HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BUCKLAND PARK

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the proposal to develop a country township to meet the growing need for residential housing in Adelaide's north.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: A proposed $2 billion residential project at Buckland Park is currently being considered under the major development assessment process—the most stringent available under this state's development laws. The environmental impact statement provided earlier this month by the Walker Corporation seeks to address more than 100 issues outlined by the independent Development Assessment Commission in its guidelines to the proponents. Covering an area of approximately 1,340 hectares, the proposed township, sited four kilometres west of Virginia, comprises a district centre and four neighbourhood centres and local centres that include commercial facilities, a medical centre, schools and community and recreational facilities.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I believe that in future this will probably be the centre of a new safe Labor seat. If those opposite cannot hand their seats to their kids, they can at least name a new seat after them. I note recent comments made by property developer Lang Walker—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I just hope Hansard can hear what I am saying. A proposed $2 billion residential project at Buckland Park is currently being considered under the major development assessment process.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Old 'pick me' Stephens. It's good to hear from you!

The PRESIDENT: So far we have managed three questions in 26 minutes. If members keep up this behaviour we will probably end up with only three more.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway has been most disturbing in question time today.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: A proposed $2 billion residential project at Buckland Park is currently being considered under the major development assessment process, the most stringent available under this state's development laws.

The environmental impact statement provided earlier this month by the Walker Corporation seeks to address more than 100 issues outlined by the independent Development Assessment Commission in its guidelines to proponents. Covering an area of about 1,340 hectares, the proposed township, sited four kilometres west of Virginia, comprises a district centre, four neighbourhood centres and local centres that include commercial facilities, a medical centre, schools, and community and recreational facilities.

I notice recent comments by property developer Lang Walker, who said that he remains bullish about the South Australian housing market, despite the economic consequences of the global financial crisis. In fact, Mr Walker told TheAdvertiser that he expects a heck of a lot of long-term growth in South Australia, particularly within the resources industry during the next five to 10 years. My question to the minister is: how will the Buckland Park township meet some of the demand challenges facing Adelaide, and what steps have developers taken to address some of the environmental, social and economic concerns raised about the project, and is the minister aware of any alternate views?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:52): It is a pity that members opposite did not pay attention to the question. If they did, we might have more questions. The Buckland Park township proposal was declared a major development back in December 2006, and this declaration was revised in June 2008 after the Walker Corporation advised me of its intention to increase the size of the proposed development. This prompted the Development Assessment Commission to revise its guidelines for the environmental impact statement required as part of the process of determining the suitability of this project.

At the heart of the proposal is the creation during a 25-year period of a satellite city outside the urban growth boundary that will create a new community to the north of Adelaide. That is quite a commitment which requires quite a deal of forward planning and which represents a major investment in South Australia's economic future. However, a project of this scale and in this location is not without significant challenges, and that is why the Development Assessment Commission set out a large number of issues that needed to be addressed in the environmental impact statement. These include water management and transport.

A key element of the proposal is efficient water management and flood mitigation through the use of wetland and creek systems, aquifer recharge, utilisation of treated water from the Bolivar pipeline, and integration with the Gawler River management and flood plain mitigation works. Having completed a realignment of the urban growth boundary in December 2007, and having commissioned an examination of township boundaries as part of the 30-year plan for greater Adelaide, I assure members that identifying areas for expansion, while ensuring that the community's legitimate demands for public infrastructure accompany that, is quite a balancing act.

South Australia needs more housing lots and, at the same time, our metropolitan boundaries are under great pressure. Adelaide, due to its geography, is squeezed between Gulf St Vincent to the west and the hills face zone to the east. In the south and north there is also pressure to preserve land for our premium wine industry within the Barossa Valley and the Southern Vales, and to retain our tourist potential along the coast.

While this government continues to look for opportunities to open up land for residential development within the existing urban growth boundary, the sheer pace of population growth means we have to look for alternatives. The north of Adelaide continues to be the main provider of new land for residential housing, and that is why it makes sense to at least consider a project such as Buckland Park.

