Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Planning Regulations PLANNING REGULATIONS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council PLANNING REGULATIONS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about planning regulations. Leave granted. The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: A constituent recently purchased a 12 hectare block of land within the general farming zone of a country council. The land abuts a residential zone and the constituent proposed to apply for approval to divide the land into six two-hectare rural living allotments. Preliminary inquiries at the council indicated that there were no planning or regulatory objections to this proposal, and an independent planning expert provided similar advice. When the application was made, however, it was rejected on the ground that it was located 350 metres from a local quarry. It is well out of the line of sight of that quarry, which is over a hill. If the quarry is mined for another 50 years its face will come within 30 metres of part of the land proposed to be divided. There is no record on any development plan or other document which accords special status to the quarry or which suggests that development on adjoining land is sterilised by reason of the existence of that quarry. The Department of Primary Industries and Resources objected to the development on the ground that the quarry might, hypothetically, if it is worked for another 50 years, come within 30 metres of the land. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Is he aware of the fact that developments can be sterilised by reason of the proximity of quarrying or mining operations? 2.	Is the government prepared to consider requiring that these issues be noted on development plans and be available to not only local councils but also proposed developers? 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) (14:51): I am not aware of the particular case as the honourable member did not give an area where it was, but these issues come up all the time. I understand that under the Mining Act a 300-metre buffer is required, and as mining minister I believe it should be rigorously adhered to. We have had issues with some quarries, for example, Lynwood quarry in the Brighton Seacliff area. I have vigorously resisted any attempts at development, but unfortunately housing is already too close on one side of it. If I am aware of any quarry or extractive industry zone, I believe it is important that we have a significant buffer barrier because, if we do not, inevitably, when residents move in they will complain when the quarry operations are extended and move to close down the quarry. One of the reasons we have some of the cheapest housing in this country is that we are fortunate in having quarry materials, which are essential for cement and foundation forming and so on, so close to our city. In New South Wales I am told that the quarry material now has to come by train from the southern tablelands some 180 kilometres from Sydney, so one can imagine the cost of getting quarry material that may be $30 a tonne or so to extract when it has that sort of transport cost. That is why housing is so much more expensive in those locations. To come to the honourable member's second question, which is a reasonable one, it is important that the quarry resources we have be clearly identified so that these buffer areas can be maintained. If we were today to try to duplicate some of our quarry resources in the Adelaide region one can imagine how difficult it would be. It would be virtually impossible to establish any quarry within the hills face zone or the regions close to Adelaide, and that is why it is imperative with operating quarries that we ensure that those operations are not compromised by allowing residences to move too close. In any case why would we want the conflict between extractive and residential industries? The gist of the honourable member's question, as I understand it, is that there should be certainty and people should be aware of where these quarrying activities are, and that is a very reasonable point. I have discussed with my department how we can make that better known because it is important that we protect the quarry areas. It would be difficult to establish new quarries, so where we have resources we need to preserve them. It is important that we have the quarry zone. I could give, not so much as Minister for Urban Development and Planning but as Minister for Mineral Resources Development, a number of examples of where there are significant issues around the interaction of quarries or other extractive industries with residential areas. So, the sooner we can zone our extractive resources and build that into the development plan the better it will be so that there is absolute clarity for anyone living near them that we do require the buffer. Certainly, for the reasons I have outlined, I make no apology at all for having a 300-metre buffer between the limits of extractive industries and residential areas.