Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and Tables
- Abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 The background to the founding of Adelaide and South Australia in 1836
- 2 The development of the City and State from 1840 until 1950 and the City/State relationship during this period
- 3 Changing attitudes to planning the City and State from 1950 until 1972
- 4 The establishment of the City of Adelaide Development Committee and the introduction of Interim Development Control
- 5 Planning in Sydney and the work of George Clarke
- 6 The City of Adelaide Planning Study
- 7 Converting the City of Adelaide Planning Study into a City Plan
- 8 An innovative system of city planning from 1 March 1977
- 9 Changes in the ACC and the State, and the first Heritage Study of the City
- 10 The operation of the City's planning system from November 1982 until May 1987
- 11 The Condous Lord Mayoralty and the declining importance of the City of Adelaide Planning Commission
- 12 The State Planning Review, the last City Plan and the end of the City's separate system
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Key People of Influence identified as potential interviewees
- Appendix 2 Heritage Summary Assessment Sheet
- Bibliography
- Index
9 - Changes in the ACC and the State, and the first Heritage Study of the City
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2013
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and Tables
- Abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 The background to the founding of Adelaide and South Australia in 1836
- 2 The development of the City and State from 1840 until 1950 and the City/State relationship during this period
- 3 Changing attitudes to planning the City and State from 1950 until 1972
- 4 The establishment of the City of Adelaide Development Committee and the introduction of Interim Development Control
- 5 Planning in Sydney and the work of George Clarke
- 6 The City of Adelaide Planning Study
- 7 Converting the City of Adelaide Planning Study into a City Plan
- 8 An innovative system of city planning from 1 March 1977
- 9 Changes in the ACC and the State, and the first Heritage Study of the City
- 10 The operation of the City's planning system from November 1982 until May 1987
- 11 The Condous Lord Mayoralty and the declining importance of the City of Adelaide Planning Commission
- 12 The State Planning Review, the last City Plan and the end of the City's separate system
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Key People of Influence identified as potential interviewees
- Appendix 2 Heritage Summary Assessment Sheet
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
CHANGES IN THE ACC
This chapter examines the changes in influences in the ACC, the State and the City of Adelaide Planning Commission (CAPC). I discuss the background to the first Heritage Study of the City and analyse the review of the City of Adelaide Plan 1976–81, together with the subsequent statutory amendments resulting from the review. In 1972 Lord Mayor Bill Hayes had instituted the policy that the Lord Mayor would only serve two one-year terms and that the senior Alderman would become the next Lord Mayor. This meant the Lord Mayor of the day enjoyed the support of the rest of the elected members of the Council during a limited term of office. Thus, when George Joseph chose not to comply with the policy and tried for a third year in 1979, he lost to Jim Bowen, who was then the senior Alderman. Bowen had the support of the other elected members and, as a member of The Adelaide Club, the support of the establishment. Bowen was also appointed as the Chairman of the CAPC.
Ian McPhail came to South Australia in 1979 as Director of the Office of Local Government. McPhail recalled the one thing that Bowen emphasised on him was the ‘Olympian and separate status of the Adelaide City Council’. The ACC had retained the position of Aldermen as well as Councillors, and had its own planning legislation. McPhail wondered why was there such a piece of legislation that created a hole in the centre of the metropolitan plan. While this was a valid question, there were no pressures within the State to change the situation. It was just part of the structure of the City, clearly defined by the heritage of Light’s Park Lands, which acted like a cordon sanitaire. Thus, there could be a different approach to governance in the City compared to the rest of the metropolitan area without it being a problem. However, McPhail contended the City’s separate status meant it could be resistant to social issues, including housing, transport and accessibility.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Behind the ScenesThe politics of planning Adelaide, pp. 223 - 242Publisher: The University of Adelaide PressPrint publication year: 2012