Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) BILL Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clause 1. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just need some guidance from you, Mr Chairman. The Hon. S.G. Wade Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. Wade: Can we do this without a minister? The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, I am happy to do it without a minister; it would be much quicker. I have two questions that I would like to pose to the minister so that an answer can be provided over the break, but they actually relate to the Barossa rather than McLaren Vale. I am happy to put the questions on notice but, as this is the McLaren Vale bill, I just wonder whether it is appropriate to do so. So, I will seek some advice from you first, Mr Chairman. The Chair Legislative Council The CHAIR: Are we going to touch on both bills, minister? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes. I understand that what we are doing is using clause 1 as an opportunity to put questions on the record so that work can be done over the break. However, in the past, when honourable members have spoken on the character preservation of McLaren Vale, they have generally spoken on both bills at the same time. So, if that is convenient for honourable members, we can do that; otherwise, we can go from one bill to the next. The Chair Legislative Council The CHAIR: I am in the hands of the committee. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I do not mind. I have two questions that relate to the Barossa, provided that you, as minister, are happy to take them, even though we are dealing with McLaren Vale. The Chair Legislative Council The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you. This basically relates to some clarity from the government in relation to two areas: one is the North Para Environmental Control, which is the land close to Beckwith Park. It is the boundary relevant to the business called Tarac and the NPEC. It is in the primary production zone, outside the town boundary. The advice that the minister's office has given me is that it is basically a wastewater treatment plant for Tarac and other wineries. They are concerned that this is in a rural zone and that, should they wish to expand—it is not a normal rural activity—in the future, they are concerned that any expansion or alterations to the activities on that property for wastewater treatment will be a non-complying development because it is in a rural zone. The minister's office has said,' No, that's an existing land use and it could still take place.' What I would like from the minister's office over the break is a statement that we can put on the record in the debate that it is not the intention of this particular piece of legislation to preclude any further development or expansion in line with the activities that are there now. If the minister is able to do that, I am sure the people from Tarac and the people involved with NPEC (North Para Environmental Control) would draw some comfort from that. If not, we would perhaps look to amend the boundaries of the town to put that area within the town boundary because it is not captured under the rural zone. That is the first question and I think the minister understands that. The second question is in relation to land on Stockwell Road, Angaston that is zoned industrial at the moment. As members probably would be aware, there is a facility there called Vinpac which does a massive amount of wine packaging, so it is an industrial site, and there is some land around that that is zoned industrial. It cannot be practically included in the district because it does not relate to primary production. It has already been zoned industrial. It is not identified on any of the maps, that I am aware of, as either a designated area or a rural living zone, because it is an industrial zone. The Barossa Council states: A majority of the land in the zone is undeveloped or underutilised. Inclusion of this land in the district subjects it to the new 'Character Preservation Overlay' and in the Development Plan that apply in rural areas. Council is concerned that the rural-based design or layout policies such as building profiles, architecture, and siting contained in the overlay could severely restrict development potential for limited land within this industrial area. Those policies also cannot be consistently applied retrospectively to the existing large scale development which exists in the zone. Again, I am looking for clarity for that site, which I repeat is the Vinpac site on Stockwell Road, Angaston. I have looked at the Google maps and it is quite a large site, probably a number of hectares. There is also a quarry nearby which I expect would be covered by the extractive industries provisions. Nonetheless, I would request that the minister bring back some advice from her colleague the Minister for Planning in relation to that site and, if necessary, an amendment to the maps lodged at the registry office to include that industrial area. The opposition would be happy with that because, clearly, it is not fit for rural living and already has a significant amount of industrial activity on it. Progress reported; committee to sit again. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council. A quorum having been formed: