Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan GREATER MOUNT GAMBIER MASTER PLAN The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council GREATER MOUNT GAMBIER MASTER PLAN The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:44): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question about the Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan. Leave granted. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Last Thursday the minister indicated in response to a question from the Hon. Mr Ridgway that there had been collaboration and consultation with the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier on this plan and went on to say, 'In particular, the master plan reflects the wishes of the councils'—plural. I have been provided with copies of letters to the minister and a press release from the Mayor of Mount Gambier dated 28 February, and it states: Council wishes to record its dismay with your decision to authorise the Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan but more particularly your ministerial intervention to remove this council's valid planning authority rights in respect of parts of Penola Road (Mt Gambier) by your Deferred Urban (Northern Gateway) DPA and your 'Interim operation as a holding measure' direction as of midnight Thursday 28^th February 2008. I cannot overstate how utterly disappointed I am on your actions and lack of respect to council by your failure to at least talk to us to explain why you have taken the actions you have. You could have shown us some level of courtesy of advising why you saw fit to take the action you have, the rationale of such action and some explanation of the reasons and motivation to do this. Could you please advise why you have actioned the DPA process (Deferred Urban) and NOT as retail, as per your now adopted master plan and why you did not communicate your intentions to council. In your letter to me of 26 February 2008 you state: 'I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and council staff for your ongoing involvement in this important process. I have been impressed by the spirit of collaboration and cooperation that participants have brought to the process.' I find this to be totally offensive and highly disrespectful. There is more to the letter but I will not bore the council with all of the details. On the same day, the Mayor of Mount Gambier, Mr Steve Perryman, issued the following press release: 'council tries to remain positive about its planning future even though other influences wish to delay, complicate and frustrate its efforts.' In part, it states: Mayor Perryman said today 'My letter to the minister makes it clear that council expects an explanation of why he has seen fit to usurp council's authority by forcing new zoning provisions over land situated in the council area without any consultation or reasons being provided.' 'The comments made to me by interested members of the community in recent days range from outright disgust to a suspicion that other external influences are directing the actions of the minister,' Mayor Perryman continued. 'I couldn't imagine the minister acting in any manner other than being impartial and without bias, but the perception within the wider community is however damning on the minister of the possibility of influences that are occurring on these matters that extend beyond the decision-making powers of this council,' Mayor Perryman said. I think any fair commentator might find it hard to reconcile the minister's statements to the Legislative Council about the master plan being in full accord with the wishes of the Mount Gambier City Council and those particular quotes. I am also informed that at a meeting of 14 December last year between the representatives of the District Council of Grant, Mount Gambier City Council and Planning SA where significant objections to the draft plan from the minister and the government were raised, the minister's representatives from Planning SA agreed that another meeting would be held prior to any final decision being made by the minister. I am also informed that on 23 January this year a letter was sent to the minister's representatives in Planning SA requesting that further meeting before any final decision was taken. My questions are: 1.	Why did the minister mislead this council last Thursday when he said, 'In particular the master plan reflects the wishes of the councils'? 2.	Why did the government's representative, Planning SA, give the Mount Gambier city council representatives a commitment on 14 December to hold another meeting and then break that promise, even though a letter was sent on 23 January requesting such a meeting before any final decision was taken by the minister? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:49): What the honourable member needs to understand is that there was the development of the Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan, which was an exercise involving the District Council of Grant as well as the Mount Gambier council, and that was to ensure that neither of those councils would go ahead in their individual planning in such a way that it would be to the detriment of the region as a whole. The councils were reluctant to do that but it was something I insisted on at the time, and certainly I do not make any apology whatsoever for doing so. But I was pleased during most of 2007 with the cooperation and collaboration between those two councils in the development of that plan, because both councils had to make compromises. The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I had a meeting with the mayors of both councils towards the end of last year in relation to the work that had been done. Certainly, at that stage they had— The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; at that stage they both indicated they were pleased with the development of the master plan. What the Mayor of Mount Gambier was writing about was the other announcement I made last week in relation to putting a hold on the Northern Gateway. Essentially, that is the objection. Incidentally, I have spoken to the Mayor. I was on ABC Radio last Friday morning, and I did speak to the Mayor of Mount Gambier prior to that. I believe he is keen to work with the government in relation to this matter. I was able to explain to him that, so much effort having been put into the development of the master plan, any application lodged prior to the master plan coming into effect would be adjudicated or assessed under the existing development plan, not the combined plan. Considerable concern was expressed to me by the Grant council which, if one reads the local media in Mount Gambier, is pleased with my decision. The reason it is pleased is that it reflects the agreed position. If we had not proceeded to put a hold—and I will explain in a moment exactly what it is— The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am not misleading the council. If we had not put a hold on that particular area, then the whole agreement could have unravelled. After having spent nearly 12 months in developing agreement on the master plan for the entire region—having spent nearly 12 months developing that plan—I was not prepared to jeopardise it. As I indicated last week, there is an application for a development on the Northern Gateway which, I am advised, does not reflect the intent of the master plan, but it will still go ahead and be assessed. I think that might have been part of the misunderstanding in relation to Mount Gambier council. It may not have realised that putting on the hold is not retrospective and does not affect that particular application. However, the reason that I put an interim hold over the Northern Gateway was to ensure that there were no more applications under the existing development plan which could jeopardise the agreement in the master plan. Also, I was able to explain to representatives from Mount Gambier council the reason that it is 'deferred urban' is in order to hand back powers to the council itself. I put the hold on it; I put it up as 'deferred urban' and it will go to full consultation. Simultaneously, provided it is consistent with the new master plan, the council is able to put in its own development plan for the area which can run concurrently with the plan. I was able to satisfy Mount Gambier council that my action was not to usurp its powers at all. In fact, it can go ahead with a new development plan for the Northern Gateway, but it will drive it. All I have done by the action is to ensure that there are no more applications under the old development plan to jeopardise the integrity of the agreement which was reached between the two councils and which was reflected in the master plan over the past 12 months.