House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill CHARACTER PRESERVATION (BAROSSA VALLEY) BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:07): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide measures to protect and enhance the special character of the Barossa Valley region; and for other purposes. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:08): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In September of last year I introduced the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill of 2011. That bill sought to recognise the special character of the Barossa Valley and provide statutory protection from inappropriate urban development. A similar bill was introduced at the same time providing similar statutory recognition and protection for the McLaren Vale district. As members will recall, each bill lay on the Notice Paper for members of the community and councils to provide their views on the proposed method of protection of these two iconic wine-producing regions. The reasons for this bill are the same as for the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill. Indeed, as for the McLaren Vale bill, feedback received during consultation on this bill has highlighted and confirmed the government's view that protection of the Barossa Valley from urban sprawl—from either expanding townships or creeping suburbia—is a priority of the community. People want to see the character of the Barossa Valley protected and they support legislation as a means for this to occur. Today I am introducing an amended version of the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2011. This bill has been subject to the same public consultation process as for the parallel Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill 2012 and has been subject to similar amendments arising from consultation. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it. Leave granted. Firstly, as for the McLaren Vale district, the boundaries of the Barossa Valley district have been altered in response to submissions received from councils and the community. The eastern boundary of the district new follows the boundary of the Barossa Council and therefore excludes land within the Mid Murray Council. This change reflects the concern expressed by some that this boundary was too expansive and included areas that were not obviously related to the character of the Barossa Valley or intrinsic to its fabric. On the west, the boundary of the district has also been revised and no longer includes an area of land east of the Sturt Highway adjacent to the northern end of Gawler. This small area of only 204 hectares sits at the very edge of the district and is more directly connected to the adjacent Kingston industrial estate opposite than to the Barossa. In total, the revised boundaries will ensure that 128,509 hectares of land are recognised and protected within the Barossa Valley district. A revised map of the district has been deposited in the General Registry Office reflecting the changes. Additionally, unlike the McLaren Vale Bill, the Bill provides for certain designated areas, specified on the map lodged with the General Registry Office, to be excluded from the prohibition on residential subdivision. Within the Barossa Valley, a number of areas have been zoned for rural living over past decades. These areas, including a large tract between Sandy Creek and Williamstown, are now nearly fully developed under current zoning policy. It is not possible to turn back the clock and restore these areas to agricultural uses. The decision, some time ago, to allow them to be zoned for rural living purposes has long since removed them from being viable primary production lands. I acknowledge that some land owners may have purchased properties in good faith with the intention of subdividing them for residential use to the extent permitted by the existing zoning policy. A side-effect of the original Bill would have been to remove that right from these land owners. Given that these areas have long been removed from viable primary production and that subdivision in accordance with the existing policy will not be detrimental to the overall landscape quality of the area, I have accepted submissions from the community and decided that, if subdivision is currently permitted in a relevant zone under the development plan, the area of that zone should not be subject to the prohibition on residential subdivision which the Bill applies to other rural parts of the district for the time being. However, I am concerned that it is important that the zoning policy in these areas is not changed in the future to more intensive residential uses. For this reason, the Bill provides that the current zoning policy, which sets a minimum allotment size for residential subdivision consistent with the rural living landscape of these zones, should not be altered without parliamentary approval. The exact minimum allotment size permitted varies in each zone within a range from 0.5 to 20 hectares. Generally, the minimum allotment size tends to be around one hectare. In essence, this means that development in these areas will be treated on a similar basis to the townships—residential subdivision will be permitted and assessed, on its merits, against the provisions of the development plan. However, unlike the townships, the minimum allotment size currently specified in the development plan cannot be changed without parliamentary approval. The remaining changes to this Bill reflect those made to the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill. Full details of those changes are outlined in my remarks in the second reading debate on that Bill. I believe the amended Bill will improve the effectiveness of the protection regime the Government is seeking to put in place. The changes reflect the feedback received during