The environmental impact statement for the Buckland Park country township is now available for public consultation. The EIS is required to address all the sensitive issues associated with this project, such as the potential impact on the Gawler River flood plain. Members of the public, government agencies, community groups and local councils are invited to consider the EIS and lodge submissions that must be considered by the proponents of the project.

The EIS seeks to address matters such as potential flooding issues; infrastructure issues (including water, sewerage, stormwater and public transport); water use issues (supply, impacts on groundwater, water reuse and harvesting); possible construction and ongoing impacts on the local environment, including waterways; impacts on and from adjacent industries; and demands on community services.

The six-week public consultation period runs until 15 June, with submissions to be lodged by 5pm on that day with the Department of Planning and Local Government. A public meeting organised by the department is to be held on 13 May at 7pm at the Virginia Horticultural Centre. Following the consultation period, Walker Corp is required to prepare a written response document (also known as a supplementary EIS) that will address matters raised in the public submissions lodged with the department. The EIS and more detail about the major development assessment process can be found online at the Department of Planning and Local Government website.

The honourable member asked me whether I am aware of alternative points of view when it comes to considering alternatives to further expansion of the urban growth boundary. In fact, I am. I know that some people in this place are ideologically opposed to any development but, rather than take part in informed debate, they seek to denigrate a proposal such as Buckland Park with such emotive terms as 'ghetto' and 'out in Woop Woop'.

As the assessing authority, I am not here to defend or detract from the project, but I would expect that debate during the public consultation period would at least be based on informed consideration of the contents of the EIS, rather than tawdry sloganeering. For starters, the description of this project as a 'ghetto' is a slur on people who rely on high density affordable housing to get a toehold on the property ladder.

Mr Parnell would have us believe that, if you set aside 15 per cent of the new development for affordable housing, you are setting out to create a ghetto. I believe that is an outrageous slur on the hard-working families who simply cannot afford a huge mortgage in an established suburb but still want to invest their income in bricks and mortar rather than pay rent to a landlord or line up for public housing. While this development looks to embrace green building design and water management features, the project is dismissed out of hand by the Greens simply because it is not within walking distance of the CBD.

I heard the Hon. Mark Parnell describe this development as devoid of services. He appears to have ignored plans for a district centre, four neighbourhood centres and local centres that include commercial facilities, a medical centre, schools, community and recreational facilities within the township. While Buckland Park might be some distance from the Adelaide city centre, the proposed development is only four kilometres from the existing township of Virginia and also close to facilities at Elizabeth and Munno Para.

While Mr Parnell might be more comfortable sipping lattes in the inner city, not everyone in Adelaide journeys into the CBD for their job. In fact, one of the key reasons for the growing demand for housing in the northern suburbs is the new industrial estates around Edinburgh Park. That is where our industrial growth—our employment lands—is increasingly going to be based. In fact, our northern suburbs are a hub of activity, and that is partly due to the government's policies to encourage investment in the mining sector and to pursue lucrative defence contracts.

So, we are talking not about people seeking a daily commute from the north into the city but about a residential development catering for the growing demand for workers in the employment lands around the Edinburgh Air Force Base and Techport at Port Adelaide. In that case, public transport to a closer centre, such as Elizabeth, Salisbury or even Virginia, might be more practical and possibly make more sense than a commuter link to the city. These are issues to be determined as part of the EIS process.

I know that some members think the government should exercise its early 'no' at every opportunity when it comes to major developments, but that is not the policy of this government. The major development process allows the proponent to argue its case through an environmental impact statement, which then informs further debate and responses from relevant government agencies, such as the EPA and DTEI. When those responses as well as submissions from the public are in, the government can then properly assess the project and determine its position. This need not be simply a yes or no. It is within the power of the Governor to impose conditions on any approval that ensures the proponent delivers on the outcomes sought by the community and the various government agencies.

My comments today should not be seen as pre-empting the decision on this major development; rather, simply as a call for critics to base their arguments on the facts. People should base their arguments on the facts and not on an ideology that is opposed to development in any shape or form.

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