URBAN EXPANSION

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (14:58): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Planning and Development a question about the impact of the proposed Greater Adelaide Region on threatened flora and fauna.

Leave granted.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: As part of its reforms to urban planning and development, the government proposes to declare a Greater Adelaide Region that would stretch from metropolitan Adelaide down to Victor Harbor in the south, up to the Barossa in the north and across to Murray Bridge in the east. Within that area, urban zoning provisions will override the Native Vegetation Act.

Members may also recall the Stateline program two weeks ago on the rare scarlet robin. This program was filmed in the hills above Willunga, an area that would fall under the proposed Greater Adelaide Region. On that program, University of Adelaide ecologist Dr David Paton highlighted that retention of native habitat was absolutely critical for the survival of this species, which would also be true of other threatened species. My questions are:

1. Has the government taken into account the impact of urban encroachment in the Mount Lofty Ranges on the rare scarlet robin and other species that are particularly dependent on woodland habitat?

2. Does the minister accept that the expansion of suburbs across the Mount Lofty Ranges will inevitably accelerate the decline of threatened plant and animal species?

3. Given the government's No Species Loss strategy, how will urban expansion in the Greater Adelaide region be sensitively handled to ensure that this strategy is more than just a slogan?

4. What advice has the Department for Environment and Heritage provided to the minister on this issue, and will the minister table a copy of that advice?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:59): We know the Hon. Sandra Kanck is opposed to growth in any form. She believes the population of the state should not increase, therefore she is opposed to any urban sprawl as well as any high density development within the metropolitan area. That is, of course, a totally untenable position. It is only consistent if you have basically a static or declining population—although even then it ignores the fact that, with the ageing of the population and the number of people over 75 likely to treble over a relatively short period in the near future, the demand for housing is changing, anyway, and being driven.

The outcomes of the planning review, in fact, seek to restrict urban sprawl in two ways. First, there is the aspirational target (which I have mentioned before), which refers to the ratio of future housing which we would see coming from infill or high-rise compared to greenfield development. The aspirational target there is a 30:70 ratio; that is, 70 per cent from infill or brownfield development, and so on, and 30 per cent only from greenfield development, compared with a little under 50 per cent that we have at the moment. That is one way in which the planning strategy seeks to contain that sprawl.

The other way is to promote, through transit-oriented development that is linked to the government's plans for electrification of our rail system, higher density along transport nodes. The government is seeking to ensure that the future growth of our city is accommodated in ways that will have minimal impact upon those areas that are as yet untouched.

Although the recommendations in the planning review about the quantum of land that was suggested should be within the urban growth boundary remain, while that growth boundary is being reviewed in light of the recommendations of the planning review—that there should be up to 25 years of land, 15 years of which is zone ready within the Adelaide area—it does not mean that every area outside the current boundary is earmarked for development.