HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:49): I move:

That this house condemns the government's Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment.

The Mount Barker DPA has significantly extended the town boundaries of Mount Barker and Nairne, resulting in a massive area of land being rezoned for residential development and allowing the opportunity to cover this valued and valuable agricultural and horticultural land with housing.

The sheer scale of the potential for urban sprawl is enormous, with 1,225 hectares of farmland in Mount Barker and 45 hectares in Nairne converted from rural to residential zoning; a further 40 hectares has been approved for light industrial uses, making it a total of 1,310 hectares of land lost to the rural sector. It is evident that the government does not value the farming land around Mount Barker, as the government ministers have stated that the area of land around that town that has been rezoned is not part of the high-value agricultural land identified in its 30-year plan.

The land in question is, in fact, very valuable farming land in a high rainfall area close to the city of Adelaide. The Adelaide Hills is one of the most valuable food producing regions in the state. I have said this before, and I will keep on saying it, because it is the truth. It has a cool climate, fertile soils, wet winters and, in addition to being close to a capital city, it is also close to major port facilities. It makes little sense, if any, to continue to build on this type of land.

The government's consultation period for written submissions on this DPA ran from early June until early August 2010. Public meetings were then scheduled for members of the Development Policy Advisory Committee to hear verbal submissions from interested parties. The outrage of the local community concerning this DPA was evident, with five meetings scheduled in order to hear the verbal submissions from the public. I believe that the five meetings held by the DPAC is the largest public meeting schedule ever held in relation to a DPA.

The government's arrogance in ignoring the District Council of Mount Barker and the community on this issue has been astonishing. There were over 539 submissions from members of the public and 91 verbal submissions presented during the five consultation meetings, with hundreds of local people attending the meetings—all of them strongly against the plan. Not one verbal submission was made in support of this ministerial development plan amendment.

I have been personally contacted by many, many, constituents vehemently opposing the plan. There was also a high level of community angst, given the initial decision by the minister not to release that DPAC report prior to the final determinations on the ministerial DPA. The issue of trust and transparency was raised repeatedly by concerned members of the public. I can say that I have lodged an FOI application to access some information that the government, I believe, is not wanting to release publicly.

It is abundantly clear to anybody who has looked at this issue that the community is strongly opposed to the DPA. A strong message was sent to the government, which is evident by that number of submissions received and the attendance at the DPAC public meetings. Once again, the Labor government completely failed to listen to the people of the district. Despite overwhelming opposition to the plan, the state government decided to push ahead instead of listening to the needs of the people who live in the area. Labor has forced a plan on the community against their wishes, ignoring the concerns of local residents.

There are a number of concerning aspects to the government's plan to allow urban sprawl to surround Mount Barker's southern boundary, many of which were raised by the local council and concerned members of the public in their submissions and with me, through contact in my office. The main concerns in relation to the DPA relate to the significant impact that will result from the large-scale expansion. Issues that were frequently raised include concerns over the loss of prime agricultural land, the loss of character and amenity of the area, the lack of infrastructure, and the inability of current infrastructure to meet current demand.

In relation to the issue of infrastructure, in announcing the approval of the expansion the government has identified $550 million in new infrastructure, including the long lobbied for second freeway interchange off Bald Hills Road. Other plans include the upgrade of the current freeway interchange, a ring route, other local upgrades, additional park-and-rides, new sewer and water infrastructure, and new energy infrastructure.

It is all very well for the government to roll out that figure, but there is no plan in place in relation to the DPA, in relation to the rollout of residential development in the form of new development applications lodged the council, to put any of that infrastructure and any of that money in place. From my understanding, there is no actual commitment in the budget or the forward estimates to be able to fund any of that money, so again it is empty rhetoric from the government.

Also, people are saying (and these are not necessarily my words) that the government is arguably blackmailing the community, saying, 'We won't provide the money for infrastructure required unless you accept the DPA.' Well, that is totally abhorrent. The government should never put the community in that position. On the release of the approved DPA, minister Conlon, the Minister for Infrastructure, stated:

Without having undertaken such a comprehensive rezoning process, the negotiations of such infrastructure would have been near impossible.

That statement by the Minister for Transport is questionable, given that much of the infrastructure is required right now. Mount Barker is already bursting at the seams. The local road infrastructure is not coping with the already significant numbers of people who have moved into the area. Parking and traffic movement is a huge issue within central Mount Barker and the park-and-ride transport facility was at capacity from the day it opened.

