Commenting on the story: Decision day looms for controversial Buckingham Arms development 

The developers knew that the site was zoned for six storeys with provisos to go up to eight for providing affordable housing and other things, and would or should have paid a price that reflects that yield and provisos.

Unsurprisingly, the Government Planning Officer has recommended the SCAP approve the development because “while a 10-storey development was “tall” for the site, it is justified by the planning outcomes”, which are the very same planning outcomes sought in the bonus 30% height provision in the Planning Code lifting from six to eight storeys.

The architectural design extends up the same on every level bar the penthouse, and does nothing to conceal by setting back the upper levels and so mitigate the visibility of the upper levels over six storeys. I hardly consider it a good planning outcome.

I am yet to see a recommendation to SCAP from the Government Planning Office for anything other than approval.
I appreciate that the Government Planning Office negotiates and works up the proposal before presenting to SCAP, however the bonus for affordable housing is already there in the increase from six to eight storeys.

If it wasn’t viable at eight storeys the developers must have paid too much for the site, but the cost should not have to be borne by the community in the vicinity, while other developers who may have been observing the planning rules missed out on the site.

For someone overshadowed or overwhelmed by a building four storeys higher than the normal height limit, it is no consolation that the height is justified by the provision of affordable housing.

That said, I believe the whole “affordable housing for sale” thing is a furphy that is just being exploited by the development sector. I recall one media article that looked back at developments approved over height on the basis of provision of providing affordable housing, and the article found that not one development had. – Sandy Wilkinson

Commenting on the story: New Goodwood bikeway overpass scrapped over tree concerns 

Incredibly disappointing decision for cyclists, runners, pedestrians, walkers, pram pushers and anyone else who presently uses, or may consider using, the Mike Turtur Bikeway.

I am a daily user of the bikeway on my commute to work each day and the Goodwood crossing is diabolical, unsafe and I imagine intimidating for many users and would-be users of this amazing linkage of the city and the bay.

Consultation with a minority group has led to cancellation of a project that would have had wide reaching benefit to the majority. Take it to a vote if necessary. At least seek wide public opinion and consultation.

Sure, there was going to be a short-term loss of some trees. However there is plenty of turf / lawn area within the Forestville Reserve that could be planted with native vegetation, shade trees, any number of green options rather than wasteful grass.

In addition to the waste of time and money on the proposed Goodwood project, we have also missed the opportunity for a major safety upgrade of the rail crossing taking place while the tram line is shut down for the South Rd and Marion Rd overpass upgrades.

Shortsighted localism and politics. What a sorry mix. – Jason Quinn 

Commenting on the Adelaide Festival review: Baleen Moondjan: A ceremony to transcend time

The world premier of Baleen Moondjan at Glenelg beach was an extraordinary achievement.

I was transfixed by the haunting music, the sometimes rhythmic soulful dancing, sometimes powerfully accompanied by drumming. A simple story of deep connection to spirit and Nature.

The storyline moved seamlessly as the elemental Glenelg sea wind wafted smoke across female dancers swaying and gathering kelp to male dancers accompanied by powerful drumming to invoke the great Baleen whale. All the while, mesmerising melodies and haunting harmonies nurtured the journey of Gindara’s spirit once she had passed her knowledge on to her granddaughter. – Marg Easson