HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BUCKLAND PARK

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the proposed Buckland Park housing development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last week the minister agreed to revise the major development declaration for the Buckland Park project following a request from the developer, Walker Corporation. Changes included a near doubling of the size of the project from 8,000 to 15,000 people on a 1,300-hectare site. Despite the description that this will create a 'country township', the proposal is surprising in its lack of major employment opportunities for residents or transport infrastructure. When the project was first proposed, company spokesman John Gerovasilis made it abundantly clear why the project was going ahead. He said:

The timing is right for this project because of the huge demand for residential living. We expect this township will provide homes to accommodate soldiers from the expanded army battalion at Edinburgh and those commuting further north and to the Barossa.

So, instead of being a country township, this proposal is, in fact, an old-style commuter suburb, with residents heavily reliant on private cars to travel to neighbouring regions for essential facilities and employment. With the price of petrol continuing to rise, this has major social implications for a development that will be required to set aside a percentage of houses for affordable housing. Last month, the government announced major planning reforms. In the press release accompanying the announcement, Treasurer Foley said:

The reforms will allow South Australia to better meet the challenges of climate change, improve management of the state's water resources, and help make the most of the Rann Labor government's $2 billion investment in public transport announced in last week's budget.

The Treasurer went on to say:

The planning reforms will encourage transit-oriented developments, or TODS, higher density and well-designed neighbourhoods to be located along Adelaide's enhanced train, tram and bus corridors.

He also said:

An expanded planning and development steering committee will continue to provide independent advice on the implementation of these important reforms.

My questions to the minister are:

1. Has the planning and development steering committee discussed the Buckland Park project in any of its meetings?

2. If it has done so, has it made any recommendations about public transport infrastructure for the development?

3. In the wake of planning reforms announced in June, will the government commit to providing fixed-line transport to the Buckland Park housing project (which is a development significantly larger than the rapidly-growing regional centres such as Mount Barker)?

4. In the absence of new fixed-line public transport being installed before the housing is constructed, does the Buckland Park proposal make a mockery of the so-called focus on transit-oriented development?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:32): In relation to the last question, as I indicated when I announced the results of the planning review and the government's response to that when we last sat, the government has a target of 70 per cent of new housing and dwellings (quite an ambitious target and certainly a higher percentage than achieved by Melbourne) coming by way of infill, high rise or brownfield development, with the remaining 30 per cent coming from greenfield development.

Buckland Park is obviously a greenfield development. The indications are (and I mentioned this several weeks ago when we talked about the planning review) that the population target, if anything, will be achieved much quicker than the government's Strategic Plan target of 2 million people by 2050. If current trends continue, we may well achieve that much more quickly, 15 years or more before 2050. However, if we do, that will need a significant amount of investment.

Ideally, the government would like to see the housing densities increase along our major transport corridors—and that makes sense in terms of using the transport infrastructure that we have—but there will still be some room for greenfield development. After all, people should have some choice. Governments can do so much and we can encourage people to live in high density development but, ultimately, the type of housing people have will always be a choice for individuals.

In relation to Buckland Park, I should point out that that still has to go through an environmental impact statement process. It was made clear at the time this proposal was originally put up that there are issues in relation to flooding. However, as I understand it, the government had some initial early information that, with the construction of the new flood control dam on the North Para River, that may not present such a problem for this development. Clearly, it was one of the big issues that this development, or the environmental impact statement in relation to this development, needed to clear before it could get the go-ahead.

Assuming that that situation can be overcome, and if that is the case, Buckland Park has a significant advantage in that it is closer to the centre of Adelaide than a number of other developments (for example, those at Aldinga and so on) that are much further from the city than Buckland Park. It is one of the closest greenfield sites available.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: But no infrastructure.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is why it is being considered as a major development—because obviously any development there will create a whole village. It is important to point out that most of the jobs that are likely to be created in Adelaide will increasingly be in the northern suburbs, and we already have the new defence battalion locating there.

If one looks at the availability of industrial land, most of it is likely to be in the northern suburbs; in fact, Buckland Park is likely to be much closer to where many of the jobs will come in the future than some of the other greenfield developments being proposed. This proposal must obviously meet the test that has been put there, through its environmental impact statement, and a number of issues will need to be addressed before it can proceed. Given the totality of government policies on the planning review, I certainly believe that Buckland Park fits within that.

In relation to transport, it has an advantage: it is not far away from the current standard gauge line that goes to Virginia. Obviously, if there is a significant development in that area, it opens up some potential in the future, and it is relatively close to an existing transport corridor. Before that can be considered, clearly, the number of other issues that are being addressed in the EIS would have to be dealt with first before one would move on to those other considerations.

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