to be the tactics of a council that is rather anti their own residents.
   By attempting to limit the power of local citizens, I believe, it acknowledges a complete understanding of their power… they are a body of good people, who in other circumstances are embraced by Council, not alienated. I do believe also that home owners and residents are not often considered stakeholders when such decisions are being made, and this is also unfortunate and surprisingly dismissive. I would hope that Council recognises that it’s actions, should it decide to enforce the wishes of the AFL and SANFL, above those of local people, disenfranchises considerably those residents, and denies them, forever, access to what is rightfully open land set aside for their pleasure — a rare green space, dog park, bowling club, and place where families currently enjoy activities together.

   Council should also be aware that their actions are revealing an indifference to the wishes and needs of those who pay them, or have elected them — and who are aggrieved by the proposal, and Council’s lack of support.

   Council’s actions go against what is fair and acceptable to most who are familiar with the plan and fully understand it. The plan is also not in the best interests of other people who live in PAEC, or Greater Adelaide, as the plan would potentially result in yet, another loss of green space and animal habitats, at a time when green spaces are critical in regard reductions in global warming, and reducing the speed of climate change — as Council would be aware.

   Any term of service by Councillors and Council staff to community, end at some point, but local people living near the park would have to live with the significant negative changes to their area and quality of life, into the distant future.

   The unfortunate result, even disaster, of this plan may be ultimately costly to all ratepayers of PAEC as there will be no guarantee that the SANFL and/or AFL, will not seek additional funds and upgradings in the future.

   It is asked that Council considers the above, and extinguishes any efforts made to proceed with the proposal — there must be more well-thought-out options, brought forward showing a will on the part of AFL and SANFL to purchase land elsewhere, and pay for it from their own finances as this plan is ill-conceived, and disrespectful of residents in the area. It is a project that is not not in the spirit of what a local Council process it meant to be.

   It is further asked that instead Council retains the park as is, and conscientiously works with local residents to enhance and improve the park in a manner that adds to the quality, and ammenities of the park and immediate area.

7. Why isn't the AFL working with PAFL on funding the training facilities they need based on their combined business models using the space available around ovals boundary?.
   The AFL are forcing PAFC to go cap in hand to non associated sporting clubs and PAEC to try and offset the cost and impose on residents the extended operating hours it will include ( PAFC don't want them there in their daytime hours).

   If limiting new facilities to boundary edge requires underground parking then AFL/PAFC should be forced to price that in. That only leaves the need for a running track area for rehab etc while oval is used for main training. Hardly need a full size soccer pitch, could easily use the area along eastern fenceline shared with locals behind the goal posts.
   In fact it's only the inclusion of this full sized soccer pitch on the sites limited dimensions that has forced the planned new building to
   be away from the grounds edge at all,. Simply ditch the soccer pitch idea altogether and a more community based plan will come together quite easily.

8. Community land should be for the community, not a private corporation.
   If PAFC were serious about being elite they'd be looking at greenfields site in the port. I'm not opposed to progress but I'm not giving up my park to anyone. We don't have enough parks left in the area to go around giving it all up for the benefit of corporations.

9. My understanding is that it is a public park donated to the council for the residents of Alberton and Cheltenham, by a generous resident many years ago. It is neglected by the council. How can you build a large basketball stadium in a historic residential zone?? Port Adelaide Football Club is no longer a community sporting club. It is a big business and apart of the mega AFL corporation. It has hotels, pokies, clothing stores etc. If they need this park so much they should be made to purchase it and the proceeds to be used to improve our area for the lost park.

10. I am against this application as there was no community consultation from either the councils (PAEN and Charles Sturt) or the club.

    This development project goes against anything the residents need these days.
    After talking to quite a lot of local residents, randomly and at community meetings, there is a consensus around the need of more green space, more trees, the need of space for the kids to play, keeping the dog park, and more generally the need of keeping our community green spaces open to the residents.

    It seems that when the PAFC proposed another development to their already developed portion of council/community land, to meet their personal needs and the AFL's standards, they have completely neglected to check with us, the residents, that it would meet our needs too.
    Based on this observation, the PAFC, with PAEN council's approval, will literally colonise more public land to their benefit and bulldoze our trees, our dog park, our open green space, to replace them with more concrete and car parks and noise and pollution.

    Lately it is clear that communities across the Adelaide Metro area want and need more trees, more open green spaces, more 'green' community-oriented initiatives that can help building healthier, happier and more resilient communities.

    This Project will remove green space from the community including 33 mature trees.
    It will take away a very needed dog park.
    It will generate a lot of traffic, noise and pollution.
    It will act as a heat-sink in an already very hot suburb.
    The residents chose to live in this area because it's quiet, it has parks, trees, green community space for the people to enjoy, for the kids to play and dogs to exercise, and proudly maintain character houses.
    Adding a 4 storey high building, 2 large car parks and a soccer pitch to this private AFL club facility can't happen.

    This community open green space has to be protected.

    Our generation and the next want to be able to enjoy it as a beautiful community open green space with lots of trees, grass, birds, not a private block of bitumen and concrete.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to South Australia Planning Portal. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment