Grievance Debate

HYDE PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:20): The behaviour of the Attorney-General is very typical of someone who runs around claiming to be religious but behaves in a very unchristian manner. However, that is for another time. Today, I want to talk about a proposed development in my electorate—a five-storey retirement village comprising 73 apartments, with leisure facilities. This development will necessitate the removal of significant trees, and it is out of character with the much-loved and well-preserved area. The development is to be sited on Commercial Road, Hyde Park, the former grounds of a nearby school that was sold about 18 months ago.

The development application does not meet the guidelines for buildings within the zone, but that does not mean that approval cannot be given. A public meeting was held at very short notice at the Unley Park Bowling Club on 1 March 2008, and in excess of 150 concerned and angry residents were in attendance. I had the honour of chairing that meeting, and the Mayor (Richard Thorne) was also at the meeting to explain to those in attendance the development process. A residents action group was formed, and I am pleased to inform the house that I am involved in that residents action group to facilitate their objectives.

Of course, the main objection to this development is the issue of increased traffic. It is estimated that, with 73 units being constructed, we would be looking at up to 500 car movements a day in the street, and that street was not designed for major traffic movements. As a matter of fact, the council was in the process of contacting residents about closing off parking on one side of the street because the road is simply not wide enough for the traffic that is using it now.

There is insufficient parking. Most of these apartments are two or three bedroom. It is described as a retirement village, but it is really the type of apartment you would expect to see on the Glenelg foreshore, in the member for Morphett's electorate. As a matter of fact, previous developments by this developer (a publicly listed company) in New South Wales have always been on the water or overlooking a park, but this development is right in the middle of a residential area. There are huge overlooking concerns: each of these apartments has a balcony and, consequently, apartment dwellers would be able to see into people's backyards up to two streets away. There are environmental concerns with loss of trees and wildlife in the area.

However, the most important thing to remember is that it will see a significant loss of character and amenity in Hyde Park. If this development did get through—if, for some reason, the environment court decided that this project could go ahead—it would be the end of Hyde Park and Unley Park as we know them. Already we are seeing a number of houses being demolished, land being sold off and subdivisions being put in place throughout Unley, which is a concern. It is a very significant concern for people who have made a significant investment in their home and lifestyle in Hyde Park and Unley Park.

The area is an R400 zone, and I think everyone was expecting that what was going to be developed there might be 18 or so double-storey homes with a gated entry, perhaps similar to what we see at Mira Monte, which I think is something that would have been accepted by the residents. However, can members imagine a five-storey building with 73 units in the middle of a metropolitan area? That is development gone mad, and it has occurred so that a publicly listed, national company can come in and make a quick buck, and all the residents of Hyde Park and Unley Park are being asked to forgo a percentage of the investment they have made in their own homes so that those developers can come in and make a quick buck on a development. This will make a significant change to the amenity of the area and to the traditional character that we see in Hyde Park and Unley Park.

Time expired.