House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Dumas Street Park and Ride Project DUMAS STREET PARK AND RIDE PROJECT Mr GOLDSWORTHY House of Assembly Kavel Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:33): I want to raise an issue here in the house this afternoon which is causing some local residents and me some frustration in relation to a project in the township of Mount Barker which DPTI is responsible for and which is known as the Dumas Street Park and Ride project. The government announced some months ago that they were to construct a park and ride facility in Dumas Street which is a local street in the Mount Barker township, and initially there were some real issues in relation to the consultation process from the government with the local residents, which caused them some real concern and frustration. We have worked through those issues and concerns to the point that there was an agreed outcome in relation to the siting of and other issues with the park and ride facility, specifically in Dumas Street. However, unfortunately and frustratingly, some further issues and concerns have come to the fore only this week in relation to that particular project. One concern is the submission made by the department (DPTI) to the Development Assessment Commission. It has been picked up by the local residents group that there are some significant differences in the proposal agreed upon by the department and the local residents and that which has been submitted to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC). An email was sent by a representative of the local residents to the chairman of the Development Assessment Commission. I will just highlight some key points. I will not go through the email in its entirety, but I will highlight the key points. This shows the difference between what was agreed upon a number of months ago and what the department, the government, has made a submission to DAC on. I am quoting from the correspondence: The current proposal of the earth bank construction which was not raised in discussions will have possible privacy issues whereby the public can stand on the earth bank to peer into residents' backyards. The agreed fence has been removed and the buffer zone of some 17-20 metres marked on the plan we received and agreed by moving the [park and ride] to the north east as far as possible has reverted back to the original plan of May. Landscaping...described in the last email— and I will not name the person, I will not name the government departmental officer— whereby residents would landscape of the earth bank do not represent the agreed status. This particular officer: ...agreed to provide funds of around $2000 plus whereby we could select and plant trees of our choice along the fence line—not landscape the earth bank! Time is restricting me this afternoon from going into all the details, but clearly there has again been a lack of consultation with the local residents in this changed plan that has been submitted to DAC. We had some real concerns about how the project was originally being dealt with in terms of consultation. We got through that and the plans were revised to pretty much satisfy the concerns of local residents. But what came to the fore this Monday 28 October? There was another change to what had previously been agreed to without any consultation with the residents. Now, what does the government not get about proper consultation? What does it not understand by the term 'consultation'? It is simply a matter of communicating with people. If you have changed something that was originally agreed upon, why not communicate it with those people who you were discussing it with initially? It is not a difficult concept to understand; but what actually happens is that this frustrates the community no end. I have corresponded with the chief of staff of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure's office, and I am seeking his cooperation that these matters can be resolved. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Reynell has returned to our midst.