House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) 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) (16:10): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide measures to protect and enhance the special character of the McLaren Vale region; to make related amendments to the Development Act 1993; 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) (16:11): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In September of last year I introduced the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill 2011. That bill sought to recognise the special character of McLaren Vale and to provide statutory protection from inappropriate urban development. A similar bill was introduced at the same time providing similar statutory recognition and protection for the Barossa Valley. As members will recall, each bill lay on the notice paper to provide for members of the community and councils to provide their views on the proposed method of protection for these two iconic wine-producing regions. The feedback received during consultation has highlighted and confirmed the government's view that protection of McLaren Vale from urban sprawl—either from expanding townships or creeping suburbia—is a priority for the community. People want to see the special character of McLaren Vale protected and they support legislation as the means for this to occur. Today I am introducing a revised version of the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill. The revised bill contains a number of changes from the original bill, which I believe will improve the effectiveness of the protection regime that the government is seeking to put in place. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it. Leave granted. 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 in response to that paper supported the proposal to enact legislation to preserve and enhance the special character of the McLaren Vale district. In essence, the key features of the original Bill remain unchanged. As in the original Bill, this Bill defines the boundary of the district, sets out broad objectives guiding its development and, at the local level, ensures that development will be assessed against local zoning policies that are consistent with these objectives. Once operative, this legislation will set out what is desirable and undesirable in McLaren Vale. Neither the State Government nor the local council will be able to change the rules, or allow incremental erosion of the landscape for urban development, without the approval of Parliament. However, as I have already indicated, I have decided to make three changes in response to feedback received during the consultation period. Firstly, the boundaries of the McLaren Vale district have been altered in response to submissions received from councils and the community; in essence the northern boundary of the district now follows the boundary of the City of Onkaparinga and does not include any part of the City of Burnside, the City of Mitcham or the Adelaide Hills Council. This change reflects the concern expressed by some that the district boundaries were too expansive and included areas that were not related closely enough to the character of McLaren Vale. In total, the revised boundaries will ensure that 38,905 hectares of land are recognised and protected within the McLaren Vale district. A revised map of the district has been deposited in the General Registry Office reflecting the changes. Secondly, the Bill does not include the district and township objectives, describing the special character of the district, that were set out in the schedule to the original Bill. Consultation feedback suggested councils in particular found these provisions confusing and so, instead of this, the Bill now contains a simplified list of district character values and proposes that these be elaborated upon in a supplementary volume of the Planning Strategy. This new volume will be prepared, in collaboration with the affected councils, over the course of the next 6 months. During the same timeframe, the Bill proposes that affected councils must review their development plans to align zoning policy with the special character of the district. Consultation on both of these statutory processes is intended to occur concurrently. Thirdly, whereas the original Bill prohibited subdivision for residential and industrial purposes within the district, the revised Bill places that prohibition on the creation of additional residential allotments only. Residential subdivision in rural areas can substantially impact on both landscape character and core primary production activities. Subdivision in these areas is often the thin edge of the wedge—fragmenting rural and agricultural lands so that they are no longer economically viable as farming operations. However, given that there are a number of industrial land uses complementary to agricultural production, I have accepted the view put to me through consultation that a statutory prohibition on subdivision for industrial purposes would be overly restrictive. Instead, such proposals should continue to be assessed, on their merits, against the development plan. Importantly, in response to feedback from members of the community, I have relaxed the subdivision controls in the interim development plan amendment to enable those land owners along the coastal living strip between Aldinga and Maslins Beach to apply for residential subdivision in accordance with the previous zoning policy. I want to make it clear to Parliament and land owners in those areas that the former subdivision controls for this coastal living area—which is zoned as part of the Metropolitan Open Space System—imposed tight controls on subdivision to preserve the open space seascape character of this important coastal strip. There are just under 140 allotments in these two areas and less than 30 of them are subdividable under the policy, which sets a minimum allotment size of 4 hectares. It was never the case that these two areas—which provide an important landscape corridor connecting the wine-growing areas of the Willunga basin with the sea—would ever be allowed urban subdivision under the former policy and, if Parliament supports this Bill, the opportunity for the area to be rezoned to allow residential subdivision in these areas will be removed. Those land owners who are contemplating subdivision in accordance with the 4 hectare minimum allotment size will have a window of opportunity starting today with the relaxation of the interim development plan amendment. However, should Parliament support this Bill, that opportunity will end upon commencement of the legislation. The other key elements of the Bill remain substantially unchanged. 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. I turn now to other aspects of the Bill the operation of which I would like to clarify, given some of the feedback on the Bill and DPA I have received. Firstly, it is important to reiterate that this legislation does not aim to replace or replicate the Development Act 1993. Applications for development will still go to council and be assessed against the local development plan. The only exception to this—as stated previously—relates to the residential subdivision in the rural areas of the district which is prohibited under the Bill. This close connection to the Development Act 1993 has, I believe, been reinforced by the changes I have made linking the character values of the district directly to the Planning Strategy. I also wish to clarify that, while the Bill also contains a power to make regulations, this power is limited and reflects the standard regulation-making powers contained in most legislation. For example, there is no power for the regulations to specify exceptions to the requirements of the Bill. In short, the Government will not be able to act without Parliamentary scrutiny to change the legislation. It is important to emphasise as well that the Bill requires a review of the legislation within five years of commencement. The responsible Minister is required to table the report of the review in both Houses. This review will provide a suitable opportunity for the entire protection regime—legislation, Planning Strategy and development plans—to be assessed for their effectiveness in collaboration with councils. Finally, it is important for me to highlight that the district boundary does not include Glenthorne Farm, despite views put to me by some in the community that it should do so. When I introduced the original Bill, I stated that the Government would investigate extending the district boundary to include Glenthorne Farm in response to community concern. However, given its disconnection from the remainder of the district, I have decided it would not be appropriate to include Glenthorne Farm in this Bill. The Government is continuing to examine other options to ensure its continuing protection as an open space. 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. I will adopt a similar process in relation to the separate Barossa Valley 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. It would be remiss of me to not acknowledge the work of the member for Mawson and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, who have both championed the protection of the McLaren Vale area. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Pip Forrester, the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association and others groups such as the Friends of the Willunga Basin who have for many years been seeking to further protect this region. I want to take this opportunity to particularly thank both the elected members and staff of Onkaparinga Council who have been extensively involved in this and the previous Bill as well as the associated DPA. 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 and provides 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 in the district 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—Related amendments and transitional provisions Part 1—Preliminary This Part is formal. Part 2—Amendment of Development Act 1993 This Part makes related amendments to the Development Act 1993. These related amendments apply in relation to all character preservation laws. The amendments would ensure that the objects under a character preservation law are incorporated in the Planning Strategy and provide that the Planning Strategy must incorporate provisions which address any character values of a district recognised under a character preservation law. The Part also makes provision in relation to amendment of Development Plans to promote the objects under a character preservation law and to allow for the Development Assessment Commission to act as the relevant authority in relation to proposed development in certain circumstances. Part 3—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 Pederick.