Parliamentary Committees

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:07): I move:

That the annual report of the committee, 2010-11, be noted.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee was reconstituted in May 2010 following the March 2010 election. The initial reporting period was one of consolidation and the initiating of actions. The committee met on 16 occasions totalling 29 hours and heard from 47 witnesses.

The committee launched three enquiries during this reporting period. Two were referred from the Legislative Council (Population Strategy and Waste to Resources) and one was self-referred (Urban Density). It is anticipated that the two reports referred from the Legislative Council will be completed in this current financial year. The self-referred inquiry is planned to continue over three years and, as it is a broad subject with many components, it may generate interim reports.

The committee conducted two site visits related to the urban density inquiry during this reporting period, one in Adelaide and suburbs and the other in Melbourne and suburbs. Viewing different developments and speaking with the officers involved to appreciate their approaches to densification helped the committee in understanding how South Australia may respond to the challenges contained in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

Perhaps I could make some comment at this time in relation to the 30-year plan. I believe our former colleague, the Hon. Paul Holloway, will certainly be remembered as one of South Australia's most significant planning ministers, with the 30-year plan no doubt being one of his greatest legacies.

I was very pleased to be part of those site visits I have just mentioned to see the contrast in Adelaide and suburbs between urban density, say, in the 1970s and 1980s and what is being built now as well as the mix of clientele, ensuring that we will have a vibrant city and at the same time fulfil the need for social inclusion within our city and surrounding suburbs. The comparisons between Adelaide and Melbourne are inevitable: it was good to see certain aspects of urban density in the inner suburbs of Melbourne that have worked well.

Pursuant to the Development Act 1993, the committee considered 36 development plan amendment reports (DPAs). Five of the DPAs were considered in greater detail with witnesses called and additional information obtained before making a determination on the amendment. On three occasions this resulted in the committee suggesting an amendment to the development plan to the minister. The minister agreed with the committee's suggestion twice and once did not agree. For several development plan amendments referred by the minister during the reporting period, following initial consideration of the DPAs, further information was obtained including where necessary the delivery of evidence by relevant witnesses.

In relation to Mount Barker urban growth, this DPA involved the rezoning of land from agricultural to residential. This was controversial and reported widely in the media. Action groups' greatest concerns were with urban sprawl. The minister's representatives emphasised that this was appropriate rezoning to accommodate population growth in South Australia in accordance with the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The council's concerns revolved around the provision of infrastructure. After consideration of the evidence, the committee resolved not to object to the DPA.

In relation to Gawler East, this DPA involved the rezoning of 400 hectares of land within the urban boundary to allow a range of housing types, commercial, retail and other facilities. The minister's representatives emphasised that this was appropriate rezoning to accommodate population growth in South Australia in accordance with the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The council's concerns revolved around the provision of infrastructure, especially roads, and the consultation process. The committee resolved not to object to the DPA.

In relation to Buckland Park, this DPA initiated a policy framework allowing development of land at Buckland Park for a variety of purposes. The owners of an organic waste composting facility expressed concerns of negative impacts on their facility and suggested a different zoning approach. The biggest issue was how to deal with the potential odour impacts of the facility on development. The department of planning saw merit in the proposal. The committee suggested three amendments of the DPA to the minister. One was adopted and the minister proposed an alternative amendment to the remaining two. The committee agreed with the minister's alternative amendments and they will be incorporated in the development plan.

In relation to the Walkerville Residential Zones, this broad DPA included a rezoning in Gilberton and one area in particular that caused the council to raise concerns with the committee. The concerns were about 10-storey high buildings on one parcel of land and four storeys on an adjoining parcel, their setback and other features. Amendments to provide certainty for developers and better enable the council to consider applications were made to the minister. The minister agreed and the changes were made to the development plan.

Other work came before the committee, but those mentioned received greater publicity during that reporting period. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who prepared submissions and presented evidence to the committee over this period. Being able to discuss issues first hand with the relevant stakeholders is most important for the committee's understanding of the issues. I also thank fellow committee members—in this place, the Hons Michelle Lensink and Mark Parnell and, in the other place, Ms Gay Thompson MP (the presiding member), Mr Ivan Venning MP and—I have gone blank.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Did you forget Atko?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes, and the Hon. Michael Atkinson MP. I also thank the staff, of course, for their assistance to our work.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.