the consultation period and I want to publicly acknowledge all those who took the time to put in a submission as part of that process. As members would recall, the original Bill was based substantially on a discussion paper and associated maps I released for consultation in June 2011. Overwhelmingly, the more than 220 submissions received from councils, members of parliament and community and industry groups supported the proposal to enact legislation to preserve and enhance the special character of the Barossa Valley district. Once operative, this legislation will set out what is desirable and undesirable in the Barossa Valley. Neither the State Government nor any of the councils will be able to change the rules, or allow incremental erosion of the landscape for urban development, without the approval of parliament. As with the McLaren Vale Bill, complementary to this Bill, I can also inform the House that the Development Plan Amendment or DPA which I introduced on an interim basis last year to support the operation of the original Bill has also been revised, via a new interim DPA, in response to public feedback. The new interim DPA will prevent inappropriate urban development from occurring within the district as parliament debates this legislation, while allowing growth within the key township areas. As with the McLaren Vale Bill, given the substantial community interest generated by the previous Bill, I believe it is important that members have the opportunity to canvass their constituents and give the Bill appropriate consideration. For this reason, following introduction of the Bill today, I plan to let it lay on the table for at least four weeks to allow public comment. I will then seek that the House consider the Bill. However, I reiterate to the House the Government's strong commitment to seeing this process through to a successful conclusion. We believe this Bill strikes the appropriate balance and will ensure the special character of this district is protected and maintained. As with the McLaren Vale Bill, I would like to acknowledge the work and insight of a number of people who have made important contributions in this debate—including Maggie Beer, Margaret and Peter Lehmann, Jan Angas, the Member for Light Tony Piccolo and others who have highlighted the importance of protecting the Barossa Valley. The region is justifiably well known and regarded, both here and internationally. I commend the Bill to Members. Explanation of Clauses Explanation of Clauses 1—Short title 2—Commencement These clauses are formal. 3—Interpretation This clause defines certain terms used in the measure. 4—Interaction with other Acts This clause provides that the measure is in addition to, and does not limit or derogate from, the provisions of any other Act (except as provided otherwise) and provides that this is to be a character preservation law for the purposes of the Development Act 1993. 5—Objects This clause sets out the objects of the measure. 6—Character values of district This clause sets out certain character values of the district and provides that these values are relevant to assessing the special character of the district and to the policies to be developed and applied under the Planning Strategy and relevant Development Plans under the Development Act 1993. 7—Major project provisions not to apply This clause disapplies the major project provisions of the Development Act 1993 in relation to developments or projects in the district. 8—Limitations on land division in district This clause makes the Development Assessment Commission the relevant authority under the Development Act 1993 for developments involving land division in the district. In relation to areas identified as designated areas under the relevant plan lodged in the GRO, the minimum allotment size applying under the Development Plan on the prescribed day (being the day on which the Bill is introduced in the House of Assembly), after any amendments to the Development Plan made on that day, will continue to apply to applications for land division made after the prescribed day despite any subsequent changes to the Development Plan and despite section 53(2) of the Development Act 1993. The clause also provides, in relation to other land in the district, that any application for development authorisation made after the commencement of the clause that would result in the creation of additional allotments for residential purposes is to be refused. 9—Power to require information A person or body involved in the administration of an Act may require further information from a person applying for a statutory authorisation or from a government or local government authority for the purposes of the measure. 10—Review of Act This clause provides for a review of the Act 5 years after its commencement. 11—Regulations This clause provides for the making of regulations for the purposes of the measure. The regulations may, without limitation— prohibit or restrict the undertaking of a specified activity, or an activity of a specified class, within the district, or a specified part of the district (despite any other Act or law) provide that a person undertaking a specified activity, or an activity of a specified class, or proposing to undertake a specified activity, or an activity of a specified class, within the district, or a specified part of the district, comply with any prescribed requirement or condition (despite any other Act or law). Schedule 1—Transitional provisions 1—Transitional provisions The transitional provision provides for the Planning Strategy to be altered to incorporate provisions which address the character values of the district within 6 months after commencement and for a review of relevant Development Plans within 6 months after the changes to the Planning Strategy. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.