Question Time

CLIPSAL SITE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the rezoning of the Clipsal site at Bowden.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Last July it was announced by the owners that the Clipsal site would be for sale. In fact, I think that Colliers International was engaged to sell that site. Of course, the owners wanted the site rezoned from industrial use to residential use of some nature. I am also aware that the local council, the City of Charles Sturt, was supportive. In fact, the council wrote a letter to the minister very supportive of the rezoning. My understanding is that the rezoning was consistent with this government's current agenda of transport-orientated developments; indeed, we realise that in fact two railway lines are very close to that particular site. It also represented an opportunity for some higher density living close to the city, and people could walk into the city area.

The site is not only adjacent to the Parklands but would also give rise to an opportunity for some affordable housing opportunities—another issue which has been very much part of this government's agenda. Speculation has been rife in this little town of Adelaide over the past few weeks about a budget announcement in relation to a tram extension along Port Road. The opposition has also become aware that the government has been considering transport infrastructure development levies, whereby developments would be levied to provide the transport infrastructure, for example, that would perhaps go down along Port Road. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why will he not sign off on the rezoning?

2. Is he waiting until after the budget announcement to impose transport development levies upon this development site?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:02): The answer to the latter question is no. In relation to the Clipsal site, the honourable member is quite correct: it is very important because of its location. It is one of the few bits of land, probably in Australia, which is so close to a city and fronts a park but which is actually an industrial site. Of course, as the honourable member suggested, it does provide a wonderful opportunity for some higher density development. As well, adjacent to that site is a significant amount of land that was old gas company land, which I think Origin Energy now owns. That land is highly degraded.

If he looks (as I have recently done) at some of the wonderful things they do in Western Australia in relation to transit-orientated development, the honourable member will see that there they use the opportunity to redevelop highly-degraded sites. In fact, if one looks at Subiaco Central and the Midland railway sites one can see the sorts of things that can happen. Whereas the government certainly supports some rezoning and a building of transport-orientated development in relation to the Clipsal site, we believe it is also important that we consider the use of the adjacent sites which are owned by Origin Energy and which are highly contaminated.

I will be contacting the Charles Sturt council very shortly. As I said, I discontinued this particular development plan amendment because it considered just this one site. However, what I will be discussing with the Charles Sturt council is progressing rapidly that rezoning. However, we do need also to have a look at what happens on that degraded Gas Company land now owned by Origin Energy, because if we do not do anything about that it may have an impact on what activities can occur on the adjacent site. It is important with transit-orientated developments that you use the maximum amount of land available to have a properly integrated development and not just particular bits and pieces that do not fit together. That is the only reason for the hesitation.

I had a meeting with the owners and proponents of the site some time ago. I know that they keep in regular contact with the government. Obviously, it is important that the Clipsal site relocation happens fairly quickly. I will be, as I said, contacting the council in the very near future in relation to progressing the matter and ensuring that the adjacent land, which is the contaminated former gas company land, is also considered as part of any future work in that region.