Sign In
or Create a new account
Future site use
The Purdon & Associates report made certain recommendations regarding the future use options for the community site? Which option do you prefer?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Rivett Final Site Report A (1.924 MB)
Comment 1 8 Jun 2008, 5:47 PM
Another retirement complex!! Come on guys did you really pay these consultants all that money to recommend retirement complexes on all the sites. Could they have not come up with something a bit more original and useful for the community - business incubators, arts precincts etc??
Comment 1.1 10 Jun 2008, 9:16 AM
YES!!! exactly what I have been saying. Develop the sites but be a bit more responsive to what we need
Comment 1.2 15 Jun 2008, 10:22 AM
Purdon's reports completely lack imagination and innovation. You dont get this sort of infill opportunity often. Retirement homes add little to our centres.
Comment 1.3 15 Jul 2008, 5:48 PM
I agree. The assumptions in the report have steered the conclusions to this recommendation while ignoring more creative solutions which could avoid the need for demolition of the existing buildings.
Comment 2 13 Jun 2008, 1:47 PM
There is a clear concensus in the community that if the school is to be closed then the land should stay in public hands and be opened up as community space. A mixture of open space, community gardens, off leash dog walking and regeneration for environmental education would be good.
Comment 3 21 Jun 2008, 5:26 PM
A bit of history...
***Before*** the consultation process even commenced in 2007 , it was stated by the Government at a public meeting (WCCC), that the Rivett site would be demolished because it was dilapidated, or words to that effect, and it will be bulldozed to make way for aged care residential. Reading the site condition report, it was obvious there was some maintenance necessary, but most of it was NOT deemed essential according to the official report. Save Our Schools have recently commented on this:
http://sos.freeforums.org/condition-reports-for-closed-closing-primary-school-sites-t113.html
Purdon Associates were engaged, according to their brief, to run two rounds of consultation, the more…
Comment 3.1 21 Jun 2008, 6:33 PM
Rivett currently has an early childhood learning centre operating in a shopfront with limited outdoor access designed for traditional retail. Why can't some of the areas currently unused at the Rivett Primary School be renovated to provide a suitable site for a slightly larger facility to be tenanted with an improved outdoor area? There is an existing early childhood sun sheltered outdoor playground unused at the school adjacent to the carpark. This could complement Noah's Ark, create a hub for children's activities and free up more commercial space for more traditional commercial trade tenancies, such as a restaurant, bringing more evening commercial trade into Rivett.
Comment 4 24 Jun 2008, 7:53 PM
I agree with the comments above, especially the idea of utilising that North facing roof for Solar.
It occured to me the other day that there is a lot of embodied energy in such a building and to buldoze it and build again uses a huge amount of energy. I wonder to what extent the planning process takes this into account.
At the same time there is need for greater decentralisation of workplaces. I'm lucky that my 20km commute to work is generally against the traffic when I drive (often ride), but I see the traffic crawling toward Civic Northbound on more…
Comment 5 23 Jul 2008, 10:56 AM
One thing I'd like to have near Rivett shops is a public toilet. This would encourage walking to the shops - in my case the lack of a public toilet makes it increasingly difficult to make the round trip to the shops on foot.
Lots of native birds use this space - I suggest any parkland or gardens should incorporate nesting sites for native birds.
Comment 5.1 28 Jul 2008, 5:21 PM
I'm sure all those who train at the ovals would also appreciate a toilet.
Comment 6 31 Jul 2008, 5:28 PM
In general I thought the Purdon & Associates report confusing, hard to navigate & I do not support their recommendations.
Of the future use options mentioned at 5.1 of the report (residential care accommodation, retirement complex, child care centre, community activity centre, educational establishment, health facility, place of worship, religious associated use) my preference would be to retain so much of the existing buildings as could be used for child care, community activities or health facilities.
For example, the Site with minimal alteration could be used to provide facilities for the community comparable to KidSafe at Pearce, or as outreach facilities more…