Adjournment Debate

PLANNING

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:10): I never waste the time of the house, but, if they wish, members can go. I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to raise a couple of issues that have been bugging me for quite some time, particularly planning. Planning is always an issue, and MPs often hear plenty about it. I want to bring one such event to the attention of the house relating to the Waechter family vineyard at Eden Valley. Apparently, the family bought the vineyard as a going concern a few years ago and began to expand the plantings. A neighbour living alongside objected. He used to work for the Barossa Council as its planner. Of course, one can imagine the problem here. It turns out—

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Absolutely. It turns out that the neighbour objected and the Waechters will now have to build a three-metre high earth mound the full length of the vineyard with a buffer strip. That is the first time I have known that to happen in the Barossa Valley. I believe that if you live next to the airport you have to put up with airport noise. If you live next to a vineyard and the vineyard was already there, certainly, you have to get used to living next to the vineyard. The noise factor occurs only a couple of times a year, particularly during harvesting. There is not much noise any other time, but that was the problem.

The problem was the actual harvesting and also the spraying of the vines. We have this three-metre high mound. I am very concerned about what sort of precedent this sets, because it is damn unsightly. Eden Valley is a beautiful part of South Australia—absolutely beautiful. Here we have this three-metre high mound just so that people living there will not have to hear the tractor for two or three days a year, and I find that ridiculous. This is planning gone mad, and a very bad precedent to boot. I took it up with the council and the council said that its hands were tied. The person who objected obviously knew his rights; and, as the minister reminded me, he does have rights. Yes, he does.

But I think that common sense in this instance should have prevailed, and now we see this family having to incur the huge cost of putting in this huge mound. Of course, that mound will take up the room of some of the vineyard, so that is another expense.

To top it off, this week Mrs Waechter again contacted me (and the Waechter family is a very respected family), because they had bought a small chemical shed in which to store their chemicals, which is required by law. You buy these sheds off the shelf; it is a bunded chemical shed, two metres by two metres. Because it is not greater than 10 square metres you do not normally need development approval for it. However, we found out this week that, because it is used 'as a business', it is classed as a business use and, therefore, is a class 7, and it has to have development approval and all the bizzo that goes with it, including a lit exit sign and all the works. Can you imagine a lit exit sign in a little shed two metres by two metres? It is bloody ridiculous. It is just a nonsense.

I object to it, because these sheds are sold by most of the agricultural resellers. You can buy one of them off the floor in a flat pack and you build them. I would say that their use will always be classed as 'business', because the people who are buying them are farmers or the owners of vineyards. So, they will all be classed as class 7. What a nonsense this is: a little shed two metres by two metres and you have to have full approval to put it in your backyard. This means that the Waechters will not be able to build that shed. They did not apply for it in the first place because they did not think they had to, and now they will not build the shed. So, they will be keeping chemicals somewhere else.

What sort of message are we sending to these people? We applaud them for trying to buy a shed and store their chemicals safely in a fully regulated and approved bunded shed; in other words, if the chemicals leak they cannot get out. So, again, the wrong message is continually being sent. Commonsense seems to go out the door when we come to discuss these matters, and it really gets up my nose.

When I was the presiding member of the ERD Committee we often had to look at planning issues, and I thought that when we set up the new development approval panels within the councils we would have solved a few of these problems; but apparently not. These problems should never have reached this level. It is ridiculous that these good, law-abiding people and good citizens are continually frustrated by matters such as this. Here we are with a vineyard with a massive mound, and there is this nonsense about the shed.

I was privileged last week to visit Seppeltsfield with the Minister for Water Security (Hon. Karlene Maywald) to christen Seppeltsfield under its four new owners. It was good to meet Mrs Janet Holmes a Court there. It certainly was a great occasion. I was even more pleased to partake of the brilliant wines, because Seppeltsfield arguably has the greatest and best fortified wine collection in the world. That is a big call but, after trying all of them out, I report to the parliament, on your behalf, it is a justified—

Mrs Redmond: The Barossa Valley made that list of 53 places you must go.

Mr VENNING: You are dead right. This is one of 53 places you must attend. Certainly, Seppeltsfield's reputation that it has the finest fortified wine collection in the world is justified. I can testify to that, because both the minister and I did a regular routine testing of the product, from the 100-year old ports right down through the fino sherries, and it was just wonderful. It will certainly add to the tourism drawcard: instead of being in 53^rd position for the most visited place, it will be the first or second because, without a doubt, Seppeltsfield is a lovely place.

I am very pleased to report to the house that the new owners will certainly promote the heritage part of Seppeltsfield. They are refurbishing a lot of the old areas, particularly the gravity tanks that they used to use for wine making in the old days. So, it will become an even greater tourist attraction than it already is, not only because of the fortified wine collections but also the fantastic buildings and the beautiful grounds.

However, I was concerned when I realised that this beautiful icon of ours is not in the Barossa Council: it is in Light Regional Council (not that I have a big problem with that). I had a great discussion with the Mayor of Light Regional Council, but the Mayor of the Barossa Council was not there, and that highlights the problem. As I said to Mr Robert Hornsey and his lovely wife Anne, 'It's great to see you here, but where is the Mayor of Barossa?' He said, 'Well, it's not Barossa; it's Light council.' So, there is the problem.

I am very quietly discussing with the Minister for Local Government the issue of council boundaries in my area. It is a controversial issue for a member of parliament to become involved in: you do not make friends. You can easily upset half of your electors real quick. However, I believe it is my responsibility, because I think that areas such as this should at least come under some scrutiny.

If people do not want to do it, leave it like it is. But as their member I should give them a chance to say, 'Hey, it is a bit of a nonsense that Light council boundaries go right into Nuriootpa,' which the biggest town in the Barossa—in fact, all the Marananga area and Seppeltsfield are in Light Regional Council. Should that area not be in the Barossa Council? Likewise, the beautiful Henschke winery at Keyneton is in the Mid Murray Council area. For the sake of moving the boundary a kilometre, should that not be in the Barossa?

These questions need to be asked. I believe that, 10 years ago, when the amalgamation of councils was undertaken, we erred in not straightaway looking at these boundaries. The boundaries we are using are 100 years old. They need to be reassessed and placed along modern lines where the community interest is and where the communities have grown, because they have certainly outgrown the old boundaries.

Time expired.

Motion carried.

At 16:21 the house adjourned until Wednesday 7 May 2008 at 11:00.