What about the impact on the South-Eastern Freeway and Glen Osmond Road? You can expect enormous additional pressure on our road infrastructure and the resulting problems that will come from that. Currently the majority of residents in the Mount Barker area travel outside the district for employment and on the clogged roads into Adelaide. This expansion will entrench the need to travel for work outside the district, and hence the additional pressure on our road network. There are no plans provided by the government to enhance and improve employment opportunities in the local area within those townships.

With regard to the freeway interchange, many concerns were raised in relation to bushfire and the risks associated with escape routes. Specifically there is only one single South-Eastern Freeway interchange at Mount Barker. One only has to travel through the interchange at peak times to witness how potentially dangerous and congested the area would become given an emergency situation, such as a bushfire. That also leads to concerns with water supply and continued reliance on the River Murray, given that, on my understanding, desalinated water cannot be delivered to Mount Barker.

The District Council of Mount Barker made extensive submissions on the DPA in communication with the minister and DPAC. The council opposed the DPA as the result is unacceptable loss of substantial agricultural land and lack of effective infrastructure planning. The council considered that the DPA was not based on a detailed structure plan, was unclear of the delivery of major physical infrastructure and was unclear on the delivery of community and recreational infrastructure. The council developed an alternative plan which would have seen a significant reduction in the area required to accommodate future growth.

The council proposed to reduce the area from 1,310 hectares to a very reduced amount of 400 hectares. This alternative proposal would have saved much of the valuable agricultural land from housing. In the DPA approved plan, the government's concession amounted to a mere 29 hectares being removed from the original plan, whereas the local council argued for a maximum of 400 hectares to be rezoned.

This DPA has been done in haste and no-one really understands why the government has been in such a hurry, except that it was working closely with the developers. From the media release issued by ministers Conlon and Snelling on 16 December 2010, announcing the approval of the development plan, several references were made to the government's discussions and agreements with the developers, confirming that this plan has been instigated in conjunction with the developers.

I have been advised that the District Council of Mount Barker has recently met with the newly appointed Minister for Urban Planning and Development, minister Rau, in relation to the implications of the DPA. Council has now been left to deal with the fallout of this ill-conceived and ill-thought-out plan. The council needs the government to commit to ensuring there is a detailed plan for infrastructure and a staged development of the subject land.

I am aware that development applications have already been lodged to divide land contained within the ministerial DPA area. I also understand that the council has been advised by other developers that they are also preparing their development applications for land division. I attended the Environment, Resources and Development Committee's meeting when it took evidence from the District Council of Mount Barker in relation to the DPA and the witnesses gave clear examples of how problematic development applications are when lodged in conjunction with a DPA. I congratulated the CEO and the mayor of the council on their first-rate presentation and evidence that they provided to the committee.

The Mount Barker council commenced work on a structure plan that really should have been completed before the former minister for planning approved the expansion. In meeting the new minister, council is hoping that its structure plan will be taken into consideration. Council still opposes the idea of significant growth without the necessary infrastructure. However, it now has to attempt to secure the best outcome for the community through this unwanted and unwelcome situation. The DPA has been forced on the District Council of Mount Barker and the community, and now it has to undertake considerable work to ensure that the community is provided for during future growth.

I have a copy of a letter dated 11 March 2011 written by the mayor of the Mount Barker council to minister Rau, which states that the council has attempted to correspond with the government in relation to the DPA over an extended period of time, with much of that correspondence unanswered by the government. The letter states, 'This has been frustrating, unhelpful and not respectful, with many unanswered questions restricting important work.' I understand some of this outstanding correspondence dates back to October 2010 and seeks copies of legal agreements struck by the state government with developers.

Throughout the state election campaign, early in 2010—I want to put this on the record—the state Liberals' stated position was that a Redmond Liberal government would deliver infrastructure and services to meet current community needs. We supported sensible, structured and sustainable planning development in full consultation with the council and the community. We would preserve and enhance our unique Hills environment and our primary production land. We stand by that position. The state Liberals do not support any expansion of township boundaries in Mount Barker, Littlehampton or Nairne until the necessary services and infrastructure are provided to meet the current demand. Once that is achieved, then modest growth can be considered in full consultation with the council and the community.

We know that Mount Barker has changed over the last 15 to 20 years and, unfortunately, the face of it will change again in light of this potential for significant expansion. From once a small rural town, it will develop into a major regional centre supporting a population of upwards of 45,000 people. We can only hope that the government will now give the District Council of Mount Barker the assistance and resources it will need to manage this large-scale growth and provide for the people of Mount Barker and the surrounding district. For those reasons, and the issues raised and the examples provided, the majority of the community I represent and I believe that the government stands condemned for the Mount Barker DPA.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT