Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Coastal Protection Zone COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:16): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the coastal protection zone in the Far West of South Australia. Leave granted. The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I have correspondence from a constituent in that area and he has asked the minister to reverse a decision which has annexed 1,370 hectares of freehold title property for a coastal protection zone in spite of the fact that the closest point of that property is 2.5 kilometres from the coast and the furthest point is 8 kilometres from the coast. The owner of the property goes on to say: I understand that the boundaries were drawn by looking at a map. I have grave doubts about its accuracy, as the map shows a large body of water on the said land. This water body simply does not exist. So, we have an area the size of a reasonable sized farm annexed off for coastal protection when it is nowhere near the coast and the map that was used to annexe it is, indeed, inaccurate. The writer goes on to say that on 8 August last year his company applied to create a residential subdivision on some of that land. He states that the decision to annexe this property for coastal protection was taken after the application for subdivision and at no time were the owners of the property contacted, either by the DAC or the coastal protection authority. As I have said, the property owners have appealed to the minister to reverse that decision. My questions are: 1.	Is the minister aware of this case, and other similar cases in the area? 2.	Were the boundaries of the new zone decided by inspecting a map rather than by any personal inspection? 3.	Is it normal practice for his department to rezone a property without having direct contact with the owners or informing them in writing at any stage of the changes? 4.	Does the minister consider that it is a mere coincidence that this rezoning appears to have taken place very quickly after the property owner applied to create a residential subdivision? 5.	Will the minister, if he does not reverse this decision, consider compensation for the property owner? 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) (15:19): I am aware of the particular case. I did read the letter and, certainly, on the surface, it raises some issues. I indicated in answer to the previous question that that particular development plan amendment that I moved—the Land Not Within a Council Area Consolidation and Better Development Plan Conversion Development Plan Amendment, which is its full title—was introduced on interim operation on 14 August 2007. Obviously, the reason for introducing it on an interim basis was to prevent any decisions being made that would jeopardise the purpose of that development plan, which was basically to ensure that any development along the coastal regions of the state are compatible with the government's objectives in those areas. What we did not want to have happen is the situation that we have seen on parts of Eyre Peninsula. The Hon. Mark Parnell raised the issue of one particular development on a number of occasions. However, there have been others on the coastline, where it has been argued that they have jeopardised the amenity of that particular coastline. It was introduced on an interim basis, and what that means is that, within that 12-month period, it can be reassessed and people who are affected by it have the opportunity to make submissions in relation to it. After that 12-month period, it would lapse or the government would confirm it. So, there is the opportunity within the 12-month period for examination of any anomalies that may have occurred; that is why I have introduced it on an interim basis. It is always possible, when you do things on an interim basis, to do them quickly, to prevent any development happening that may be incompatible with what might be in the state's best interests in relation to development along the coastline. It is always possible that there will be anomalies. I have already made sure that that matter is looked into. I would not like to prejudge the outcome but, certainly, we will be having a look at that. Yes; because it is an interim operation it was done fairly hurriedly, but it was done for the best reason, that is, to ensure that there was no development along that coast which could ultimately jeopardise the integrity of some of our delicate coastal areas. That is not to say that we will not change some of those plans or that we would not allow some development along there, but what the interim operation does is enable us to do a proper assessment over a 12-month period so that we can check the maps and ensure that there are no anomalies. In relation to the honourable member's question, it is being examined, and I hope I will have a response back to the constituent fairly soon. Again, I stress the fact that it is just on interim operation and, before it is confirmed after the 12-month period, which expires on 14 August this year, all those issues will be considered.