Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Major Projects MAJOR PROJECTS The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council MAJOR PROJECTS The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:27): By way of supplementary question, if the minister disagrees that major development declarations are fast tracking, does he accept that local councils like Unley have been side-tracked and bypassed by such declarations? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business MAJOR PROJECTS The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:28): Clearly the honourable member is talking about the project opposite the showgrounds within Unley. I have answered questions on this matter, but clearly Unley council is in the process of changing its development plan. Recently the government approved the Unley plan for its suburbs, where we have given Unley a level of character protection not available to other suburbs. The Unley council originally approached us because it wanted to protect the character of Unley because it is a fairly unique suburb in that 70 per cent or more of its homes were built pre-1940. As part of that, the council has also undertaken to do a development plan amendment of its major corridors. I invite members to look at the front page of today's Age newspaper in Victoria, because Melbourne is going through exactly the same planning process. It is looking to consolidate its development in high density along corridors for the same good reasons that we are. That is a diversion, but Unley was looking at that process and agreed to do it as a compatible development plan amendment to coincide with its residential character development, but that clearly had two or three years to go. From the statement of intent or the indications of Unley council, that was to permit a higher level and higher density of development along its corridors, but clearly if that proposal had been put by the proponent and assessed under current development plan amendments it probably would have been refused because of the height limits that currently exist, even though we know that Unley council has committed to a review over the next few years. It may well be that when its development plan is completed in several years, if it takes that long, that project will be compatible—but it will not be now. In relation to the honourable member's question, certainly Unley's role in relation to that process will be through the major development process if it wishes to comment on that. Clearly, that will be considered as part of any due process. At this stage, in relation to that particular process, let me say that the final plans have not yet been submitted to the government. I think it was late last year that the government decided that we would agree to major project status. The actual detailed plans are now being worked up so that it can be presented to DAC, and DAC will set the appropriate level of environmental impact, and so on. In that particular case, one needs to understand the history in relation to Unley council and, in that context, one will see that both the government's decision to declare this a major project and the way in which we have treated it is entirely logical and sensible.