House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Industrial Zones INDUSTRIAL ZONES Mr RAU House of Assembly Enfield Mr RAU (Enfield) (15:33): I want to raise today a matter of concern to constituents of mine in the electorate of Enfield, but I think it is a matter that has broader concerns for other members in this parliament, particularly metropolitan members, and that is the problem of the collocation of residential and industrial areas. In the Enfield electorate, in the area of Kilburn there is a large industrial section which is a legacy of planning decisions made many, many years ago. It is immediately adjacent to Housing SA properties and privately owned homes and, I should also say, the Kilburn Primary School. For many years people in that area have been concerned about the implications of having these industrial activities going on at such close proximity to places where they live and where their children attend school, and in recent years the Bradken factory has been a focus for those concerns. The reason I am raising this matter again now is that members may be aware that in the last week or so there was a very serious fire in one of the other plants nearby. I have to stress that the fire was not, it would appear, the fault of the operators and was, in fact, an act of arson on the part of an obviously disturbed young man. However, the consequence of large amounts of flammable plastic being burnt in that sort of proximity to residential areas is something of grave concern to me. I emphasise that Kilburn is not the only part of metropolitan Adelaide where these sorts of problems can arise. It seems to me that the time has now come for the state government, in concert with local government (and probably the industries concerned) to develop a long-term plan to gradually separate the residential and industrial activities that are going on, from my particular point of concern in Kilburn, but also elsewhere. We need to be progressively moving these industries to industry parks, where their activities are not going to disturb or threaten the quiet enjoyment of owners and occupiers of properties in their ordinary domestic life. It is important in doing this long-term planning for us to recognise a couple of things. The first thing, of course, is that there is an obvious benefit to the community if the existing infrastructure that is presently being occupied, perhaps by some of these industrial premises, was able to be used for residential purposes. It is obviously a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient for parts of Kilburn to be occupied by new homes which people can live in, when compared with putting things 20 or 30 kilometres out from that point, a long way from the city. Just bear in mind that these areas are very close to the city and they have good access to public transport; they have existing road infrastructure; they have telephonic services, sewers, water, gas, etc. It is all there and not a penny has to be spent on establishing any of these things. If it was possible to utilise those properties for residential purposes and, at the same time, move out the industrial activities, the state would be getting a better bang for its buck because of the existing infrastructure. The second thing is that we have to, in sympathy with the companies that are already there, recognise the long-term investment cycle and not try to impose sudden knee-jerk changes upon them. They need time to readjust and they need a long-term plan to which they can work. Obviously, these companies are producing wealth and employing people. At the end of the day, we need to recognise the legitimate requirement of residents of these sorts of areas in metropolitan Adelaide to be able to enjoy a clean and safe urban environment. We need to establish now a long-term plan so that progressively, over years, these types of industries will be moved out and separated from areas which should be wholly and solely devoted to residential activities.