Buckland Park

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Planning. Why did the minister approve an extension to commence substantial work on the Walker Corporation's Buckland Park development to 31 October 2017, following multiple extensions since the 2010 announcement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:20): I thank the deputy leader for her question. As people would be aware, some time ago, there was a rezoning of some considerable parcel of land known as Buckland Park to most people, but I think now known as Riverlea. But anyway, Buckland Park.

The SPEAKER: Riverlea is the estate name, isn't it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe so.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is probably named after an area in the electorate of MacKillop, I suspect. Anyway, just so the parliament understands what the context of this is, in about 2008 or 2009, there was a decision taken that there would be a rezone of a large area. The whole area was rezoned. There were, as part of this, a series of conditions attached to the rezoning, and these conditions were conditions which related, in particular, to infrastructure because, as members who have been following this matter at all would be aware, there are issues about roads because there has to be a—

Ms Sanderson: Schools, libraries, stormwater, electricity, gas.

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are issues about roads and I understand the Department of Transport and the developer have been in conversations about that. There is also the other necessary infrastructure you would require with any greenfield development site, like electricity, gas, water, etc., and, of course, there were issues about potential inundation because it is near the Gawler River and it is a low-lying piece of land and there were certain engineering works that were required in order for that work to be done.

As it has turned out, as I understand it, the developer has not been able to progress all of the works that they had hoped to within the original envisaged time line. That said, they have invested a significant amount of money already in this development, and I am talking here in the order of tens of millions of dollars that has been invested already in terms of infrastructure and other development costs. When—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If I were you, I wouldn't go there. I really wouldn't. I really wouldn't. Anyway, the situation is—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned for the second and the final time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The situation is that I have a person who is the holder of a large area of already rezoned land, who has the benefit of an existing approval with triggers in the approval. That person, or that corporation, has invested a significant amount of money in moving forward and wants to have the opportunity to have an extension of time to complete that work so that they can get the development up and running. It seemed to me, given that the developer has no control over the demand for land, particularly housing, in that area and the developer has sought to have an extension, that it was, in all of the circumstances, a reasonable request.