Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Stansbury Marina STANSBURY MARINA The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council STANSBURY MARINA The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:09): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the proposed seabed reclamation development at Stansbury. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr President, you and honourable members would be aware from media reports and debate in this chamber that a developer proposes to dump landfill into the seabed at Stansbury, on Yorke Peninsula, to provide 200 housing allotments out on the ocean. While balanced, controlled and managed developments are supported by Family First, on this occasion there are some issues to be raised. There are 68 berths for boats proposed for the site, yet it is called a 'marina' development—not enough berths for allotments, by my maths. I have been contacted by the committee that formed in response to this incredible development. Trevor Carbins, representing the committee, states in his recent letter to me: Why destroy the very thing that pulls locals and visitors to this delightful town of Stansbury for housing when we have so much land available for any housing development project? Indeed, Mr Carbins points out that 80 allotments have been sold on a cliff overlooking where the development is proposed to occur and, no doubt, those purchasers did not comprehend when buying that they would be overlooking housing and not ocean. The committee also tells me the following: The Stansbury population is approximately 550 people and swells to over 2,000 people in peak periods. A poll of locals in 2007 revealed that 99 per cent of them did not support this particular development, while they were not opposed to general development. Now there are over 2,000 petitions against the development. The Oyster Bay Preservation Committee is seeking what is known as an 'early no' from the Governor, issued during the EIS process. An EIS has been outstanding from the developer for over 18 months. The minister may ask the Governor to issue that 'early no' at any stage of the process, as I understand. An 'early no' can be granted if it is clear that the development is inappropriate or cannot be managed properly. Finally, the capacity clearly exists for an 'early no' to be issued, since it has been used in the past; for instance, in the early stages of the Buckland Park development. Therefore, my questions to the minister are: 1.	What was so special or different about the Buckland Park development to merit an 'early no' in that case but not in relation to this case? 2.	Why has the minister not yet recommended to the Governor that an 'early no' be issued? 3.	In light of the significant community, environmental, indigenous, heritage and other concerns, will the minister now make a recommendation to the Governor to issue an 'early no' in relation to this development? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:11): In relation to the second question, the answer really is: is natural justice for a proponent? What happened in relation to Stansbury was that a proposal was put to the government to meet the need that exists within the community for marina-type development for the tying up of boats and the like, and we agreed to consider it as a major project. Obviously, with any project of this nature there are significant environmental issues. As with all major projects, when they are declared, it is always on the understanding that it does not imply that that project will ultimately be given approval. Rather, it is a process by which the issues connected with that project can be adequately aired. In relation to the Stansbury marina, it is clear that since that process started a number of issues have arisen as a result of the major project being declared and the discussion on it. Indeed, that is exactly why we have major project status: so that there can be a proper environmental impact statement or appropriate level of environmental assessment; and it gives the community an opportunity to consider the issues. If this project had been considered through a development plan amendment or something of that sort, of course that would not have been the case. In relation to any marina, I believe the major development process under section 46 of the Development Act should be sufficient. In relation to the Stansbury marina, as I said, there have been a number of issues that have come up, and I am not surprised that, as a result, there is increasing concern. On 30 April, I wrote to the proponent of this proposal, Mr Satish Gupta of the Stansbury Marina Development Company, in the following terms: Dear Mr Gupta, Thank you for your letter dated 29 December 2008 outlining possible changes to the proposed Stansbury marina development. As you are aware, the Department of Planning and Local Government...required further information from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure...regarding the proximity to the jetty, hence the delay in a formal response to you. It is now approximately two years since the original major development declaration was made and nearly 18 months since Guidelines for an Environmental Impact Assessment...were issued by the Development Assessment Commission....The government and community are interested in seeing progress with the project. While I understand your company's proposal to increase the housing component of the project and to move it further north, I do not consider it appropriate to vary the declaration in the absence of supporting information. Accordingly, I expect to see, within three months of this letter— the letter being dated 30 April, it will be by the end of July— a draft EIS for my consideration. I will not consider a variation under section 47 of the Development Act...until I have sighted a draft EIS. So, the proponent had sought to vary it. As I said, I thought that was inappropriate given the time that it has taken. In accordance with affording natural justice to the proponent, I have given him the opportunity to put up an EIS so that the issues can be considered by 31 July, otherwise the sorts of alternatives that the honourable member referred to in his question become a possibility.