InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on a Parade development and more

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on a proposed Norwood apartment block, AFL rules and SGIC.

Print article

Commenting on the story: ‘Excessive’: Concerns over eight-storey Parade apartment block

Height limits are set for a reason. It seem the decisions that have been made in the local context having regard to close understanding of style, character of the area and community expectations are regularly bounced. Why is this possible ? A limit is a limit.

It is time for the local perspective to be restored and given weight. The village is being destroyed by the dash for profit. Norwood is on the cusp of losing its human scale – forever. And charming Prospect is starting to look as if it is in danger too. – Elizabeth Ho

The plan to build an 8-storey complex overlooking the Parade is bizarre and not in keeping with the aesthetic of the area.

How could the state planning authority think this is a good idea. Atrocious decision making. A big Boo from me. – James Baker

SCAP are certainly consistent in their disregard for local planning restrictions.

I’m in a part of Glenelg where a review raised the height restriction from 3-storey to 5-storey. The first planning approval after this change was permitted to go to 7-storey. Local council and resident concerns were totally ignored. – Paul Venables

InDaily’s article was incorrect in its statement that the State Planning Commission recommended that the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) grant application planning consent.

For the record, the State Planning Commission has appointed the SCAP to make independent assessment decisions on development applications. The Commission does not provide recommendations to the SCAP at any stage of the process. A report is furnished to the SCAP ahead of its meeting by a member of the State Government’s Planning department based on a thorough assessment and review of all documentation against current planning legislation. – Craig Holden, Chair, State Planning Commission

Commenting on the story: Out of bounds: The mystery and meddling of AFL rules

The rot set in with the introduction of the prior opportunity rule, which is in complete contradiction to the fundamental philosophy of the game as originally devised.

The ball player knows he will be given no time to dispose of the ball and if grabbed immediately collapses his knees to go to ground, assisted by the awful convention these days to tackle a player to the ground. Result- stoppage.

Coaches now base their game plan around stoppages. This was supposed to differentiate our game from rugby. AFL games the days see the ball and players on the ground more than rugby league games. It’s excruciating to watch in far too many cases. Scrap the rule. – Deane Renfrey

Commenting on the story:Storm clouds loom over SGIC as policies swallowed by big sister

It hasn’t been a South Australian brand for 24 years. The transition to NRMA has been laughable though in its transparency, albeit NRMA and SGIC not admitting it. – Kym Smith

Make a comment View comment guidelines

Local News Matters

Media diversity is under threat in Australia – nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts.

Donate today
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article